asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it be the intention of the Foreign Department of Her Majesty's Government to promote a revision of International Law with the view of defining the external duties of nations and of their subjects?

Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible of the importance of defining the external duties of nations and of their subjects. They have proved this by the amended Foreign Jurisdiction Act of last Session, and by the appointment of the Commissioners who have proceeded to Washington; but, at the present juncture, they can give no more definite promise to the hon. Baronet than that the importance of this subject shall receive the fullest consideration at their hands.

asked the Vice President of the Council, If he will state the grounds upon which he has in the Revised Code increased the number of attendances of School Children from two hundred per annum to two hundred and fifty; and whether he can lay the data upon which he has acted before Parliament; the grounds upon which he has made the changes with reference to Evening Schools; and if he will lay the data upon which he has made them before Parliament; and, whether as by the Act relating to Print-works now in force children there employed are only required to attend one hundred and twenty times, and one hundred attendances qualify for examination, the New Code, which requires one hundred and fifty attendances to qualify for examination, will during this year be put in force?

had to state, in reply to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, that the grounds upon which the compulsory attendances of the children had been increased from 200 to 250 were because it was felt that the amount of attendance required from children under the old system was too small; that there could be no greater evil than a want of due attendance at school on their part; and, lastly, because it appeared from the statistics that this additional stimulus could be safely applied. It appeared from statistics obtained from the manufacturing, the sea-ports, the metropolitan, and the rural districts, that 80 per cent of the children hitherto presented for examination had attended 250 times. If the right hon. Gentleman would move for further information upon the point, he should be happy to give it to him. With regard to the night schools, several alterations had been made in the Code. Perhaps the House would permit him to explain how those schools had been dealt with. The Council of Education had come to the conclusion that the night-school system required careful revision. There were many night schools which, although doubtless of much advantage in a social point of view, were almost valueless in an educational point of view, and the Council had come to the conclusion that it would not be right to ask the House for money unless they gave substantial educational results. Under these circumstances, it had been determined to alter the mode of examinations, which, in future, would be conducted either by the Inspectors or by other officials, and not left in the hands of the managers solely. It had also been determined to allow Government aid to night schools not connected with day schools, and the amount of the grant had been considerably increased. At present all that was required was that the schools should be open on 40 evenings in the year, and that those who were presented for examination should have been present on 24 evenings, and it was felt that it was desirable that the number of evenings on which the schools should be open should be increased to 80, and the attendance required to 50. With respect to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question he had to state that there were now only about 1,000 children under the operation of the Act, and probably the new regulations would be put into force with regard to them at the beginning of next year.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the reductions proposed last year of the number of Troops and Officers in the different Regiments of Yeomanry Cavalry are to be carried out from the 1st of April next?

The new regulations for the Yeomanry made last year had in view the increased efficiency of the force, as well as some economy in the expenditure upon it. No change has been made in those regulations, and the present Estimate has been framed upon them.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the sale of Deptford Dockyard to Mr. Austen was completed, and the purchase-money paid, before the transfer of Mr. Austen's rights in the property to the Corporation of London; and, also, if he is aware that a very large sum was given for the site by the Corporation beyond the price for which it was sold by the Admiralty?

The sale of a portion of Deptford Dockyard was so far completed that the bargain had been made before the transfer of Mr. Austen's rights to the Corporation. The purchase-money, however, had not been paid, because, in the first instance, there was considerable delay in consequence of questions having arisen between the Admiralty and the Woods and Forests, and afterwards because the City of London applied to have the title direct from the Admiralty. I have no knowledge, except from common rumour, of the pecuniary arrangement which has been made between Mr. Austen and the City of London; but I do know—and I stated it to the House in May last—that the Corporation then might have purchased the property for the price given by Mr. Austen. Let me remind the hon. Baronet that when he brought forward this question last year my statement was corroborated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Greenwich, whose words were, he (Sir David Salomons) called on the Secretary of the Admiralty and asked him whether a price had been put upon it, and the reply he received was that he thought the price was £80,000, but that £75,000 might be taken. With this information he went into the City, and, failing to induce the Corporation to purchase the dockyard for their contemplated market, he tried to induce the dock companies to do so, but failed in this also.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether gentlemen who took their degree of B.A. at Oxford or Cambridge last autumn, and were invited to go to Sandhurst until appointed to some regiment, will not be allowed precedence of those who have passed the ordinary military or any other examination since that period?

The University candidates are appointed to the number of commissions assigned to them without regard to relative precedence in respect of other candidates. At present the number assigned is 12 in the year, and they are appointed, as nearly as may be, at the rate of one a month.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill during the present Session to provide for the Distribution of the Seats vacant by the Disfranchisement of Cashel and Sligo?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If, in the event of a Bill being introduced to provide for the distribution of seats vacant by the disfranchisement of Cashel and Sligo, he will consider the claims of Dublin and Belfast to return three Members each to Parliament?

, in answer to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron) said, Her Majesty's Government had not yet decided whether they would, in the present Session, be able to introduce a Bill for the distribution of the seats rendered vacant by disfranchisement either in England or Ireland. In reply to the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston), he said, that in considering the question when the proper time came, the claims of cities so important as Dublin and Belfast would be very carefully considered.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether under the last paragraph of Clause 74 in the Education (Scotland) Bill the Scotch Education Department would not have power to make Grants to Roman Catholic and other Schools that may be hereafter erected but not placed under the control and management of the School Board; and, whether this power be not inconsistent with Clauses 28 and 29, which require the School Boards to provide all necessary School accommodation?

replied that the leading enactment provided that Parliamentary grants might be made to any schools which, in the opinion of the Education Department, were efficiently conducting the secular education of the parish or district in which they were situate. To this there were two qualifications, the first being that no such grant should be made to any such school in respect of religious instruction; and the second that no such grant should be made to any school, not being a public school, established after the passing of the Act, unless such school should, after inquiry made, appear to the Department to be specially suited to the requirements of the parish in which it was situate. He would answer the last sentence of the Question in the course of the discussion that would shortly be held on the Scotch Education Bill.

I wish to ask some Questions of the Prime Minister, of which circumstances prevented me from giving any other than a private Notice to him. I am given to understand that the state of affairs is such that it is desirable I should confine myself to putting the Questions. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times of this morning, that peace has been agreed on at Versailles as between the Prussian Government and the French Plenipotentiaries, and, if so, whether the terms are correctly stated; the terms being these — France is to yield to Germany Alsace and Lorraine, including the fortified town of Metz, and to pay a further indemnity of £200,000,000? If that indemnity is correct, I wish to ask my right hon. Friend, whether other parts of France than the Provinces that have been ceded are to be occupied by the German troops until that debt is discharged? I wish further to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether Her Majesty's Government, to use his own words, has been watchful, and has endeavoured, in concert with other neutral Powers, to moderate these terms, and, if not in concert with other neutral Powers, whether instructions in this sense have been given to Mr. Odo Russell? I am informed that the triumphal entry of German troops into Paris has been adjourned until Wednesday next. We have at the head quarters of the German Army at this moment a special envoy and two military attachés one a general officer and the other a captain of dragoons, both distinguished officers of Her Majesty's Service. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend, whether orders have been sent to these Military Officers, should the head quarters of the German Army be transferred by this triumphal entry to Paris itself, not to take part with or accompany the German troops during their triumphal entry into Paris?

Sir, I will answer the Questions of my hon. Friend as distinctly as present circumstances will permit. I will begin by thanking my hon. Friend for the considerate course he has pursued in confining himself at the present moment to putting these inquiries, without entering upon a discussion which I think would have been premature. As regards the first Question of my hon. Friend, with respect to the conditions of peace, the German Ambassador was kind enough to communicate to Lord Granville and myself this morning authentic intelligence that the preliminaries of peace have been signed; but that, I believe, is the only knowledge of which we are officially in possession at the present hour. Therefore, I am not in a condition to give my hon. Friend any further information on this subject. With respect to the second and third Questions—namely, whether the Government has made any effort in concert with neutral Powers to moderate the terms of peace, and whether instructions have been sent in this sense to Mr. Odo Russell—my hon. Friend has referred to a declaration made by myself in the House of Commons that we should carefully watch for any opportunities that might offer of being useful. With regard to these two Questions, I have to say that we have not been unmindful of that declaration; but I must beg my hon. Friend to be content with that answer. We shall not lose a moment, I can assure him, in laying before the House all the information which will place them in full possession of such steps as we have thought it our duty to take. But that information will not be complete until we have received from France communications of which we are in expectation, but which have not yet had time to arrive. I trust that in a very short period we shall be able to lay on the Table of the House Papers which will convey information on the subject. With respect to the fourth Question—whether orders have been sent to the military attachés at the head quarters of the German Army not to accompany German troops in any triumphal entry into Paris—there is no reason why it should not be answered at once. The general rule which is laid down in the instructions of the Foreign Office with respect to the line of conduct to be pursued by our agents abroad in cases of celebrations, which are commonly of a religious kind, is this—it is dated 1860. The instruction refers to celebrations of military success in foreign countries. It contains these words—

"Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the attendance of neutrals at these celebrations of successes gained in war is not desirable."

That is not the whole of the language, but that is the practical effect of it. Of course, in general, this applies to diplomatic agents, and cases of military agents would not absolutely and primâ facie fall into the same category. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that substantially the same rule ought to be observed; and, having no other desire than that of acting both according to the letter and according to the spirit of neutral obligations, they have directed General Walker and Captain Hozier not to accompany any triumphal entry into Paris. There is a precedent which I think is applicable to the case; for in the year 1859, at the close of the war waged by the Emperor Napoleon with Italy, Colonel Claremont had been attaché to the Italian Army, and he was directed not to enter Paris with the French Army in triumphal procession. If it was thought right that Colonel Claremont should not accompany any triumphal procession of the French Army into its own capital, I think it is manifest that it would be improper to allow any of our officers to accompany a triumphal procession of a foreign Army into that capital.

said, it was essential that time should be allowed the people of Scotland for the proper consideration of the provisions of this measure. On the first day of the meeting of Parliament his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in the discharge of his duty gave Notice that he would, on the following Monday, move for leave to introduce this Bill. This prompt action was to have been expected, because the measure was one that had been anticipated for a considerable time, and had been mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech. On the following Monday the House had the satisfaction of hearing from the Lord Advocate an explanation of the general provisions of the Bill. It appeared from that statement that the measure about to be introduced was one of very great importance, affecting the interests of individuals, of Churches and denominations, of education and religion, and, therefore, he ventured to think that even had it not contained two provisions which had not been included in any previous Bill, a considerable interval should have been allowed before the second reading was moved. But in the statement with which his right hon. and learned Friend introduced the Bill he intimated that it would contain several provisions which were not only new, but quite inconsistent with the recommendations of the Commission which had reported on the subject, and also inconsistent with the opinions of Her Majesty's Government, and with the measure which had been proposed by them in 1869. It was, therefore, the duty of his right hon. and learned Friend, when asking leave to introduce the Bill, to fix such a day for the second reading as would admit of the Bill receiving due consideration. His right hon. and learned Friend, however, proposed that the second reading should be taken on the Monday fortnight. If the Bill had been printed in due time that interval might have been sufficient for a consideration of its provisions. But what was the actual state of affairs? They waited during the whole of the first week for the delivery of copies of the Bill. During that week he saw many hon. Gentlemen, Members of the House and others, interested in the subject, visiting the Bill Office like pilgrims to some popular shrine; but the answer to all their inquiries was that the Bill was being subjected to revision. But surely with the advantages which the Government had at command, and as their Bills were printed by the Queen's Printer, they ought to be in the hands of Members immediately, or, at all events, shortly after their introduction. But the first week elapsed and there was no Bill. Then, on the Monday following, a few copies reached some fortunate individuals who had been ardently hunting them; but it was not until Tuesday that the Bill was issued; the result being that, instead of 14, or at least 10 days for the consideration of a measure of such importance, they had not more than five. Moreover, it was necessary that they should get the views of their constituents on so important a subject; but with the very insufficient postal facilities in Scotland it was impossible that that could be done in so short a time. Now he asserted that five days was a very insufficient time for the consideration of such a Bill. The cause of delay he did not know. There might, perhaps, have been some material change in the provisions of the Bill; but these ought to have been settled before its introduction; or there might have been some contest with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the amount to be bestowed on the Scotch people for the promotion of their education; for his right hon. and learned Friend on bringing in the Bill gave the House a glowing description of the benefits to be bestowed upon Scotland by the measure: he stated, according to some reports, that "seven" times, and according to other reports that "several" times, as much would be expended on education in Scotland as was now the case; but on examining the Bill he found that no addition whatever was made to the contribution of the Government in support of the Scotch schools. Certainly Scotch Members could not expect that more would be granted to them than the 50 per cent granted to English schools; but then it should be noted that, while the Bill professed to give a grant of 50 per cent, there were such numerous deductions that the addition to an ordinary school would appear to be more like 15 per cent than 50. Now, as he had said, he much regretted that there had not been time to receive information from their constituents. No doubt many hon. Members might reply that they were complete masters of the subject; but he ventured to affirm that it was the duty of the Scotch Members—especially when a Bill containing new propositions was brought before the House—to wait for information as to the reception it would meet with in Scotland. What that reception would be it was difficult to say; but he had observed that there was a studied reserve in the expression of an opinion on the part of the newspapers in Scotland, particularly those connected with Members on the other side. There was an exception, however;—there was one newspaper which had spoken out, and that was one materially connected with the county which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary represented (Renfrewshire). That paper used some exceedingly strong expressions as to the manner in which the promoters of this Bill had proceeded—they said that their examination of the Bill had served to confirm their original impression both as to its merits and demerits, and especially as to the sweeping nature of the change it proposed: that the entire Scotch principle of education had been altered, and there remained a spick-and-span new system carefully divested of every national peculiarity. The question, however, was—What is the Bill we now have to consider. It contained many provisions which he (Mr. Gordon) highly approved. It provided for the establishment of a system of education in burghs where a great deficiency existed at present. It also provided for the establishment of evening schools and industrial schools; and that, too, he approved. He felt great difficulty, therefore, in taking any course which would have the appearance of a Motion for the rejection of the Bill on the ground of principle. At the same time, as the Bill contained some provisions which were novel as regarded Scotland, and opposed to the conduct of Government on former occasions, he thought it a question worthy the consideration of the House whether there should not be some delay with regard to the second reading. He held it to be of the greatest importance that there should be a discussion on the second reading of any such Bill as this, because, if the discussion was delayed until the House went into Committee, it would be quite impossible to get together a sufficient number of Members interested in its details, and it was only by ventilating questions which arose on the face of the Bill, that a fair attendance of Members, and consequently a fair consideration of Amendments, could be afterwards secured. He, therefore, respectfully submitted to the Government whether it would not be better that the debate upon this question should be adjourned. He saw, indeed, that at a meeting of the Edinburgh Free Presbytery this was expected. Moreover, the Free Church and Established Commissions of the General Assembly were to meet on Wednesday next, and it was of the utmost importance that the question with which the Bill dealt should be discussed by those Commissions. Nor did he see any reason why the Government should not be able to fix the measure for some future day. The Home Secretary told his constituents in Scotland that this would be a Scotch Session, and, therefore, he did not see why he should be unable to appropriate a day somewhat later for the consideration of this great Scotch measure. To show how important it was that further time should be granted, he would make a few remarks on those provisions of the Bill which were new. The House would remember that a Commission was issued in 1864 for the purpose of inquiring into the subject of Scotch education. It was composed of men of all political parties. It included, among others, a former Speaker of the House of Commons (Lord Dunfermline), the Duke of Argyll, Lord Polwarth, and other distinguished men, who fairly represented the educational and religious interests of Scotland. They recommended in their Report, which appeared in 1867, that a Central Board of Management for the superintendence of the schools in Scotland should be established, and that that Board should hold its meetings in that country. They also recommended that the parochial schools should be left untouched; and they reported that in Scotland what was known as the religious difficulty had no existence. They added, with reference to the state of education in the country districts apart from Glasgow, and some of the large towns, where there was great educational destitution, that there were 1 in 6·25 children attending schools—a larger percentage than in the case of Prussia. Now, Scotchmen were rather inclined to pride themselves on the state of education in their country; but they were scarcely prepared to find that the proportion of children attending school was even greater than in Prussia. As to the deficiency of education, the Commissioners reported that there were about 200 schools required. But when that recommendation came to be examined it would be found that they had set down every instance in which a clergyman had thought proper to say that an additional school was wanted, although on the face of the Report it was evident that so small was the number of the inhabitants in some of these districts that it was impossible that schools should be placed there solely for their benefit. The question which he wished, in the first place, to consider was that which it was proposed to do with respect to the superintendence of education in Scotland. On looking at Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill he found they contained provisions for the establishment of what was called a Scotch Education Department, which was to have all the rights and privileges conferred on the English Education Department, in addition to others conferred by the present measure. Then it was provided that the Scotch Education Department should be at liberty to employ the officers who might be from time to time employed by the Education Department in England. In other words, the permanent officials of the Scotch Education Department would be the same as those now attached to the English Board. Now, that provision would, he felt satisfied, be very unpopular in Scotland. He was confident that among Scotchmen there was but one opinion as to their ability to manage their own educational affairs, and that they did not wish to be mixed up in any way with the Privy Council. It was, moreover, provided that Scotland might be invaded occasionally by sending officers down there for the purpose of obtaining information on educational matters; but that, too, was a proposal which, he ventured to say, would be very distasteful to the people of that country. Now, those provisions with regard to the Board for superintending the schools in Scotland were entirely in opposition to the Report of the Commissioners, who were unanimous in recommending that there should be an Educational Board established in Scotland; although they differed, and he thought very properly, as to what should be the constitution of that Board. It had been, for instance, proposed to place on the Board the Provosts of three or four of the towns, notwithstanding the general feeling that they would not, on the whole, be suitable representatives; for the reason, among others, apart from any question of personal fitness, that their time was already fully occupied with their own municipal affairs. But that there should be an Education Board in Scotland was not the opinion of the Commissioners only. In 1869, when the Scotch Education Bill was brought forward in the House of Lords, what took place? The most natural person to introduce the measure would have been the Lord President of the Council (Earl De Grey and Ripon); but instead of that nobleman—the head of the Educational Department in England — the duty was entrusted to the Duke of Argyll, the Secretary of State for India. What was the reason for this? Plainly because he was acquainted with the system of education which prevailed in Scotland, as well as with the habits, feelings, and prejudices of the Scotch people. For that reason the Duke of Argyll, and not the President of the Education Board, was selected to introduce the Bill into the House of Lords. [The LORD ADVOCATE: There was another reason; the Duke of Argyll had been Chairman of the Commission.] At all events, the matter must have been well considered by the Government; and, that being so, it was important to learn what the Duke of Argyll said in introducing the Bill into the House of Lords. His Grace said that there must be some properly constituted authority to go over Scotland and say where education was defective, and where more or new schools were required. His Grace went on to say—

"That being the case, we must have some authority instituted to which Parliament will commit that full power of investigation as to the localities in which new school accommodation is required. The only point which I have heard questioned as to the Report of the Commission is as to the constitution of the authority to be vested with these large and discretionary powers. I have heard differences of opinion as to whether it should be vested in a Department of the Government in London, or in some body more particularly connected with Scotland. Now, for my own part, I cannot conceive any doubt being entertained on the question by those who have really looked into the extent and nature of the power it is proposed to entrust to this body. I have great respect for my noble Friend the President of the Council (Earl de Grey). There are few persons in England to whom I would more completely defer as a discretionary authority in such matters. I know that to some extent he is acquainted with Scotland, and that, at all events, during those two months in which Englishmen betake themselves for health of body and mind to Scotland, he occasionally honours us with his presence. But still I confess that if an ukase came from his office to me, saying 'In your parish there is a great want of a school, and I desire it should be erected,' I am not quite sure how I should comport myself in deference to the authority delegated to my noble Friend. It seems to me apparent that where you give such large powers, independent of parochial and municipal authorities, you must vest them in some body which is in the main Scotch, which is acquainted with the feelings and habits of the Scotch people, with the principles of their educational system, and, above all, which is of a representative character. It was on these grounds, and with these feelings, that the Commissioners unanimously recommended that a discretionary power should be vested in the Board, which was sketched in their draft Bill."—[3 Hansard, cxciv. 287.]

His Grace then alluded to the different bodies who were to be represented on the Board, and gave his clear and explicit opinion—and no one was better able to give an opinion on the subject of education than the Duke of Argyll—that there should be a superintending Board sitting in Scotland. Well, the question came before this House, and the late Lord Advocate, the present Lord Justice Clerk, referring to the proposal to make the Privy Council the Board of Education, said he had come already to the conclusion that there must be a Central Board in Scotland. Now, those were the answers of two men well entitled to express their opinion on the subject, both of whom had made the matter the subject of their earnest consideration. Opinions had also been expressed on the subject by the Home Secretary, and Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster), and these were likewise in favour of the Scotch Board. The latter said there was no intention of interfering with the matter except as regarded the grants of the Privy Council, the control of which the Council desired to keep to themselves. Now, the disposal of the grant was a consideration that might very fairly be left to the Privy Council, though, at the same time, it was a question whether it would not be better that a sum of money should be voted to the Scotch Board for educational purposes. But it was never suggested that all supervision as regarded Scottish education on the part of a general Board in Scotland should be extinguished, and the present Lord Advocate supported Lord Moncreiff in the proposal then made. Why, then, had the Government changed their policy? In introducing the Bill the right hon. Gentleman said the Government were going to be so liberal that he was almost ashamed to state the extent of the grant, but the amount now given would be increased several times, or, as another report had it, seven times. I was astonished when I heard this, and had no great hopes of the promise being realized. In what way was the liberality of the Government to be extended to Scotland? This Bill did not indicate it. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect—"Do you expect we would give the management of so large a sum to a Scotch Board?" Such a question was enough to rouse the ire of any Scotchman. What was done with respect to Ireland? Ireland received £400,000 for educational purposes, and there was an Irish Board, with paid officials. Why was Scotland to be differently treated? Ireland was a spoilt child, and, like other spoilt children, gave a great deal of trouble to its parents. Unfortunate Scotchmen—though, perhaps, he should not call them unfortunate—did not grumble or proceed to acts of violence; but that was no reason why they should be treated worse than Irishmen in the bestowal of favours by the Government. That was a mode of treatment of which Scotchmen had just reason to complain, and it was inconsistent alike with the recommendations of the Commissioners, and with the arguments and acts of the Government themselves in 1869. The only reason suggested by his right hon. Friend was that Scotchmen could not be trusted with the management of so large a sum. That Scotchmen could not look after money was a statement he had never heard before. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had shown that they contributed to the Exchequer a larger amount than Ireland did, and that there was a much smaller expenditure by the Government in Scotland than in Ireland. That proposition would, therefore, be distasteful to the people of Scotland—it would certainly make the English Board very unpopular—it was a new proposition, and he wished that time had been given to the country to consider the matter, instead of pressing forward the Bill with such undue haste. His argument against the proposal was not founded merely on sentiment, though such arguments had been used to carry great measures. A Scottish Board was necessary for good and substantial reasons. If, for example, the Board was in London, there would be great difficulty in communicating. Then it was no slight matter for schoolmasters to be put to the inconvenience and expense of travelling up to London. His principal reason, however, for pressing a Scotch Board sitting in Scotland was, that the people of Scotland desired it; and he could admit no doubt that it would properly discharge its duties. The Board in England would have the right of dismissing teachers; and here he must say the provisions of the Bill were exceedingly harsh towards that class of persons. Any of the new teachers might be dismissed without, apparently, any notice of the charges against them. There was a provision that schoolmasters who had a life interest in their offices should have a copy of the charges before dismissal; but, under Section 70, it was in the power of the Privy Council to withdraw their certificates of competency, the effect of which would be the destruction of the prospects of these men, who could not hold office without such certificates. These were cases of individual hardship, which the injured parties would have the greatest difficulty in bringing before Parliament. He maintained that a Scotch Board would act with a more direct sense of responsibility than any English Board possibly could, and that they were better fitted to administer the system of school education than the Board proposed by the Bill. He thought that all the arguments of his right hon. and learned Friend against a Scotch Board amounted in substance to this—that you could not entrust Scotchmen with the administration of the fund. His answer was, that a Scotch Board was quite as trustworthy as an Irish Board. In questioning the expediency of entrusting such powers to the Privy Council, he was making no charge against the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), or against the Home Secretary, who was a Scotchman; but it was impossible that Englishmen could efficiently superintend the vast duties which now devolved upon them under the Education Act, along with similar duties as regarded Scotland. Many of these duties necessarily devolved upon subordinate officials, and when once an order issued from the Board, it was like the laws of the Medes and Persians—very difficult to alter. Another point worthy of consideration was, that in the Bill there was no limitation as regarded the amount of rate. The Bill gave power to the Privy Council to order, without restriction, such buildings as they might think proper; and, therefore, the ratepayers would have to consider whether that was a proper power to be vested in a Board discharging its duties in London. By the provision contained in the 4th section of the Bill, a school board was to elected in every parish and burgh. Now that section, taken in connection with the following clauses, involved the entire destruction of the parish schools as they now exist in Scotland. The Bill, he must say, was framed in a somewhat peculiar way. It was designated "a Bill to amend and extend the provisions of the law on the subject of Education in Scotland," and recited in the Preamble certain former Acts on the subject; and then goes on—"Whereas it is desirable," &c. Now, one would suppose that that would be followed up by leaving at least some remnant of the Acts recited in the Preamble—because the usual course was to begin by repealing the Acts; but it was not till they came to the last clause that these Acts were repealed, and that clause was an entire repeal of all Acts relating to education in Scotland. He must say that that was cutting off the parish schools as they previously existed, root and branch. He asked whether such a proceeding was not an unfortunate matter, after those schools had been held up by the Prime Minister, among others, during his election tour in Lancashire, as a pattern to all the rest of the world. He said the parish schools of Scotland were the foundations of the prosperity of Scotland, and of the success of Scotchmen in their own, and in other countries, and he spoke of the system as one of the best which existed in any part of the world—Prussia not excepted. These schools, then, were swept away root and branch by this Bill, and a spick-and-span new system substituted. He must ask, for what purpose was that? Why that change—that total destruction of the Scotch system of parish schools? The only reasons assigned by the right hon. the Lord Advocate was, because it appeared to him necessary to have the rate imposed on the real rent and not upon the valued rent; and because that change would bring the parish schools within the same sphere of management as the new national schools proposed to be established. They had had no Petitions praying that the assessment might be transferred to the real rent—the assessment was quite as certain at present as it would be if imposed on the real rent; and the only effect of his right hon. Friend's proposition was to change the incidence of taxation. Any person purchasing property in Scotland, on learning the valued rent, knew what proportion he would have to pay to the schoolmaster — it was an ascertained amount; but if the assessment were placed on the real rent, then, as the latter had become, in process of time, greater than the original valued rent, the purchaser would be subject to a larger impost than he thought he would have to pay when he made the purchase; while in those parishes where the real rent had fallen below the valued rent he would have to pay less than when he bought. Again, where manufactories had been established, and where there was a necessity for additional means of education—they were about to shift the burthen on the ratepayers and on the small proprietors. He ventured to say that many of those ratepayers would not thank them for subjecting them to the payment of rates which had been hitherto paid by the proprietors of land; at the same time the landowners were far from sure of getting ultimate relief—for a school board entailed a clerk and a treasurer; and he was inclined to think the new system would be found more expensive than the old. Another reason given by his right hon. Friend was, that the new system would bring with it great simplicity. But simplicity was not always the surest mode of arriving at the successful solution of questions with which the habits, customs, and feelings of the people were interwoven. No doubt there were many persons who would undertake to produce a much more simple plan of the British Constitution than the confused and complex arrangements on which it now rests. It was very possible to devise, as many French theorists had done, entirely new constitutions; but these inventions wholly wanted the elements of stability; and he ventured to say that a novel system, though possessing the deceptive attractions of an apparent adherence to logic, ought not in this case to be rashly adopted, because the existing system of the parish schools was one that was highly prized both by those who had attended the schools and also by the teachers. It was obviously of the greatest importance to the well-being of any school system that they should have good schoolmasters. The schoolmaster was the life of the school; and the Scotch system had had the effect of attracting the most valuable teachers, he ventured to say, who ever conducted the education of any nation—men who, by their devotion to the humbler classes, had not only trained them admirably for the sphere of life that was before them, but also educated many men who had filled distinguished positions in this county. Only that morning he had a letter from a gentleman who knew of two young men brought up in the parish schools in the immediate neighbourhood of his residence, who, if they had not had the advantage of the secondary education as obtained there, would probably now be following the plough-tail; whereas they were both Professors in the same University—the one teaching the classical languages, and the other some other branches of learning. Again, he had the pleasure the other day of meeting the Professor of Oriental Languages in the University of St. Andrews, who had been selected at the request of Dr. Pusey—one of the first scholars of the day—for the purpose of taking part in the revision of the Bible which was promoted by the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. Well, that gentleman received his education in a school conducted entirely on the same principles as the parish schools—a sort of side-school—and his two brothers have also occupied distinguished positions. Surely, then, they should not rudely destroy a system like that in order to build up another, merely for the purpose of introducing what they called simplicity and uniformity. That was not the policy adopted in the measure of 1869; and when last year the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) brought in the English Bill he said, among other things, that the question was how they could cover the country with good schools; that they must take care, in establishing a new system, not to destroy the existing one; and that they should, consistently with the attainment of their object, entail on the taxpayers the least possible burden, and refrain to the utmost from injuring existing and efficient schools. Those sound principles of educational reform had not, however, he (Mr. Gordon) regretted to find, been observed in framing the present Bill. He was not speaking in the interests of any particular denomination. Though belonging to the Established Church of Scotland himself, he had a sincere desire for a union of the Churches of that country, which, he thought might easily be, as they did not differ in any substantial points of doctrine, and he should not object to see the ministers of other denominations in the parish associated in the management of the schools. No class of men had taken a greater interest in education than the clergy of Scotland, without whose assistance, indeed, the cause of education would have sunk very low; and he could not see why there should be such objection, and such terror, in respect to their sharing in the management of the schools. In 1869 the principle of the Bill introduced by the Government was, as described by them, to enlarge the system of management and to popularize it to some extent, and they proposed to adopt the principle that those who paid the rates should have a voice in the management. Why, then, were they now going to change the whole character of the parish schools, contrary alike to the opinion of the Commission, and also to the policy of the Government in 1869, and contrary even to the decision of that House at the end of the year? It was a question on which much interest was aroused. The universal desire among schoolmasters and managers was, that the established schools should be continued as they now existed—to serve as models to the new schools, and not only to form them but to stimulate them. Again, how was the matter of religion dealt with in the Bill? That was a subject in which Scotchmen took no small interest. How was it dealt with? Simply by ignoring it altogether. The measure of 1869 contained a provision that the Government Inspector should examine in religion, if requested to do so by the school authorities; but the present Bill provided that the Government Inspector should not examine in religion; the only mention of which in the Bill, therefore, being something like a warning-off from the subject. It was said there was no statutory provision for religion in the old Scotch system. But why was that? Because the schools were placed under the control of the Church in 1663. Episcopalianism prevailed then in Scotland, and the schools were placed under the Bishops; and when, in 1666, Presbyterianism was established, the schools were placed under the presbyteries; and they so continued down to the present day—so that really there was a communication between the ministers of religion and the schools, and there was no occasion to make provision for religious education. There was a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of teaching religion, accompanied with the utmost liberality as regards the conscience clause. But the Government dared not face the difficulty, and were shifting it over to the local boards. It had been already shown that what was called the religious difficulty existed only to a slight extent in Scotland. Here you had a Board representing almost as large a constituency as Scotland itself, and he could not but admire the skill and good management by which the religious difficulty had been avoided; but when they sent this Bill down to the small parishes in Scotland the effect would be to stir up sectarian animosities, and the vanquished party, he feared, would not settle down without a feeling of humiliation and anger. Those who were actuated by strong feeling would bring the matter again and again before the board, and its continual recurrence would greatly tend to the disturbance of peace and harmony. If, then, there was no religious difficulty, why not at once say that which, he believed, was the opinion of the great majority of the Members of the House, and which was the opinion, undoubtedly, of the great majority of the people in Scotland—why not say plainly that religious instruction should be given in the schools? That would be a proper way of dealing with the question, instead of imposing the burden upon those who were opposed to a system of religious education, because, though they still had the conscience clause to protect them, disturbing elements would always exist. This was a question upon which all the Churches in Scotland felt great interest, and it was now fairly recognized that the great majority of parents in the humble classes were incapable of giving instruction in religion. Ministers had duties enough to occupy their attention, and the best thing, in his opinion, was to keep to the system which had given much satisfaction, and had produced such good and able men in Scotland—namely, the recognition of religion. He felt that he had trespassed too long upon the attention of the House; but it was a question of great interest to Scotland, where a strong feeeling existed that this Bill was being pressed forward to a second reading with undue haste, seeing that it contained several new provisions never yet laid before the public—propositions at variance with the former proposals of the Government. He did not want to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, but he desired the question to be settled, and he did not think there had been time enough for it. A discussion upon the second reading of the Bill was of the utmost consequence, as directing the attention of the House to the value of the provisions afterwards to be considered in Committee. He would again press upon the Government to consider the desirability of not pressing the Bill forward at present.

I am glad to assure the House that I shall only occupy a very few minutes in my remarks, as the previous debates in 1869 have exhausted, the subject, and there is little use in making speeches at the stage which this question has reached. The Bill before us is simple, logical, and homogeneous, and therefore generally calculated to fulfil its purposes. That purpose is to make education as national as formerly—when our Scotch ancestors established a system suitable for the requirements of the country as it then was. There is often a confusion, and sometimes an intentional commingling of the clerical and national aspects of Scotch education. Its first period, as in all countries, was purely clerical; then from 1696 it was purely national; and only from the time of the disruption of the Churches, about a quarter of a century since, did it assume a denominational aspect. The original idea of the Church was that every kirk throughout the land should have a school attached to it; but that was not the course adopted by the State, which imposed this duty on the nation by a tax upon property. The Bill proposes in all simplicity to restore this ancient idea of national duty, supplementing it by Imperial aid. My previous speeches on this subject will show that I have never underrated the efforts of the Churches and their various ministers to introduce vitality into the national scheme of education. The ministers of religion in Scotland are of the people in origin, sympathies, and education. They have gained their superior position by possessing higher natural attainments than the people around them, and these have been developed through the schools which are common to both. They have returned lovingly to those schools in their future career as parish ministers, and done their best to improve their character and enhance their resources. It will be a deep disappointment to me, and to all lovers of education, if the ratepayers, in their selection of school boards, forget what the country owes to her ministers of religion. But this voluntary recognition is one thing, and a statutory obligation is another. It was not till 1803 that the parish minister was added ex officio to the school managers, though it was a custom almost equal to law before, and I hope will be a custom again. It is a great error to try to force religion into the hearts of people by law. Vital religion does not penetrate men's hearts by such compulsory means. Yet the cry arising against this Bill in Scotland is that it is a godless Bill, because it does not legislate in this way. There is an outcry that the "use and wont" of religious instruction should be acknowledged and enforced in this Bill. Will my hon. Friend the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the counties of Peebles and Selkirk, point out to me a single Act of Parliament in which religion in schools is enforced by statute in Scotland? No doubt religious instruction is the use and wont, and as long as it is left to use and wont, Scotland will be a God-loving country. It is because I desire to see this religious character of my countrymen preserved that I am anxious to leave religious education in their hands, and not to come between their consciences and their duties by arid provisions of an Act of Parliament. By all means let us have "use and wont," but it ceases to have its strength as use and wont the moment you make it statutory. That the Lord Advocate has not been indifferent to religious education may be judged of by the fact that he adopts exactly the course recommended by Dr. Chalmers, who is, perhaps, the most highly appreciated divine among our past worthies. What does Dr. Chalmers recommend? He first begins with the impossible hypothesis that there might be a theological Parliament sufficiently versed in dogma to legislate on true dogma, and then he goes on to say—

"But failing this, it seems to us the next best thing that, in any public measure for helping on the education of the people, Government were to abstain from introducing the element of religion at all into their part of the scheme, leaving this matter entirely to the parties who had to do with the erection and management of the schools which they had been called upon to assist. A grant by the State upon this footing might be regarded as being appropriately and exclusively an expression of their value for a good secular education."

Well, this is simply and entirely what the Bill does. No one can doubt the Presbyterian orthodoxy or religious fervour of such an eminent divine as Dr. Chalmers, and we may feel confidence that we are not damaging the interests of religion in Scotland when we follow his advice. I have said enough about the religious question, and will delay till Committee my remarks on the small parasites of denominationalism which the Lord Advocate still allows to grow on the national educational tree. But I now turn to the framework of the Bill—the "Scotch Education Department"—which is to be entrusted with carrying its provisions into effect. The whole Bill gives to this Department a real administrative existence, with large and full powers for superintending education in Scotland, and for preserving its distinctive peculiarities. The fact that this appears in the Bill admits the necessity of a concession that there should be a national administrative Department of some kind. That is not the form which I would have preferred. I still entertain the opinion, which I expressed two years since in this House, that the simplest, cheapest, and most effective method of administration would be by a local Board sitting in Edinburgh. But the Board to which I look is, I am bound to admit, not that which receives most favour from the Scotch people. My desire is to have a small executive Board, paid, and, therefore, responsible for its work, and subject to the Committee of Council in matters of finance and general administration. That was the form which the Board ultimately took in the Bill of 1869; but it is not the form which the Commissioners recommended, and which the people of Scotland seem to prefer. They indicate a Board representative of different classes of the community, unpaid, and undominated by the Government. Such a Board is somewhat allied to the Irish Education Commission; and I am sure that this House will never again entrust the administration of large annual grants to an irresponsible body of this kind. The only advantage of a Scotch Board in Edinburgh would be to represent national interests and peculiarities of education. When the Commissioners recommended their scheme of a representative Board, there was a wide divergence of system between the education of England and Scotland. The former had only a contributory, and not a national system, and possessed no organization for its adequate extension. The aspirations of the Committee of Council were limited to teaching the three "R's" by a strict mechanical method. All this was so unlike the Scotch system that it was repulsive to Scotch teachers, who shuddered at the idea of being caught in the mechanical embraces of the Committee of Council. They looked upon that Committee much in the same way as the Lacedemonians looked on the wife of Nabis, their tyrant, who tempted them to approach her by the magnificence of her apparel. She then seized them in her embrace, for it proved to be a mere mechanical figure, constructed to torture them until their riches were squeezed out. So we thought if the Revised Code seized hold of Scotch schools, all our educational riches would be expressed in its mechanical grip. But we approach the question to-night in a very different position. England has now a more organized scheme of education than Scotland; but, above all, we have a new Revised Code just laid upon our Table, which does infinite credit to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. It is a vast improvement upon its predecessor, and encourages higher education in our elementary schools, and goes far to remove the sources of jealousy which have hitherto prevented Scotland from submitting to this Code. Under these changed conditions we no longer want a sort of Scotch Education Parliament to frighten the English Education Department from interfering with our national peculiarities. At least, for my own part, what I wish to see is not a debating society, but an active and responsible administrative Board. Nevertheless, I fully admit that the constitution of such a Board is looked upon with keen jealousy, both by the Church and by the teachers; and I have little hope of inducing this House, in the altered circumstances of the case, to accept a proposition which passed in 1869. Compelled, then, to look at the alternative presented by this Bill, my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate will not be surprised if I ask him to give us assurance that the Scotch Education Department, to which he gives such large powers, is not a myth, but a reality. The clauses of the Bill, indeed, make it a formidable and active reality, but the definition clause shakes our faith in its substantial character. It is there described as a Committee of the Privy Council for Education in Scotland. Now, we know that the corresponding Committee for England is a purely consultative, not an administrative, body. The exalted personages who compose it are rarely called together, and even the existence of "My Lords" is scarcely believed in by the persons who correspond with the Department, and are answered in the name of the Lords of the Committee. There is no doubt of the potential activity of the Vice President, and even of the Lord President; but the potentiality of the Committee as an administrative body is not believed by anyone. Now, what the people of Scotland would like to know is, whether this Scotch Education Department is to be as mythical as the English Committee, who we hear of only in our letters from the Department; or, whether it is to consist of real individuals, with sufficient knowledge, and, what is equally important, sufficient time to give active aid and advice to the Vice President of the Council in his immediate administration of his Department? I have no desire to diminish his responsibility as the real Minister of Education of this country, but the people of Scotland will not be satisfied unless the Scotch Education Department is a reality, capable of giving for the first year or two ample time to aid him not only in preserving, but also in extending the peculiarities of education which they cherish so dearly. If I felt confidence on this point, I would hail this Bill as a great boon to my country. The position of Scotland as a nation, in spite of its small area and contracted natural resources, has been gained by the universality and gradation of its education. Assure us that this Bill will in reality preserve to us the means by which the intellectual fund of the country will be sought out and developed as in past times, and the people will sink their minor differences, and co-operate with the Government in passing a Bill which, in its careful provisions, seems well calculated to give increased prosperity and contentment to the northern part of this kingdom.

said, he was sorry to have to say that he was not as completely satisfied with the provisions of the Bill as his hon. Friend (Dr. Playfair), for whose judgment on the question of education he had the highest respect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) when introducing the Bill to the House, had not invited suggestions or assistance from either side with a view of making his Bill more perfect or generally acceptable to the people of Scotland; yet he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that there were several Members who sat opposite to him who would willingly have given their aid. He hoped the Bill might not miscarry hereafter, from any obstinate resistance to Amendments which might be suggested—provided they were good and useful Amendments—from whichever side the House they might come. Though the secret had been well kept, he heard, before the introduction of the measure, that it would be "stronger and simpler than the English Bill." When he heard that it was to be stronger, he guessed, at once, that it would be more distasteful to himself, more upsetting, more sweeping, and more regardless of securities for religious instruction; and his anticipations had not been deceived. But he heard that it was to be simpler also—and he found it simpler indeed, for it made a clean sweep of the present parochial system, against which no charge had ever been made, except that it had broken down in the large towns. But even the voluntary system, with all its efforts, had broken down in large towns—and there was no charge against the parochial system, the value of the instruction given in which was universally recognized, and which, as a system, was admittedly free, in the religious instruction afforded, from all suspicion of sectarian taint. The measure appeared to have been framed rather with the intention of overriding all possible claims and privileges, than of recognizing the special wants of Scotch education. Those who had seen the working of the present system, and knew the value of its primary and secondary instruction, as well as of the stated religious instruction given under it, could not regard without apprehension the rash manner in which so much that was valuable was thrown into a common crucible — upon the chance, apparently, that whatever came out would be as good as what had hitherto existed. In the English Bill the Church schools were exempted from its operation. There was no analogy between them and the parochial schools in Scotland; but he heartily wished that it had been possible to make the change more gradually, and at present to reserve the parochial schools from the action of the Bill, with only such changes as to liberalizing the management, and as to inspection, as now-a-days were thought advisable. Passing to another matter, which had not been mentioned in the debate, he might notice that the present Bill would afford another instance of that most detestable thing called permissive legislation. He was aware that the subject of compulsion was supposed to be one of the perquisites of the Liberal party; but, in regard to education in Scotland, he believed some measure of compulsion to be absolutely necessary. He would read a brief extract from a letter written by one of the ministers of the Established Church of Scotland—a class of men whose connection with the parish schools was to be severed, and who, by that irony of circumstances which attends reckless legislation, would be disqualified from sitting on school boards because they were not ratepayers. The writer said—

"Personally, I approve compulsory education, having long thought it necessary in Scotland; but I think it should be enacted, and not permissive."

Now, in the Bill, the power of making education compulsory was to be left to the school boards. It had been said that we were not ready for compulsion, but he was sure that the school boards which it was proposed to appoint were not ready to be entrusted with the power of giving, or withholding, compulsion. In a large city like Glasgow, where, no doubt, the school board would be composed, like that appointed for the metropolis, of some of the best men of the city, he did not doubt that compulsory education would be started soon after the passing of the Bill; but there were many small towns where compulsion was needed, and where it would be a very invidious task to introduce it. He doubted whether the school boards elected in such places would venture to initiate compulsion. Parliament was, in fact, shirking the difficulty when it left it to be dealt with by the school boards. That was something like what the House of Commons did when afraid to give a decision on a troublesome subject: it referred it to a Select Committee, to whose judgment the House often paid very little attention. He hoped other hon. Members would join him in urging on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of enacting compulsion, at least in the large towns—and, indeed, he should be glad to see the principle extended to the whole country. There was another point to which he must refer. There were some clauses towards the close of the Bill where religious instruction was, he would not say recognized, but honoured by being mentioned, but chiefly in the way of prohibition and limitation. It had been said, again and again, that there was no religious difficulty in Scotland; but the Lord Advocate had said that there was an ecclesiastical difficulty. And he wished to learn whether he was to thank the ecclesiastical difficulty for the slight mention, or rather for the omission, of the subject of religious instruction from the Bill? He admitted that the first business was to supply ordinary secular education—and if he said a few words in defence of religious instruction, it was certainly not with a view to disparage secular learning; for he agreed with what had been said by a distinguished living teacher of youth, that "the spectacle of a nation very ignorant and very devout is a fancy, and not a fact." But he thought the right hon. Gentleman might have introduced into the Bill language which would have offended no one in Scotland, and which the great majority of the people of that country would have heartily welcomed. They were told that they must trust to the religious sentiment of the people of Scotland. He desired to throw no doubt on the existence of the religious sentiment, for it rested on a basis of well-known and long-established credibility; but he would say that it was to be put to a very severe test. Nor was it really trusted; for though the religious instruction be left to the discretion of the school boards—and of tha the made no complaint, yet inspection in religious subjects was forbidden, and it was doing dishonour to religious instruction to enact that such instruction should not be inquired into by the Inspectors, as it could hardly be supposed that the same care would be given to it as was bestowed on those subjects which would come under the Inspector's cognizance. He would trouble the House with a few lines from a letter of a Free Church minister, and which specially bore on that point—

"Even were every board in the kingdom to make provision for religious instruction in the schools, that would not relieve the State from the discharge of the duty proper to itself in this matter; which is, in the way competent only to it to do—to give legislative expression to its own views in order that they may afterwards be carried out by the subordinate executive and administrative departments."

After all, he must say he had great misgivings that anything that might be said on that side the House would not meet with the same attention as if it came from the other side. Even if it were so he felt that he had discharged his duty in that matter. His saltem accumulem donis, et fungar inani munere. He did not speak as an absolute opponent of the Bill altogether; but he confessed he had noticed many omissions in the Bill, and looked with considerable distrust and misgiving at some of the intentions which he thought he could discern between the lines. He thought, however, it might be made a good Bill if there were not too obstinate a resistance to Amendments; and he looked forward with some confidence to the action of the Committee. If he did not entertain that confidence he should not have been able to assent, without protest, to the second reading.

said, he thanked the Government for having introduced the Bill at so early a period of the Session, and thus offered the opportunity of settling the question this year; but, at the same time, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) that it was to be regretted that more time was not allowed for the consideration of the Bill, and obtaining the opinions of their constituents upon it. It would, he thought, have been better if the second reading had been fixed for next Monday, instead of that evening; but as the question had been already gone into very fully, and as they had learned from former experience the dangers of delay in this House, he thought it would be a great pity to lose a stage to-night. Therefore, he was prepared to enter into the discussion, though upon the distinct understanding that hon. Members were not to be thereby committed to any of the details of the Bill, or to any approval of the three new principles which it contained—those principles being the entire abolition of the parochial school system of Scotland, the denominationalism of the Bill, and, notably, the committal of the management of Scotch education to some shadowy and undefined body called an Education Department in London. He desired to offer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman his acknowledgment of the simplicity and comprehensiveness of his new Bill, which he believed to a very large extent would meet the wishes of the people of Scotland. Much as he regretted the rejection of the Bill of 1869, in the interests of the large number of children who had drifted away past help through the interval, he believed the Government would have great assistance in the discussion of an Education Bill this Session from the progress of public opinion and feeling which had taken place since that period—and he believed they now entered upon the question with a better prospect of unanimity and of a permanent settlement than had been possible at any previous time. They all knew that the people of Scotland were deeply attached to their parochial school system, and that they would be very jealous of any interference with it. Nor was that to be wondered at. For 300 years it had been intimately connected with the whole intellectual material and social progress of Scotland. It was the education of the parish schools which was the foundation of that cosmopolitanism which had sent Scotchmen into every part of the world, wherever there was good work to be done, and which had enabled them to achieve independence, and to distinguish themselves in every branch of enterprize. At any previous time the system which the Government now proposed for doing away with the parish schools, would have met with universal resistance; but he was not prepared to say now that it would be condemned, or that it would not commend itself to the people of Scotland. It simplified the task to be done; and under the new Code it need not necessarily imperil any of the interests the people of Scotland had so much at heart—but still the proposal of the Government was one that was so unforeseen that the representatives of Scotland had no right to commit themselves to it without the fullest discussion and the approval by their constituents. He observed that, in abolishing the present system, the Bill proposed to make an important concession to the owners of land by relieving them of their liability for the maintenance of the parish schools. If that charge were to be considered, as maintained by many authorities, the property of the nation, he doubted whether the proposed concession would be just or expedient. No doubt, the landowners would be liable to be rated as citizens; but that liability involved no right to their being relieved by the State surrendering its share of property of which it might to that extent be supposed to be a joint owner. The second new principle involved in the Bill respected denominationalism and religious teaching. It could not be too clearly understood that in Scotland there was no religious difficulty. Its schools, excepting a few belonging to Episcopalians, had maintained perfect freedom of conscience at all times; and even Roman Catholics had had no hesitation in sending their children with confidence to the parochial and borough schools. The people did not need nor desire any change; at the same time they were willing to give any proper guarantees that might be required. The doctrine of responsibility for belief, and of the rights of religious toleration, lay at the very foundation of Scotch Protestantism, of whatever denomination it might be; and the Scotch did not need either a secularist propaganda nor the Draconian strictness of Privy Council regulations to teach them their duty in that respect. The differences between the chief denominations in Scotland related almost entirely to matters which had no bearing upon the education of children, and not to those antagonisms of doctrine and belief which produced so much bitterness in England. The idea of a religious difficulty was not properly Scotch at all; it was introduced into Scotland from across the border; and in Scotland it arose mainly from sympathy with those in England who were fighting the battle of religious toleration and equality. In all the discussions in Scotland there had been a claim for undenominational and un-sectarian teaching; and a candidate who had announced himself in favour of denominational education would have had very little chance of being elected; yet the Government proposed for Scotland a system which was intended to be, and could be, worked out only as a denominational system. The cry for undenominational education had had, however, much more to do with undenominationalism in England, and more especially in Ireland, than with the circumstances and wants of Scotland. Where toleration was perfectly understood and faithfully carried out the question of denominationalism had very little practical importance. In a country where there was a dominant, or aggressive sect, the question became a vital one. Any Scotch claim for undenominationalism was, in fact, part of the contention for religious toleration as against the supremacy of the Established Church in England, and still more extravagant claims to supremacy elsewhere. So far as England was concerned that battle was fought and lost last year, mainly because the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) and his Friends chose to argue the question upon the ground of a rationalistic secularism, with which the people—of Scotland especially—had very little sympathy, instead of arguing it in the interests of religious opinions and beliefs, too sacred in themselves, and too important to the welfare of children to be taught in any mere formal routine of common-school education, or within the narrow limits of any Privy Council Code. Now, it was all very well to talk of religious education, and yet to exclude dogmatic religious teaching in our schools. But exclude creeds and catechisms as they would, the simple question of a little child would frequently open up the most profound points of religious belief, and compel the teacher, if he were at all conscientious, either to overstep his assigned limits, or to stand silent and rebuked in the presence of the infant he was professing to instruct. As regarded the proposed Department sitting in London, he thought the control of Scotch education by a body sitting at such a distance would give anything but satisfaction. For anything that appeared it might be that the proposed Scotch Education Department would consist of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the English Department, and the Lord Advocate, sitting with or without appropriate national costume. He fully appreciated the high character of those right hon. Gentlemen, but, nevertheless, he thought that the powers entrusted to them would be regarded with jealousy in Scotland; for, if there was one feeling stronger than another in Scotland, it was one of dislike and distrust of the Privy Council, and the desire to keep in their own hands the management of their own education. The Scotch were not content with the English standards, although these were improved under the new Code; and they hesitated to trust the Privy Council to fix the standard of competency for teachers. In addition, the Scotch were naturally jealous of the coolness and indifference with which Scotch matters were treated by the Government and by Parliament. They would wish to commit their education to men practically acquainted with Scotch, education, who would elevate, rather than lower, the standard of it. He trusted nothing would be done by the Bill opposed to the great value placed in Scotland upon higher education, and the importance of affording to children who exhibited great capacity the opportunity of entering the higher class schools. He would like to have seen stronger compulsory clauses, because public opinion in Scotland was far in advance of what it was in England; but, no doubt, wherever boards were created in Scotland they would have no hesitation or difficulty in enforcing compulsory clauses. He should also like to see the system of the Ballot introduced into the school boards. But these were details which might be considered in Committee. He had no objection to offer to the second reading; but he assented to it only on the understanding that a full opportunity should be afforded of discussing the subject on the Motion for going into Committee, by which time, probably, they would have had the opportunity of obtaining the opinions of their constituents on the Bill.

said, he did not at all agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and who had advised them to hesitate in giving an opinion on the Bill; for he thought the short time the Bill had been before them had been quite sufficient to convince most Scotch Members, at any rate, that it was the most statesmanlike measure of education which had been presented to Parliament for many years. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) had referred with approval to the measure of 1869; but no one, he thought, could recall the history of that Bill without something like pity; certainly very few regarded it with any feeling of regret. It was founded upon the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, who proposed an elaborate scheme for removing the parochial schools from their present management; and he was quite satisfied that compared with it the present scheme of the learned Lord Advocate was a very great improvement. With regard to the machinery proposed to be set up for establishing a new system of education in Scotland, no doubt men's minds were divided, as to the central authority, between the fear of tyranny in London and of jobbery in Edinburgh—it was difficult to say which feeling was the stronger—but he thought if the Board were strong enough to resist the Anglicizing tendencies of the Privy Council it would give satisfaction. With regard to that part of the Bill which allowed compulsory powers, he thought Scotland perfectly ripe for universal compulsion. What was wanted in Scotland was not so much additional schools as a uniform system and the power of enforcing attendance; and this was true not only of large cities, but of many small localities, such as fishing villages, where the children began to earn something at an early age. It was not advisable that Scotland should in this follow the example of England in the Bill of last year. Compulsion should be made universal. With regard to the religious difficulty, the learned Lord Advocate had certainly said very little. He appeared to think he might solve the difficulty by ignoring it. But as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) had pointed out, they were relegating knotty and delicate points, which ought to be settled by the authority of Parliament, to what sanguine people called the good sense of local boards. No doubt, local boards would have their own share of good sense; but if there was one subject on which they were certain to take a narrow view it was the religious question. Last year, when this point was raised by some of his hon. Friends, they were told that the difficulty was of their own making, and that when the country was consulted it would vanish into thin air. But what was the actual experience? The election of school boards all over England had turned on this very question of the religious difficulty, and the school boards had to commence their labours separated into two hostile camps on this very delicate subject. They were told, indeed, that there was no religious difficulty in Scotland; no doubt, up to the present time, there had been a most laudable amount of toleration in Scotch schools; but circumstances would be changed under this Bill, because there would be compulsory taxation, and in some places, if not in all, compulsory attendance; and he was very much mistaken if, when men found themselves saddled with new taxes, perhaps, for giving religious instruction of which they did not conscientiously approve, the religious difficulty did not crop up. There would be, in fact, in Scotland, when this Bill received its full development, a purely and entirely denominational system of education. There was only one solution of the difficulty, and that was this — the State should cease to undertake the religious education of children. The Scottish people were, perhaps, more than any other imbued with the spirit of religion; there was no country where religious and moral training was more highly prized; and none in which there was a body of clergy more qualified by learning and piety to undertake that duty. In that country it would, therefore, be perfectly safe to leave religious instruction to voluntary effort. He hoped that Amendments would be brought forward which the House might accept with a view to meet these points; and if, in debating those Amendments, there should be any renewal of the bitter contests of last year, the blame would rest with the Government, and especially with the Vice President of the Council. If they had, instead of adopting a course of compromise, adhered to their own principles, and thrown themselves on the loyal support of their own party, they would not only have carried their Bill, but—what was of far more importance—they would have laid down sound lines upon which, by common consent, might have been built a national system of education for each of the three divisions of the kingdom. They had not done so, and they now reaped the somewhat bitter fruits of that conduct; but he hoped there would be as little asperity as possible in the discussion, and that the Government would be found willing to make what concessions were necessary.

said, he joined in the remark that it was to be regretted that more time had not been given to Members from Scotland to consult their constituencies regarding this Bill. For himself he could say that he had received only one letter on the subject, and that was confined to matters of technical detail. No man, however, was more anxious to see this question of Scotch education settled on a broad and firm basis, and he thought this measure offered such a basis. While disapproving many points there were others which he highly approved, and, on the whole, he thought it an honest and fair attempt to settle the question. He only wished to refer to two points in the Bill in its present stage. With regard to Clause 67, which touched upon the higher education to be given in the parochial schools, it was within the knowledge of every Member of the House that the parochial schools in Scotland did not limit themselves to giving merely elementary education, but rendered themselves valuable feeders to the Universities. Clause 67, as he understood it, in dealing with the higher class of education given by those schools, seemed to provide that the public examiners should take notice of it only in cases where at least 50 scholars received such instruction. The effect of that clause, therefore, seemed to him calculated to wipe out all the higher instruction at present given in those schools, and thus to be at variance with the acknowledged principle of the Bill, which was to extend and improve education throughout Scotland. He thought the provision would give very great dissatisfaction in Scotland. He agreed with those hon. Members who were of opinion that practically the religious difficulty did not exist in Scotland. There would be but very little change in the religious education in Scotland brought about by this Bill. In the rural schools in Scotland religious instruction would continue to be given as now; but the 73rd clause of the Bill would bring about this objectionable state of things—that, whereas, under the existing system the religious instruction now given was superintended, at least, theoretically, by the presbytery, and thus a sort of guarantee was obtained that that instruction was sound and satisfactory, the clause to which he referred took the matter out of the hands of the presbytery without appointing anybody to superintend religious instruction in their place. Take the case where a local board had agreed that religious instruction should be given, what means would that board have for seeing that the schoolmaster was properly qualified for giving such instruction, or that, possessing the necessary qualification, he properly instructed the scholars. The practical result of Clause 73 would be that where religious instruction was given at all it would be given as an extra, in the same manner that modern languages and mathematics used to be given in our own public schools some years since. That would, most assuredly, not be a very satisfactory system, and was not one which the people of Scotland were likely to tolerate, and he hoped that a provision calculated to produce so mischievous and melancholy a result would be struck out. There were many other parts of the Bill open to objection; but, as they were mostly capable of alteration in Committee, he should not now touch upon them.

said, that while many hon. Members had talked much about a Scotch Board no one had attempted to point out how the Scotch Board should be composed. He wanted to know what difference it would make whether the Board sat in London or in Scotland? Their power would be equally absolute, perhaps more absolute in Edinburgh, because a Committee of the Privy Council would be amenable to the censure of this House, while a Board sitting in Edinburgh would not be represented here at all. Those who expressed a decided preference for a Scotch Board should explain themselves clearly, and give an exact definition of the kind of Board they required. To talk about the Board was absurd, before you know what it is to be. Then with regard to the parochial schools. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Glasgow University (Mr. Gordon) had said a great deal about the "swamping and extinction" of the parochial schools. Now, he (Mr. M'Laren) denied that any parochial school in Scotland would be extinguished by this Bill. It did not interfere with the parish schools in the way of extinction; it only improved their management. No doubt by the Bill of 1869 a Scotch Board sitting in Edinburgh was proposed; but hon. Members seemed to have forgotten that since 1869 the Education Act for England had been passed, and that under the present Bill many things which before were to be done by the Central Board, were now to be done by the local boards. He thought this Bill immeasureably superior to any Education Bill for Scotland previously introduced, and he should greatly regret if anything occurred to retard its progress. The fourth rule in the Schedule with regard to the money to be raised in certain parishes, seemed a very extraordinary one. It provided that when in certain insular parishes, where the assessment at 3d. in the pound yielded less than £30 for each school, or less than 18s. per head on one-sixth part of the population, the Education Department may pay a sum not exceeding twice the ordinary grant, the total grant not exceeding 16s. per head. The peculiarity of this provision was that it assumed that 18s. per head on one-sixth of the population for educational purposes was a rather small sum to raise in Scotland in reference to the number of children to be educated. There must be some extraordinary blunder here. The calculation that such a sum would be necessary was to be based on the population of the country at the last Census; but before the Bill became law the Census of 1871 would have been taken. That Census would probably show a population of 3,300,000, and an assessment of 18s. a head on a sixth of that number of people would produce £500,000. But did the right hon. Gentleman really believe that such a sum would be necessary to supply the educational requirements of the country? In a great proportion of the small burghs in Scotland it would require not 3d., but 2s. in the pound to realize the 18s. a-head. Were the Government serious in wishing to impose such a tax on these small burghs? The thing was out of the question. The working of the Bill as now framed would be to relieve taxation to the richer classes in the country, and to make it a heavy burden upon the poorer populations. With regard to the religious difficulty, he thought the proposal of the Bill would meet the case in a satisfactory manner. It contained the principle which had been contended for for years past in Scotland. The people of Scotland simply wished to be left alone in this respect. The Bill assumed that religion would be taught; but one of its clauses provided that no child should either be compelled to attend religious instruction, or to suffer injury for being absent therefrom. The great blot in the Bill was the retention of the cumulative vote in the election of the school board. He had always thought that a most extravagant and absurd proposition. England had made a blunder in this respect; but Scotland ought not to be compelled to blunder for the mere sake of preserving uniformity. Nothing could be more unjust than the proposal of the Bill to relieve the heritors from the payments they now had to contribute. The Act of 1696 provided that the heritors and the minister should supply school accommodation in every parish; but by the present Bill, if passed, the heritors, whose property had been enormously enhanced in value since the valued rent was fixed in 1674, would pay the merest fraction of the whole cost, while poor people, down to rentals of £4, would have to contribute in the same ratio as the richest landed proprietors. It was out of the question to suppose that this would be so trifling an assessment that nobody would feel it. It would raise an outcry against the Government, of which the end would not be heard for many years. The principle of the Bill in that respect was altogether indefensible.

said, he fully concurred in the complaint of the right hon. and learned Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. Gordon) that the constituencies in Scotland had not been afforded a sufficient opportunity to consider the provisions of the Bill. If, therefore, it were read a second time that evening, it must be on the understanding that Scotch Members would be perfectly at liberty to object to any part of it in Committee. The 2nd clause declared that "the Scotch Education Department" of the Privy Council "shall," and so on. Now, what was the Scotch Education Department? He turned to the definition clause, and he found that it was to consist of "the Lords of the Privy Council appointed by Her Majesty for Education in Scotland." Now, his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster) would, he should have thought, have quite enough to do in the management of educational questions in England without undertaking to deal also with the Scotch system. If, moreover, the clause to which he was referring were to pass in its present shape, it would, he felt assured, be contrary to the feelings and opinion of the great majority of the people of Scotland. What he would suggest was, that there should be a popular element in the Board to be called the Scottish Board and resident in Scotland. It should be what he might call a peripatetic Board—that is to say, the members in the intervals of their quarterly meetings should visit different parts of the country, as was the practice with the Lunacy Commissioners in Scotland, and report their observations to the Board, as was also the practice with the Lunacy Commissioners in England. There might be two paid officials named by Government, and with them there might be five or six elected members. He was sure there was patriotism sufficient in that country to secure competent men to discharge the necessary duties, and the elective principle would give great satisfaction. The late Lord Advocate had stated in the course of his speech that the Bill aimed at the destruction of the parochial schools of Scotland. It was well hon. Members should know what these schools really were. They did very much more than teach what was commonly called "the three R's." In Aberdeenshire an estate, now of the value of £3,000 a-year, had been left by Dr. John Milne of Bombay, formerly of his (Colonel Sykes') regiment, from which augmentations were made to the salaries of the masters of certain parochial schools. There were 89 participating schools in Aberdeenshire. What were the schoolmasters competent to teach? 88 schoolmasters taught geography, 74 mathematics, 74 Latin, 42 taught Greek, and 18 taught French. In non-participating schools which have the same headings of teaching, and 27 in number, the whole 27 schoolmasters taught geography, 10 mathematics, 21 Latin, 4 Greek, and 2 French. How was it that the scholars or pupils were capable of being taught those higher branches of education? Simply because the parish schoolmaster was a man who had gone through a University course. And how had he been able to do that? First in the parochial schools he got the elements of an educational system, which enabled him to go to Aberdeen and compete for a bursary of £15 or £20 per annum, which, with the frugal habits of a Scotch lad, sufficed for his support, at the University he got a degree of Arts, and then went back again as a schoolmaster, the increased salary rendering it worth his while, and with a degree of competence that few in England were able to obtain. No parochial school in England, indeed, few second-class schools, could teach the subjects accessible to a farmer's or shopkeeper's son in Scotland, and this was entirely owing to the cheapness and facilities for acquiring an University education in Scotland. In Clause 48 of this Bill there was no limit placed to the power of the school boards to tax the ratepayers. All those who were assessable to the poor rates were assessable to the school board. Surely there ought to be some limit placed upon this power. For the rest, he did not object to the measure as a whole, and should vote for the second reading, on the understanding that its provisions should be made more palatable to the people of Scotland in Committee.

said, that while anxious that the Bill should be read a second time, he must enter a strong protest against the way in which Scotch business was beginning to be dealt with this Session. The Home Secretary had honestly admitted to his constituents in his public address during last autumn that Scotland had been badly treated last Session. Scotch business was postponed in the interest of Ireland for the last two Sessions, and of that he made no complaint. He had been willing to stand aside, in the hope that, when pressing legislation for Ireland had been settled, Scotland would have her turn; but that evening a most important Scotch measure—a measure which had been mentioned in Her Majesty's gracious Speech—had discussion upon it limited to three or four hours, one-third of which time had been occupied by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gordon) who spoke first. That was a mode of proceeding to which he, for one, was entirely opposed, seeing that Scotch Members were this evening almost completely tongue-tied on an occasions affecting very materially the interests of their country. The Bill itself in its general principle should receive his most cordial support; but there were some details to which he wished to invite the attention of the Lord Advocate, in order that the objections which he entertained to them might, as far as possible, be obviated. He referred to the constitution of the school boards—the mode of election in which the system of nomination was retained, though it was about to be abolished in all Parliamentary and municipal elections, the cumulative vote, the absence of the Ballot, as well as of any qualification for those who might sit on the boards. He hoped his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would adopt a more stringent conscience clause, and remove the small remnant of denominationalism which was tacked to the end of the 74th clause, and would adopt the principle that the school boards, which would be possessed of unlimited powers of taxation, should contain no member who was not himself a ratepayer.

said, there was this difference between the present Bill and the Bill introduced in 1869—that whereas the Bill of 1869 proposed the establishment of a Scotch Board for the purpose of deciding where national schools should be set up in Scotland, no such Board was now proposed. But there was a very good reason why such a Board should not be established, in as much as his right hon. Friend found—and he was exceedingly glad he did find—that a national school could be established in every parish in Scotland. Consequently, there was no want of a Board in Edinburgh or anywhere else to decide where they should be established. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that his own experience in educational matters had shown there would be no advantage in having a Board between the Department which had to distribute the Parliamentary grant and the school board; and that, if they attempted to establish any such intermediary Board, it would prove to be a hindrance rather than an advantage. The Scotch Education Department proposed in this Bill was precisely the same as that established for England, but with the necessary exception—that, whereas there had heretofore been but one Educational Committee for both countries, there would now be a special one for each, and the Government proposed that that Member of the Government who was especially responsible for Scotch business should be added to the Scotch Education Department—namely, the Lord Advocate. That Scotch Department would be consulted whenever any change was proposed with regard to principles in the administration of the Committee of Privy Council in Scotland, or in the working of this Bill. He thought it would be a very bad thing for England, or for Scotland, if the daily administration of the Education Department were put into the hands of a Board rather than of the Minister at the head of this Department. The Government looked forward to there being a special permanent Scotch officer responsible for Scotch business in the office of the Scotch Education Department; so that in the daily working of the administration, Scotch feelings, Scotch views, and Scotch ideas would be consulted, and also with reference to any change of principle with regard to the distribution of the grant. He looked upon the Education Department as being an Imperial Department, and as being just as much Scotch as English. At that moment he was glad to say it was a good deal more Scotch than English. The Secretary of the Committee of Council on Education, a gentleman of whom he could not speak too highly, was a Scotchman; and the newly-appointed Assistant Secretary of the Committee, a gentleman of whom also he could not speak too highly, was a Scotchman, and in their new Code the Department had adopted many Scotch ideas. In reply to the observation of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell) that he had last year abandoned the principles he had previously announced with regard to educational matters, he would simply state to the House that he had never made, either there or out-of-doors, any statement which could be considered inconsistent in the slightest degree with the position he took last year in reference to the education question.

said, that if the Department had been limited to the distribution of the Privy Council grants, he should be satisfied with its constitution; but he found that in many places the local boards were entirely under the control of the Education Department, and he should, therefore, like to see a much more responsible Board sitting in Scotland. Indeed, the difficulty seemed to have occurred to the Government themselves, for in the 3rd clause they proposed that the Education Department should have it in their power, with the consent of the Treasury, to employ such officers in Scotland as they may adjudge necessary to perform the duties connected with the said Department. Now, if the duties were to distribute the fund, why not appoint a Central Board in Scotland, and let the local boards be subject to them, the Privy Council having the distribution of the funds as at the present time? He looked with suspicion on this proposal to have the same officers for England and Scotland. In the 2nd clause it was said—

"The said Scotch Education Department shall be at liberty to employ the same officers who may from time to time be employed by the Education Department for England."

He believed the result would be that the Education Department for Scotland would be merged in the Department for England, and that they would be subjected to the same rules and regulations as for England. He was sure that the Scottish people would not consent without a struggle to have that system of education done away with to which they had been so much indebted for the success of their sons in the battle of life, both at home and abroad. Regarding the local boards, he should like some qualification to be given to the members. With regard to the payments made by the heritors, this £40,000 or £50,000 was a simple educational rate put on 200 years ago, and trebled 10 years ago. He thought, therefore, the Lord Advocate, in proposing the change, had properly substituted one educational rate for another, and had properly relieved the heritors in this respect. He was glad to see that the Lord Advocate had put into the Bill the sums to be given for infant, evening, and industrial schools; but he was sorry that in respect to evening schools, he had limited the grants to places where there were at least 1,000 inhabitants. He (Mr. M'Lagan) would suggest that a limit should be made, not in reference to the population, but to the attendance at the schools. He had great hopes of the advantages to be derived from these evening schools, which should be encouraged as much as possible, especially in small villages.

said, that as no English Member had yet spoken, he wished to express his regret that more time had not been allowed for the discussion of this very important matter. He trusted that the Government would not suppose that everything in this Bill was assented to because English Members were silent. It must be understood that in Committee hon. Members should have full opportunity of discussing the principles of this Bill.

said, he had certainly no reason to complain of the debate of that night. He assumed that the second reading of the Bill would be taken without a Division. He would refer for a moment to the adverse criticisms of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Gordon). These criticisms were in entire accordance with the observations he made on the occasion when this measure was introduced. His hon. and learned Friend characterized it as a destruction of the system of parochial schools, and he made observations of the same character in criticizing the proposal of the Bill with respect to central authority. As to the parochial schools, it certainly was not the purpose of the Bill to destroy the parochial system of education. On the contrary, the purpose—the leading object — of the Bill was to strengthen and extend it. The system had become insufficient. Even in country districts the parish schools supplied education to a very small proportion of the children who required it, and the system had never been extended into the burghs at all. The purpose of the Bill was to enlarge the system in country districts, and to extend it into the towns, where heretofore it had no existence at all. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to regard as tantamount to destruction the change which the Bill proposed in the school boards. No doubt that change was considerable. The management at present was vested in a limited number of a limited class of heritors, with the minister of the parish. With the extension of the parochial system, which he hoped would follow upon the Bill, it would be necessary to provide more extensive funds than had hitherto been provided; it would therefore be necessary to extend the area of rating. Accordingly, it seemed impossible to him, with an extended school system and an enlarged area of rating, to leave the management in the confined condition in which it was at present. He proposed to do only what the law establishing the system, which had been so much lauded, originally did—namely, to make the management commensurate with the rating—to vest the management in those who paid. To say that there was any destruction of the Scotch school system because the management was to be in an elective body was a novel proposition to maintain in the House of Commons at the present day. The excellence of the Scotch parish schools was attributable to the excellence of the schoolmasters; and the influence of the parish schools had been owing in great measure to the mere fact of their existence. It early became a custom for parents to send their children there, and that custom had continued to the present day; so that some education was furnished to the children in every parish. But with regard to the extent to which the people of Scotland were indebted to those schools, he could not use such unmeasured language of laudation as his hon. and learned Friend had done. The Royal Commissioners reported that 75 per cent of these schools were good, leaving 25 per cent either indifferent or bad. And with regard to the Free Church schools, his recollection was that they said they were very much on a par with the schools under the parochial system. They were not first-rate any of them; but they had been assisted by a very efficient board, and were supplemental to the parochial schools, and were much of the same character. The Free Church schools have undoubtedly been a blessing to the country. He did not exactly understand what was meant by an expression which had been very frequently used by his hon. and learned Friend, "the peculiarities of the Scotch system of education." No doubt the parochial schools had furnished very excellent schoolmasters, which was attributable probably to this—that the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland were very moderately provided for; none of the great prizes which were so attractive in other Established Churches fell to their lot; they therefore came chiefly from the humbler classes — commonly from those boys who had shown an aptitude for learning in the parish schools, had been encouraged and sent to the University, and had found an intermediate resting-place between the school and the ministry in the office of the schoolmaster, and accordingly they had in most of the country schools in Scotland a schoolmaster with a University education, and he was able to take up boys who showed an aptitude for learning, and send them in the same course he proceeded himself; and so the Church was supplied with ministers and the schools with masters. That was not a peculiarity in the system of education. In England, he presumed, reading, writing, and arithmetic were taught in the same way as in Scotland. The Educational Department of the Privy Council — jealousy of which had been so freely expressed in the course of that debate—recognized the advantage of instruction in more than mere elementary knowledge. Geography, grammar, mathematics, Latin, Greek, and modern languages, were all provided for in the Revised Code. That was not a peculiarity of the Scotch system. They had schools in which Latin to a certain extent, and Greek to an infinitesimal extent, were taught; but there was no feeling, as far as he was aware, adverse to this among those who were charged with education in England. Now, a few words with regard to the central authority. His hon. and learned Friend asked—"Why depart from the provisions of the Bill which appeared good to the Government and to Parliament in 1869?" The Bill which he had now had the honour of laying upon the Table was in many important respects, with reference to the question he was now adverting to, at variance with the Bill of 1869. The Bill of 1869 proposed to establish a Scotch Board undoubtedly, but only one, which was to be at Edinburgh—it was not proposed to establish one in every parish and every burgh in the country. That Board was to have the exclusive power of determining when and where national schools were to be established. When that Central Board had determined that a national school was to be established in any locality, then a school committee was to be called into existence in that locality. But the one Board established by that Bill was the Central Board at Edinburgh. But by this Bill he would establish within six months after its passing a school board in every parish and district in Scotland. There would be plenty of school boards, and every one of them would be charged, with the duty within its own district which was proposed to be conferred on the Central Board at Edinburgh by the Bill of 1869 with respect to the whole of Scotland. Then the question arose, which did not arise in 1869—whether an intermediate Board was required between the parish or burgh boards and the central authority: which must, of necessity, be in London — not because there was any apprehension that the people of Scotland were not able to manage their own affairs, but because when Imperial money was to be given for any purpose it was considered desirable, if not essential, that the administration should be in a Government Department immediately answerable and amenable to the House of Commons. There was, as his hon. and learned Friend had pointed out, an exception in the case of the Irish Education Department; but from information which had reached him as the true lesson of experience that was not an example which it would be well to imitate. Even his hon. and learned Friend had referred to Ireland as a spoilt child, and that spoilt children are very troublesome to their parents. This conferring of a Board of Education on Ireland was one of those acts of over-kindness which induced a troublesome disposition on the part of the children. He therefore thought that they ought to avoid that exceptional instance; and, therefore, a central authority must exist in London for most important purposes. As the central authority was to administer Imperial money, it was interested to see that the local boards were not extravagant in the expenditure of the money raised by the rates that they imposed; for any extravagance in that direction would, according to the provisions of the Bill, lead to a corresponding increase in the expenditure of the Imperial money paid in grants. Therefore, it appeared to him that this provision was a natural one, and likely in its operation to be a useful and efficient check in every direction in which a check was required. His right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council had stated that the Department would be made a Scotch Department. Now, the very name "Scotch Department" had a power of virtue in it, for it was an intimation by Parliament that the administration in this matter was to be a Scotch administration. It was wrong to suppose that Scottish views and interests had been in any way overlooked in the framing of the Bill. An Education Department for Scotland would be created under the Bill, which would be empowered to take full cognizance of the wishes of the people of Scotland with regard to the education which they desired their children to get, and that Department would be able to act in all matters relating to local affairs. As he knew that the House was desirous to get to the next Question on the Paper, he should reserve any further observations he had to make on the details of the Bill for another occasion. He should now content himself with saying that the several suggestions thrown out by the various speakers who had taken part in the debate would receive his fullest consideration before the Bill passed into Committee, and that he should endeavour to make the Bill as agreeable to the House, and as valuable and useful to Scotland, as possible.

, in rising to move—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of Westmeath and certain parts adjoining, of Meath and King's County, the nature, extent, and effect of a certain unlawful combination and confederacy existing therein, and the best means of suppressing the same,"

said: I need hardly attempt to describe the feelings of painful dismay with which I undertake the task now before me, for, in addition to the want of experience and knowledge of Irish affairs under which I labour, I have to approach a most difficult and distressing question, which has perplexed English statesmen for many years—namely, the manner in which Irish crime should be dealt with by Parliament. Under these circumstances it may be excusable, though it may not be wise, if, to begin with, I approach the most agreeable part of my subject. I feel, then, a pleasure to be able to say that the condition of Ireland as regards crime has during the last year very greatly and sensibly improved. Those who recollect the condition of Ireland for a much longer period than I can, will be able to make their own comparisons as to the state of things that existed in that country within their own recollection, and that which exists at the present time. They can contrast the present comparative quietude and peace in that country with the scenes of almost open warfare and bloodshed which they can recall to their recollection. I shall not go back to any distance of time, but I shall be satisfied if I can point out to the House, as I think I can, that within the last year there has been a great and material improvement in the state of Ireland. It will be within the recollection of the House that during the last winter and spring agrarian and other crimes were very prevalent in that country, but that a great improvement in that respect has taken place, the proof of which can be traced in many ways. For instance, the assizes in different circuits are approaching, and there is hardly at any of them any considerable number of cases coming on for Crown prosecution. That circumstance, however, is not always the test of peace, for unfortunately when crime is rife it is often not possible to detect the criminals to a sufficient degree to bring them to trial in the Courts of Justice; but the reports received from the constabulary, who specially report every instance of violence and crime throughout the country, equally show a remarkable improvement. Within the last months of last winter, the months of January, February, and March, the number of offences specially reported by the constabulary was—in January, 713; in February, 601; and in March, 741; while in the first four months of the present winter the number was in October 224, in November 255, in December 204, and in the past January 231. If we compare the state of Ireland now with that of last winter with respect to those crimes classed in the criminal statistics as agrarian, the comparison is still more satisfactory. Whereas in January of last winter the number was 391, in February 303, and in March 356, the number in the first four months of the present winter was in October 11, in November 30, in December 20, and in January 35. I do not wish the House for one moment to believe that I attribute this great improvement—for a great improvement it is—to that course of remedial legislation which it has been the pride of this side of the House to initiate during the two last Sessions of Parliament. I am aware that we have had in operation during the present winter the Peace Preservation Act, which conferred on the Government powers considerably exceeding those ordinarily in the hands of the Government; but I claim for the Government the credit of having used both the ordinary and the extraordinary powers which have been placed in their hands with vigour, firmness, and decision. During the past year it has only been necessary for the Government to issue but one Special Commission, but that has been attended with results of the best character. We have in every disaffected part of the country prosecuted the most vigourous searches for fire-arms, which have resulted in a large number of them having been taken from the hands of the disloyal and criminal classes. The constabulary force has been augmented in every disturbed district; experienced detectives have been employed in certain parts of the country not with all the effect that might have been expected, but still not altogether without effect; constant patrols have been established wherever, in the opinion of the constabulary, they could be of advantage, and the Attorney General and the Crown Solicitor have been instructed personally to undertake every case which appeared to be of any unusual gravity, and they have discharged their duty in a most satisfactory manner. Altogether, therefore, I assert that at no time within the recollection of any Member in this House, have the powers of the law been more vigorously, and at the same time more impartially, executed. This is an answer to those observations made in so fair, candid, and generous a spirit by the right hon. Gentleman opposite a few nights ago. I do not ask for a Committee of this House, nor do I wish the right hon. Gentleman to inquire how Ireland is to be regenerated or governed. We hope and believe that time and wise legislation will regenerate Ireland, and meanwhile the present Government is determined, as much as any Government has been, to exercise the powers conferred on them by Parliament, and to govern Ireland according to law. I now come to the painful exceptions from the general tranquillity alluded to in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, and those exceptions occurred principally in the counties referred to in the Notice of Motion I have placed on the Paper—namely, in the county of Westmeath, and certain small districts bordering on that county, in King's County and Meath. In respect to the figures I shall have to lay before the House I shall not have much to say in reference to Meath and King's County, and, probably, it might not have been necessary to include them in the Notice before the House, had it not been that we thought it better that the Committee to be appointed should not be fettered by any rigid line of boundary, but should be able to extend the inquiry, if they thought fit, beyond the circumstances of Westmeath to what has happened on its border. In Westmeath there has also been some diminution in the number of those offences which are classed under the head of agrarian crimes during the last winter; but I am sorry to say there has been a marked increase in the more serious class of crimes. In 1869 there were two murders and two attempts to murder in Westmeath; in 1870 there were four murders and seven attempts at murder; and in the past winter there have happened three murders and two attempts at murder; and in January of this year there occurred one further attempt to murder. In King's County there were in 1869 one murder and one attempt to murder; in 1870 two attempts; and in January, 1871, one attempt. In Meath, I am happy to say, there has been no serious attempt at crime; but, in the statement I shall have further on to make, I have reason to suppose that that part of Meath is as much subject to the Riband conspiracy as any part of Westmeath or King's County. Perhaps the House will allow me to read the particulars of two murders, which will show in a clearer manner than the mere recapitulation of statistics what is the nature of the crime with which we have to deal. The first occurred on the 25th of November last, and was as follows:—

"Francis Dowling, an Army pensioner, steward to Messrs. Perry, of Ballinagore Mills, when returning from his office in the evening, and about entering the gatehouse where he resided, was fired at and shot dead by some person unknown, who, from the impression made by his knee when taking aim, appears to have been concealed about two or three yards on Dowling's right. Four pellets struck Dowling. Deceased was an inoffensive man, and generally liked. About two years ago a man was dismissed from Messrs. Perry's employment. He was succeeded by Dowling. Revenge for this is the only motive assigned for the crime. Messrs. Perry have been three times noticed by threatening letters to discharge four persons, of whom Dowling was one, and about six months ago were informed that a man was told off to shoot Dowling. Two men were arrested (one of whom was the party dismissed), but both were discharged for want of evidence."

The next case to which I wish to call particular attention is that of the murder of a process server on the 29th of December last, and is as follows:—

"Thomas Waters, process server, was found by a police patrol one mile from Mullingar, at 11 o'clock, p.m., shot dead, his body still warm. There were three bullet wounds in his left breast. The Rev. Mr. Crofton, of Louth, about a month ago resolved upon evicting a notorious Riband leader, who had refused to pay an increased rent, but so great was the dread of this man that no one could be found to serve the ejectment notice. Waters at last undertook the task. His death deprives the landlord of proof that the notice was served, and the tenant in question will, in consequence, retain his farm for six months longer. It is believed that this crime was resolved on and carried out under the directions of the Riband conspiracy. The police repeatedly warned deceased of the danger of associating with known members of that society, and frequently escorted him (contrary to his wish) part of the way home. Three persons, all notorious Ribandmen, have been arrested. One of the three was seen drinking with Waters during the entire day of the murder."

I regret to say that the three persons arrested on suspicion of having been concerned in this crime have been discharged for want of evidence. I will not refer to any other serious cases that have occurred, because there are persons in custody against whom there is more or less evidence, and with respect to whom there is more or less hope of obtaining a conviction; and therefore it will not be right, whilst their trials are pending, that I should say anything respecting their cases. These statements of actual murder and of attempt to murder within the limits of a small county are certainly bad enough; but I regret to say that does not complete the whole of my case. All these acts of violence are, we have reason to believe, the work of a Riband society in Westmeath, which has long been known as the centre and stronghold of that society. It has, no doubt, broken out at various times in other parts of Ireland, and it has, no doubt, also inflicted upon society in other parts of Ireland very grave and serious injury. In other parts of Ireland, I am happy to say, it appears almost to have disappeared; but in Westmeath, and on the borders of that county, it still continues to be in existence. That it is nothing new in Westmeath I think the following figures will prove. From a Return extending from the years 1848 to 1870 it appears that 40 persons died from violence within the county of Westmeath, and in 12 only of those cases were convictions obtained. In addition to these 40 cases there were 54 persons fired at, and in five of these only were convictions obtained. Probably, most hon. Members know as well as I do what is the nature and object of a Riband society. Originally it had something of a religious and political character about it. I believe it began as a Roman Catholic organization for the protection of its adherents against the Orange society; later, however, it assumed a very different aspect, and devoted itself chiefly to enforcing a set of rules framed by its leaders for regulating the relationships between landlord and tenant; more recently, it has again assumed a religious character to a certain extent, but it still continues to take notice of breaches of its rules as regards landlord and tenant, and even interferes between employer and employed. This leads me to another part of the case—which is, that not only have these violent attempts prevailed to the extent I have described in the county of Westmeath, and not only do we suppose them to be the work of a secret society, but the information we receive from the resident magistrates, from the constabulary, and from private persons induces us to think that this society exercises an influence which no statistics I can lay upon the Table of the House will indicate sufficiently. The reports we receive show that such a state of terrorism prevails that the society has only to issue its edict to secure obedience; nor has it even to issue its edict, its laws are so well known, and an infringement of them is followed so regularly by murderous outrage, that few, indeed, can treat them with defiance. Riband law, and not the law of the land, appears to be that which is obeyed. It reaches to such an extent that no landlord dare exercise the most ordinary of rights pertaining to land; and no farmer, employer, or agent dare exercise his own judgment or discretion as to whom he shall or shall not employ; in fact, so far does the influence of the society extend that a man scarcely dare enter into open competition in the fairs or markets with anyone known to belong to the society. Under these circumstances, inquiry will naturally arise as to the powers given under the additional law passed last Session. We have already said what has been done by the Government with regard to the preservation of peace throughout the country. All those measures which I have before enumerated have been still more strictly carried out in the case of Westmeath and the neighbourhood. The ordinary police force in Westmeath has been added to by, I think, 130 men; additional stations, too, have been established wherever an outrage has occurred or is apprehended; the cost of these additional stations has been in many instances defrayed out of a tax upon the inhabitants; the police have arrested numerous persons under the provisions of the Act of last year for being out at night under suspicious circumstances; but in very few of these cases have the magistrates been able to inflict the penalties of the law, because those persons who were arrested had taken good care that they were out on business, and that they had a lawful and also an additional excuse; patrols have been established wherever a constabulary officer had reason to believe they were necessary, and special protection has been given in many cases to persons supposed to be in danger. So far have the precautions of the constabulary reached that in some cases some of the worst characters have been almost constantly watched; but so perfect and complete has been the character and organization of this conspiracy, that the constabulary have attributed but little importance to precautions like these. They believe the Riband leaders can concert measures and project a scheme of retaliation by the meeting of two or three men in the road or in the middle of a fair. An outrage can thus be planned within earshot of the police, and all the necessary arrangements be made with a precision which could not be exceeded if the conspirators assembled in a secret meeting place. I need not say that the Irish Government, that my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and myself have made most careful inquiries to see whether the police and magistrates possess any powers which they have not yet used; but they have conclusively shown us that even the additional powers of the Act of last year have not been sufficient to cope with this conspiracy of Westmeath and its neighbourhood. Now, if this state of things really exists—and it can be too readily proved—the Government say, and I say to the House, that it is an intolerable state of things. The Government are prepared to admit it, and we say that we are determined to apply to the House for a remedy. What we propose to-night to do is this—to lay the facts which I have stated, and other facts which are too long to lay before the House now—to lay all these facts before a Committee of this House. We ask to have a Committee to join with us in thoroughly sifting and attempting to elucidate these facts. We do not ask the Committee to provide us with a remedy. We feel that to be the duty of the Government. But we do think we may fairly ask the Committee to assist us in examining into these facts, and into the state of things which I have described. Bad as the case is, it is not one which we think requires legislation in haste or in panic. There has been quite enough of hasty legislation, and we believe that any legislation not based upon a full and complete knowledge of the extent of the evil, and of the nature of the evil, and of the cause or causes of the evil, would fail in its object. We ask, then, that a Committee of the House should examine with us into the facts which I have laid before them, and we ask this for several reasons. First, we ask this Committee for our own assistance. It may, of course, be said that we have within our own reach all the necessary means of obtaining information. We have, no doubt, the information of responsible magistrates; we have the information of the constabulary officers; we have the information which can be given us by the officers of the law, and I should be the last person to disparage the value and the accuracy of the information which those officers can give us. Still, even with regard to them, we do not think it will be amiss that their knowledge and experience, that their observations and the results of their observations, should be thoroughly investigated by impartial and independent means. We think that new light may be obtained by bringing new minds to bear upon the Committee. In addition to that, we desire to obtain the assistance and knowledge which can be provided by persons whose information is not readily accessible by the Government. We hope and expect that local magistrates will come forward and give us their information. We hope that employers of labour will come forward and tell us what they know. In short, we hope that persons of all classes and creeds, who are acquainted with the inhabitants, with their habits, and with their manners, will come forward and give us independent information upon this subject. And although, no doubt, the Irish Government have endeavoured to obtain as full information from those sources as they could, still we believe that a Committee of the House of Commons will have the means and opportunity of obtaining further information, and of sifting it in a more thorough and complete manner. That is one reason why we ask for this Committee. And the next reason why we ask for a Committee is in justice to ourselves and the House. It is possible—I do not know how that may be, but it is possible—that the House might, upon the statement I have made, be willing to admit that the case was proved, and to give the Government any powers which they might think fit to ask. But, Sir, I think the House, in taking such a course, would evade that responsibility which properly belongs to it. [Cries of "No, no!" and "The Government!"] I think, Sir, that the case does not depend on the mere figures which I have been able to lay before the House, nor upon the assertions which I have made, though I think them capable of being proved. I believe that the House has the means of obtaining full and sufficient proof of them, and I think the House would evade the responsibility which belongs to it if they took for granted from any Minister a statement of facts which they themselves have the opportunity of proving to their own satisfaction. The House does not, in ordinary cases, take for granted any statement made by a Minister on the introduction of a Bill; but the House examines for itself all such statements, and the grounds on which they are made. Why, then, in a case like this, when grave and great constitutional questions are involved, is the House to evade its responsibility, and refuse to examine the facts and grounds upon which a measure is to be laid before it? And, lastly, we ask for an inquiry in justice to the people of Ireland. We know the use that will be made by all the enemies of order and peace and of this country in Ireland, of any proposal made by the Government for additional and stringent powers. We know that the use made of it would be extended far beyond the district with which we are particularly concerned with to-night. We know that the evil results arising from misrepresentation would extend over the whole of Ireland, and we therefore think that, before we ask for additional powers, before we expose the whole country to the risk of mischief by asking for this inquiry, it is due to the people of Ireland that they should have the opportunity of coming forward and testifying to the truth or the falsehoods of the statements which have been made with regard to a small portion of their country, or of showing that they have been exaggerated. It is due to them to have an opportunity of saying that these evils exist in Westmeath only, and do not exist elsewhere. It is due to them that they should have an opportunity of denying any participation in these crimes and in this conspiracy. These are the grounds upon which we think we may fairly ask the House to enter with us into an examination of the facts. We do not shrink from any responsibility that properly belongs to us; but we do say that the House, no more than the Government, has any right to evade the responsibility which properly belongs to it. I repeat that, in asking the House for a Committee to inquire into the facts, we have no desire to ask the Committee to suggest a remedy. Upon the facts so established, as I believe they would be before a Committee, the Government will be prepared, as I have said before, to legislate. The Government think the state of things intolerable, and a remedy they are determined to find, if not within, then without, the ordinary limits of the Constitution. Now, as to the terms of the Motion, there are two observations which I desire to make to the House. The first relates to the words in the Motion, "the nature, extent, and effect of a certain unlawful combination and confederacy existing therein." These words may seem to some Members of the House to be pedantic, but they have been chosen as the description applied to the Riband conspiracy in a former Act of Parliament. These words have been chosen to show the nature of the inquiry into the state of Westmeath, and the nature of the conspiracy generally known by that name. The other observation is this—that I have added at the end of the Motion that the Committee are to inquire into "the best means of suppressing the same." Now, these words form part of the Motion, because I thought it probable and desirable that many witnesses who would come before the Committee, would wish not only to state the facts with which they are acquainted, but to state what in their opinion is the remedy that should be applied. I do not think it the least desirable that the witnesses should be precluded from giving their opinion on this subject. But I am quite aware that those words have been misunderstood and misapprehended. I am quite aware they have been misunderstood as meaning that we have asked the Committee not only to enter into an examination of the facts, but to provide a remedy. I am glad to state that that is not the meaning of the Government, and rather than that any false impression of the sort should exist, I will willingly consent either to alter the words referred to, or to omit them altogether, provided always it be understood that the witnesses shall not thereby be precluded from expressing an opinion as to the remedy they would suggest. Now, I come to one point of which a great deal has been made, and in respect to which much misapprehension exists, and that is the Notice which I gave upon the matter, but which does not form any part of the Motion — namely, that the Committee should be a Secret Committee. When the Government decided to move for the appointment of this Committee, we considered what evidence it would be possible to bring before it. In addition to the evidence to which I have already referred, it appeared to us that a good deal of evidence, and probably a good deal of valuable evidence, might be obtained from persons resident in the country, if they were not under the apprehension that their evidence would be published in the newspapers. It was thought desirable, therefore, that the Committee should have the power of giving gentlemen who may be willing to be examined the protection of secresy. It has been my duty to examine the question as to what sort of protection the Committee could give. I found that there are only two descriptions of Committees known in this House—the ordinary Select Committees and Committees of Secresy. The only difference between the two, I believe, consists in this—that a Secret Committee is one at which not even a Member of this House has a right to be present. The ordinary Select Committee has a right of excluding the public whenever it thinks fit, but, of course, secresy in the case of any particular witness would be defeated if one or two Members of the House insisted on the right of being present. Therefore, following the precedents which we have upon the records of this House, I gave Notice on the part of the Government of their intention to make this a Secret Committee—that is to say, to the extent of giving the Committee power to exclude the public and also Members of this House whenever, in the opinion of the Committee, this was necessary for the protection of witnesses. But there never was any intention—and if hon. Members will refer to the precedents they will find that the appointment of a Secret Committee does not necessarily involve any intention—of making this a Committee to sit altogether with closed doors. It was always intended that the question of secresy should be left entirely to the Committee itself; that the greater part of its investigations should be conducted as usual, but that they should have the power of affording to witnesses the protection of secresy whenever in their opinion this might become necessary. But I am not surprised that this part of the subject has led to a great deal of remark, and has been very much misunderstood; and I will frankly admit to the House that the precedents to which we must go back for the appointment of Secret Committees are not precedents derived from the best periods of our history. It is not satisfactory to go back to the years 1812 and 1818 for precedents of Secret Committees to inquire into public matters. It is true that there has been, at a later date, a Committee of Secresy, but that was an investigation of a very different nature—an inquiry into the Bank Acts. But to go back to precedents which are strictly applicable to this case, we should have to refer to the precedents of 1812 and 1818. The Government, seeing how much this matter has been misunderstood, have considered the matter again, and they prefer rather to make a deviation from the established practice than return to those precedents. We propose to leave the matter of secresy entirely in the hands of the Committee. We propose that the Committee shall be appointed precisely in the ordinary manner; and if, in the course of their inquiry, they should think that by sitting with closed doors they can obtain evidence which they would not otherwise procure, then the Committee will come to the House and ask for the necessary authority, and the Government will give them all the assistance in their power. ["Oh! oh!"] That is the way the Government proposes to leave the matter. I myself do not believe it makes much difference whether the Committee is a secret one or not. I believe that witnesses such as I have described will be willing to come forward whether the Committee is a secret one or whether it is not; if they would be afraid to come and give their evidence openly it is very probable they would be afraid to give it even before a Secret Committee. Still, if the Committee should think that they would be able to obtain evidence in this manner which otherwise they would be unable to do, it will be always in their power to come to this House and ask for leave to sit with closed doors. I am told that the appointment of this Committee is going to be opposed. I do not know upon what ground the opposition will rest. Certainly, I shall be surprised if it be opposed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. For there is a precedent in point; it is not necessary to go back to 1812 or 1818, for the appointment of a similar Committee. I find that in 1852 a Committee to inquire into a very similar state of things in the counties of Armagh, Monaghan, and Louth was appointed by this House on the Motion of Mr. Napier, the Irish Attorney General of the Government with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was then connected. That Committee was appointed without any such statement on the part of the Government as I have been authorized to make to-night—that the Government were prepared to take any responsibility whatever in putting an end to the existing state of things. Mr. Napier, on the part of Lord Derby's Government, simply told the House of the state of things in those counties, and asked for a Committee to inquire into the facts and to suggest a remedy. The Government, as far as I can see, took no responsibility whatever upon themselves for the appointment of that Committee. As far, also, as I am able to discover, no person in this House took any objection to the appointment. Therefore, whatever may be the grounds upon which the appointment of this Committee is going to be opposed to-night, I can hardly imagine that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have set us the example of resorting to this means of obtaining information for themselves, will grudge us a like opportunity of obtaining information which we are anxious to acquire. I am perfectly aware that the proposal I now have to make will expose us to innumerable taunts as to the failure of what is called our system of remedial legislation. I know that, very shortly, we shall hear some criticisms, not of the most agreeable character, upon remedial legislation in general, and upon our policy of conciliation. But even if the proposal which I have now to make involved the most ample confession of mistake and failure, I believe Her Majesty's Government would not shrink from proposing to Parliament that which they felt it the duty of Parliament to undertake. But I beg to say for myself, and for the Government, that I do not feel in the least that I appear here in the character of a penitent in a white sheet, or that the proposal which I now make involves any confession of failure on the part of the Government. I certainly never heard any Gentleman on this side of the House say that the establishment of religious equality or the passing of a law regulating the tenure of land in Ireland would put a stop to the Riband conspiracy. I think it would have been the height of insanity for anybody to say so. I cannot see on what possible ground it could be imagined that the establishment of equal and just legislation should have any effect on the minds of men who have a system of laws of their own—not just laws, but the most unjust, the most arbitrary, the most tyrannical, and the most barbarous. I cannot conceive what sympathy such men could have with good legislation. And, therefore, I cannot imagine on what grounds it could enter into the mind of any man that justice, as applied to Ireland, would have the immediate effect of putting down Ribandism. I know it has been said—and I believe it to be true—that Ribandism and other forms of disaffection in Ireland derive their chief strength from the sympathy of the people. I believe that this strength is partly derived from this sympathy of the people, and partly from the fear which these organizations inspire in the minds of the people. But I believe, also, that sympathy with these forms of disaffection is waning day by day under the influence of just government; and I believe that the Government will, with the assistance of this Committee and of the House, be enabled to pass such measures as will, in a short time, put an end to that fear which is the other formidable weapon in the hands of these conspirators.

said: The noble Lord commenced his observations by confessing the sentiment of dismay with which he rose to make the proposition with which he has terminated his speech, and I quite sympathized with the noble Lord. I thought it was a sentiment most natural, and it did him great honour, in my opinion, to be under its influence at that moment. Considering how the House of Commons has passed the last two years; the sacrifices which have been proposed and which have been submitted to, the unceasing vigilance, the teeming device, the constant energy, the great exertions that never have been wanting; remembering how legislation has been carried on to the exclusion of all subjects of Imperial interest but those which related to Ireland; how England has submitted to the postponement of measures of great importance, and Scotland has given up that darling scheme of national education which we have found so interesting and entertaining this evening; and viewing what apparently is the result of two years of constant legislation by a Government elected for the purpose of introducing an entirely new system in the administration of Ireland, and which cannot for a moment pretend that it has not been supported generously by the House in any of the measures which it deemed necessary to consummate this great end, I can quite understand, or, at least, I could quite understand, until the closing observations of the noble Lord, that he rose under a feeling of some dismay. But, according to the noble Lord, in his concluding sentence, there is no reason whatever why he should be dismayed—the state of Ireland at present, in the instance of this disturbed county and the adjoining districts, is exactly that which we ought to have expected. He tells us that religious equality, that agricultural equity—great ends which have been attained under his administration—were never for a moment to be counted on as a means by which a state of society such as he now introduces to our notice could be ameliorated. If that be the case why should the noble Lord be dismayed? The noble Lord should pluck up his courage. If he is to succeed in the singular proposition he has made to-night, he should have come forward, not as a daunted, but rather as a triumphant Minister. He should have said—"It is true that murder is perpetrated with impunity; it is true that life is not secure, and that property has no enjoyment and scarcely any use; but this is nothing when, in the enjoyment of abstract political justice—and by the labours of two years we have achieved that for Ireland — massacres, incendiarism, and assassinations are things scarcely to be noticed by a Minister, and are rather to be referred to the inquiry of a Committee." Now, after the somewhat perplexing address of the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, let me recall the attention of the House to the position in which hon. Members find themselves to-night, after the Notice which was given 48 hours ago. Suddenly the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant comes down and announces the appointment of a Secret Committee to consider the state of a portion of Ireland, and not only to consider its state of combination and confederacy against the law, but also to devise means for suppressing the same. That was the way in which the question was put before us. Now, however, we are told it is not to be a Secret Committee; but have the Government well considered the effect of making such an announcement to the world, and expressing an opinion that it was necessary to have a Secret Committee to consider the condition of a portion of Ireland? Why, the telegraphic cable must have flashed the announcement to America 48 hours ago, and what do you think must have been the effect of it on those treasonable confederacies which are always in action—and are at this moment in action, as we know—against the authority of England? What must have been the effect of such an announcement? It must have produced a conviction in their minds that the Government found the whole state of society in Ireland undermined, and that the authority of the Queen was in imminent danger. To announce 48 hours after this that it is not the intention of the Government to propose a Secret Committee, indicates a tone of levity in dealing with a great question which ought not to pass unnoticed. Surely a Minister who proposes a Secret Committee on the condition of Ireland, by that proposition alone incurs the gravest responsibility. Now, to-night we find it is not to be a Secret Committee, and then, to our great surprise, we find it is also a Committee which is not to devise means for remedying the evils complained of. Then what is the Committee to do? Observe the description of this district of Ireland, where there are not only these evils, but these spreading evils—observe the description of it given by the Minister. It is brief, and terse in the extreme. He tells us it is intolerable. He tells us the state of Ireland is intolerable—["No, no!"]—that the state of a great portion of Ireland is intolerable, and therefore will want inquiry. ["No, no!"] Well, that the state of a county in Ireland is intolerable. Is it reduced to that? Is a county in a state so intolerable that you must come to a Senate to ask for a Committee to inquire into it? Can you not get out of the difficulty without coming to the House of Commons, and asking it to appoint a Secret Committee to devise means to govern a county? Well, Sir, secresy is given up and devising means are given up; so the question is—"What is this Committee to do?" Every impartial Member on either side of the House must have felt the difficulty, and asked himself that question. Why, the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant gave us ample explanations as to the various means by which he might have gained complete information on all points which the Government required to guide them in order to meet the evils of this district; and, indeed, under the very Act which we passed last year, they have powers—extraordinary powers; so that, for instance, if there is a felony committed in a district, they can summon witnesses before them and examine them, even although such witnesses may not be connected with the felony. Why, what power has a Committee of the House of Commons, compared with this power? I would impress on the House the inexpediency of assenting to a Committee which is to relieve the Government from their responsibility as an Executive. But the noble Lord, who says he will never appear in the sheet of a penitent, and holding the taper of remorse, told us to-night that, whatever the original intentions of the Government were, it is not their intention now to ask this Committee to devise any means to suppress the evils of which they complain, and which they describe as intolerable. I would say myself at once that, so far as I am concerned, I am perfectly prepared to support the Government in any demand they may make upon their own responsibility to terminate an evil which they describe, and I believe justly describe, as intolerable. There is no need to enter into an antiquated history of the horrors of Ribandism to induce the House of Commons to come to this conclusion. We know the evil. We have long heard of the evil, and of the perpetration of these new crimes and these new horrors; and I was only astonished that in Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne they were not referred to with more distinctness. We have recently had from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland an announcement with reference to them which prepared us for the legislation which I suppose the Government will come forward and propose; and if the Government would come forward and propose a remedy, I think I might venture to answer for every Gentleman on this side of the House that he would give it an unflinching support. The evil is intolerable and ought to be put down, and we are prepared to support Her Majesty's Government if, in the exercise of their constitutional functions, they come forward and propose a measure, instead of asking the House of Commons to enter upon an inquiry into the matter. The matter is urgent, and the business of a Committee is necessarily always long. A Committee—to do what—to examine officers of the Government, to examine magistrates, to call for information from a miscellaneous multitude of witnesses? Why, a Committee of Inquiry for such purposes is always in existence. It is the Cabinet of the Queen. They have the best information, and they are selected men, who are supposed to be most competent to decide on that information; and on the results of their deliberations and on their convictions they ought to introduce a measure, and not move for a Committee, when the state of an Irish county is intolerable. Let the Standing Orders be suspended if the case is urgent. The noble Lord has made some reference, from that richness of precedent with which he has been crammed on this occasion, to what occurred in 1852, and, in the midst of the distress of this regenerating Government of Ireland, supported by a hundred legions, and elected by an enthusiastic people, in order to terminate the grievances of that country and secure its contentment and tranquillity he must needs dig up our poor weak Government of 1852, and say—"There was Mr. Napier, your Attorney General, he moved for a Committee, and you were a Member of that Cabinet." If I had had a majority of 100 behind my back I would not have moved for that Committee. I did the best I could, and I passed a good Bill by a respectable majority. But was the situation in which I was placed similar to the situation of Her Majesty's present Ministers? Look for a moment to the relations which this Government bear to the House of Commons with regard to the administration of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) was elected for a specific purpose; he was the Minister who alone was capable to cope with these long-enduring and mysterious evils that had tortured and tormented the civilization of England. The right hon. Gentleman persuaded the people of England that with regard to Irish politics he was in possession of the philosopher's stone. Well, Sir, he has been returned to this House with an immense majority, with the object of securing the tranquillity and content of Ireland. Has anything been grudged him? Time, labour, devotion—whatever has been demanded has been accorded, whatever has been proposed has been carried. Under his influence and at his instance we have legalized confiscation, consecrated sacrilege, and condoned high treason; we have destroyed churches, we have shaken property to its foundation, and we have emptied gaols; and now he cannot govern a county without coming to a Parliamentary Committee! The right hon. Gentleman, after all his heroic exploits, and at the head of his great majority, is making Government ridiculous. If he persists in this absurd suggestion I shall leave it to fortune to decide what may be its results. If he will bring forward a measure—an adequate measure—a measure which will meet the evil, he will be supported. The late Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) knows very well what is the measure that will meet the evil, because he plaintively asked the magistrates at Meath what he should propose to help them out of their difficulties, and they met in quarter sessions, passed a resolution, and told him what was necessary. What the magistrates told the late Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant will be the groundwork, the gist, and the pith of the measure which Her Majesty's Government must bring forward. Under certain circumstances they will have to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act; but after the flashy speeches of the right hon. Gentleman opposite upon that subject we must have a Parliamentary Committee as a veil in order that he may save his self-love.

, who had given Notice of his intention to move the Previous Question said, that the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland originally gave Notice of his intention to move the appointment of a Select Committee, including an inquiry not merely into the disturbed state of the county of Westmeath, but of a portion of the county of which he had the honour to represent (King's County), as well as of the county of Meath, and also the best means of suppressing the same. As representing one of the counties to be affected by the inquiry—an inquiry which in its terms suggested legislation to follow upon inquiry—and that inquiry being suggested as of a secret character, he deemed it his duty to his constituents to give Notice of his intention to oppose the formation of that Committee. The omission of the element of secresy materially altered the nature of the case. Secresy naturally suggested suspicion. No matter how high might be the character of that Committee—no matter how respectable might be the witnesses summoned before it, the moral impression left on the country arising from a secret inquiry and the decision of a secret tribunal would never have satisfied those who would have been effected by the legislation that the inquiry had been fair and impartial. The result of all legislation, in reference to crime ought to be not merely to prevent crime, but to satisfy those in the community who had no sympathy with the criminals that justice had been done. The investigation before the Committee would not have obtained that result. He submitted, however, that the suggestion of the noble Lord, although an alteration in terms of his original Motion, would still leave on the minds of the people of Ireland the impression of secresy, because he had informed the House that the Committee would have power to apply to the House from time to time for powers enabling them to exclude strangers, and carry on their investigations with closed doors. Now, the Committee, consisting of a large portion of official Members, would, he presumed, think it their duty to accept the suggestion and adopt the hint thus thrown out. And the Committee, whether directly secret or indirectly secret, would never satisfy the people that the inquiry had been a fair one, and that no undue means had been resorted to in order to obtain information which was not strictly accurate, and did not represent the actual condition of the parts of the country affected. It was a very important fact that in King's County, which would be affected by the inquiry, there had not been a single murder since 1869; and, therefore, so far as that county was concerned, there did not appear to be any pressing necessity for legislation to suppress any increase of crime in that county. The noble Lord had stated that the means which had been resorted to consequent upon the legislation of last year, had been of the most strenuous and energetic character. The country had been patrolled, a Special Commission had been appointed, the police had been increased, and every power that could be used by the Government had been brought into operation. And all to do what? To restore peace to this county, which had been destroyed by a very small band of men, who, if they were not affected by the entire power of the British Government—who, if they were not subdued by its patrols and increased police, still continued in the exercise of their nefarious pursuits, notwithstanding the coercive legislation of the Government, because we had had these inquiries, and this legislation, and these Preservation Acts year after year—and the Act of last Session was suggestive of this—that it referred to various Acts of Parliament commencing 30 years ago, all of them having the same objects in view, all of them being coercive in their character, and all of them failing to procure the end which was now suggested as the result of this present inquiry—the unity of Ireland. Well, it appeared to him, that if coercive measures had failed, they should look to some other measures — to some other cause for the origin of these offences, and to some other means of repressing them. The cases adverted to by the noble Lord were not agrarian offences. The murder of a steward arose out of a private quarrel, and that of the process server from a too strenuous discharge of his functions; and in neither case was the original cause of quarrel any dispute about land. It might be said that the well-conducted portion of society ought to have no objection to the introduction of a measure which would merely affect the ill-disposed, and those who were likely to commit crime, and which would not prejudice or affect those members of society who were not amenable to the law, because they had not committed such crimes. But they had been told by the noble Lord that additional sums had been imposed for the employment of supernumerary policemen, consequent on the committing of the crimes. Now these Peace Preservation Acts had operated sometimes with considerable injustice to those who had in no way participated in the crimes committed. As an instance in point, he might refer to the case of the King's County, in which there had been only one attempt to murder in the course of the last six months. It was a very extraordinary case, and one illustrating the hardship which resulted from the passing of these coercive measures to those who had no connection with the crime. The case was this—A small farmer, with seven acres of land, became embarrassed in circumstances several years ago. Being unable to pay his debts, he made over his farm to one of his creditors, and went to America. After living in America for a number of years he returned home, and hearing that his creditor had repaid himself by the possession of the farm, he asked him if he would restore it. The new occupant refused, and disputes and altercations arose, and the landlord, a gentleman of small property, kindly interfered to restore peace, but without effect. The debtor returned to America, but intimated, on going away, that he would have his revenge, and shortly after he left this country his creditor was fired at one Sunday on his way to church. His wife was wounded. Now, what had been the result? Additional police had been placed on the townland in charge of the house of the man. The burden of this would fall on the tenants of the gentleman who tried to reconcile these parties—very small tenants and poor men, and if they paid this assessment they would not be able to pay their rents. In addition, the domain land of the gentleman was also largely assessed. Now, there was the man who had exerted himself to the very utmost of his power to prevent this crime made to suffer for it. In a parish in Westmeath, in consequence of an exemption of Protestants from a similar tax, a meeting was held, and a resolution passed by the Catholics, condemning the invidious distinction as one only calculated to excite and sustain religious animosities, and tend to promote disorder; and the meeting protested against the assumption that Catholics were not as loyal as Protestants, and declared that they were as loyal. In the raising of such a tax there was a departure from strict impartiality; and if this Committee were appointed, he would suggest that the inquiry should be extended to the mode in which these assessments were levied, and whether there had been any partiality in the levying of them. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had borne testimony to the general tranquillity of Ireland. He could say for his own county—of King's County—that peace did prevail, except in regard to the very small portion where intruders came from the county of Westmeath. All borderers were troublesome. He should not have addressed the House if the inquiry had been confined to the county of Westmeath. He should have left that duty to the hon. Member for the county of Westmeath. But in the name of the King's County he must protest against this proposal. He objected to legislation following legislation. There was also an Act in full force—an Act supported by the entire power of the British Government — giving perhaps necessary, but unconstitutional, powers to the Government of Ireland. These powers would continue in force until August next, and he felt that the present measure to follow upon this inquiry would not lessen the evil, and that measures of a different kind must be resorted to to eradicate, from time to time, the spirit which prevailed, unhappily, in small portions only of Ireland.

said, he regretted, that the first time he had the honour to address the House, that the subject of debate was one of so unpleasant a nature and relating to Ireland. He would not occupy the time of the House but for a very brief period, whilst he endeavoured to show that this Select Committee, as moved for by the noble Marquess the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was inexpedient and unnecessary. Now, if there was not at present a Peace Preservation Act in operation in that country then there might be some grounds to apply for a Select Committee to inquire into the present state of the county of Westmeath and portions of the adjoining counties. But with that Act in full force, he could not see the necessity of adopting so unusual a course. He was at a loss to know, if those counties were so disorganized or in such a state as the noble Marquess had described, why the local authorities were unable to contend that the Peace Preservation Act was ineffective. He believed if this Committee was appointed its labours would be fruitless and abortive, and might have an effect that none of them desired—of irritating the minds of the people and estranging them still further from the Government of this country. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had shown his disposition to deal fairly and justly towards Ireland, as proved by the Land Act of last Session, and the Church question of the Session before, and he had no doubt the people felt grateful, and fully appreciated his efforts in their behalf. He would only say that there was no one deprecated and deplored so much as he did the unfortunate existence of those secret combinations so detrimental to the advancement of the peace and prosperity of that country, and he was grieved to have heard from the noble Marquess that the county of Westmeath was as he had described it; but he rejoiced to have heard him say that the other portions of Ireland were in a peaceable state. But he (Mr. Browne) could not approve of the remedy the noble Marquess proposed when he considered that the Irish Executive was invested with ample power to meet and suppress the evils complained of. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.

said, the debate showed that there were, to use the words of a famous statesmen, three courses in that case open to the Government. They might either take the course recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman below him (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock), and also by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and that was to do nothing; or else the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) who had suggested that the Government should at once act on their own responsibility; and then there was a third course, the one actually adopted by the Government—namely, to ask for an inquiry previously to legislating. As to the remarks that had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend below him, he must say that he had listened to them with surprise. How could he think that we could longer endure the state of things now going on in a part of Ireland, which was a scandal and disgrace to civilization? Why, within 12 hours of the Chamber in which they were assembled there existed a reign of terror, where the evil passions of vindictive men were the only law that was recognized; where secret tribunals issued their decrees, which were executed in the open face of day with as great a certainty as the certainty of impunity. It was perfectly impossible to acquiesce in such a state of things, which was only equalled by the condition of Southern Italy a few years ago, and by that of Greece at the present moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman affected to say that these outrages were not to be dealt with because they were not agrarian. He believed himself that in a great number of cases in Westmeath these outrages were not agrarian. They occurred in connection with all the varied business transacted in daily life. A man employed a herd or a shepherd and dismissed him for neglect; the secret edict went forth, and the shepherd's successor was instantly shot. The station-master at Mullingar dismissed a railway porter for his neglect of duty, and that station-master was shot. The company which owned a great railway traversing that district dismissed the guard of a train, and because the chairman and directors could not be met and shot down at noon-day, stones were repeatedly placed at night in the way of the mail train to upset it and wreak that most dastardly kind of revenge. That was the real state of the case: a law of terror, and not only that, but threatening letters falling—as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had described notices to quit as doing—like snow-flakes on every house in a county for many miles round. What if, in certain districts, murders had for a time ceased! But why was that? Because the whole county was so paralyzed with terror that no man durst do a single thing against the will of those secret tribunals. The contrivers and perpetrators of those outrages were perfectly well known to the police and the constabulary, but they durst not lay a hand on them because there would be no evidence forthcoming. When an hon. Member below him attempted to stop repressive measures in circumstances like those it should be borne in mind that that was not a landlord's question; it was essentially the question of the poor man and the peasant. The landlord might retire to London or to Dublin, and be safe from the assassin; if he chose to remain in the country he could go out and take his "constitutional" with a couple of agreeable constables; or if he liked to take an airing in his car, he could do it accompanied by the same officials with their rifles cocked and ready for action. How very different was the poor man's position. When he infringed any of the decrees of that secret tribunal, he knew that if he went to market, he knew his steps were watched; if he was lucky enough to return home safe, there was not a night on which he did not lie on his bed in fear and trembling lest his door might be burst open and himself placed on his knees and shot dead like a dog before the eyes of his wife and family. That was the state of things, and there was no palliation for it, no excuse. Years ago there was such a thing as the wild justice of revenge. When flagitious acts were committed by owners of land, driving people forth on the wide world, doomed to starvation and death, then, no doubt, in the last extremity of despair, men executed a bloody vengeance that could not, perhaps, be much wondered at, though it could not be defended. But those days had passed away; legislation had taken care that those acts of landlord injustice should not continue to be perpetrated, and there was now the fullest reparation for them. Therefore let them hear no more that nothing could be done. Something ought unquestionably to be done to put down a state of things disgraceful to a civilized nation. Then came the second point, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire said—"Oh, you should have come down at once and we would, in the most generous manner, have given you with open hands and open hearts any powers you liked to ask for." Now, he was sorry to say he was old enough to recollect certain transactions of the year 1846, when a great Minister came down to that House when Ireland was convulsed by outrage, and asked for additional powers to repress the evil. What then did the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the allies he borrowed from the other side do? They said that Sir Robert Peel was a man not fit to be intrusted with those unconstitutional powers, and they drove from Office the man who, above all others, was the most scrupulously constitutional Minister that ever ruled over this country. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was a good master of combinations. Were they so sure that if the Government had come down at once and asked for extra powers they might not have had a declamation equally strong and vigorous as that of that evening, inveighing against the Government for venturing to ask for powers which ought to be denied any Ministry? Would not the right hon. Gentleman opposite have turned to Gentlemen below the Gangway, and asked them whether they were prepared on the mere ipse dixit of a young Secretary for Ireland to violate the liberty of the subject, and accede to that most extraordinary request? Then there only remained one other course—namely, the one submitted to them by the Government, and he should support it. He believed it was necessary to examine witnesses, necessary to convince the House and the country that the state of things which he had described existed; and then, when the Government were enabled to justify the powers they asked for by evidence which had been properly tested and sifted, he was convinced, that the House would readily grant them such powers as would enable them to redeem Ireland from the disgrace and loss of character from which she suffered at present. He did not believe that party spirit, however strong it might be, would induce any Gentleman, no matter on what side of the House he sat, to tamper with assassination.

Mr. Speaker, I ask myself if it is possible, after the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just addressed to the House, that we can on any ground fail to proceed at once to put down this system of terrorism and intimidation which he has described to us. The hon. Gentleman has dared to say here that the police can put their hands on these assassins, and yet he has ventured to call upon this House to delay, and to leave these unhappy people who for more than a year have been living under the system of intimidation and terrorism, so to continue for the sake of having a Committee of Inquiry. He is willing to leave them to linger in this condition while we have an inquiry. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) has newly come into the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I am sorry to see that the beginning of his official experience in connection with that country has been so inauspicious and of so unsatisfactory a character. He is to be pitied in this matter; but he takes the office with all its responsibilities, and he finds that his first duty is to take the chesnuts from the fire which had grown too hot for his predecessor. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Fortescue) has retired from his business, and left the noble Lord to do the most disagreeable part of it. It will, perhaps, be remembered that early in the Session of 1870 this very county of Westmeath was mentioned in connection with Meath and Mayo as one of the disturbed districts in which there was a dangerous and formidable amount of intimidation and terrorism. But let me ask the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) why he is afraid that we will not give the Government those powers that they may want for the repression of this state of things? When they came to Parliament for the Peace Preservation Act, did we not support them with both voice and vote, and did not we tell them that we would have given them even larger powers if they had asked for them, as we knew what the system of terror and horror which existed was? In this county of Westmeath there are people who, day by day, dare not stir from their homes without the defences which the hon. Gentleman has spoken of. There are husbands—gentlemen in the same position as yourselves—who never leave home without their wives expecting them to be brought back corpses. These things are happening every day, and the Government tell you to inquire! I say that this is a mockery and a folly. Even now the noble Lord tells you that he knows the remedy already—he does not come to ask for that, he knows what it is. There is no information to procure so far as the Government is concerned—they have it all in their possession already. The right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary for Ireland, the Attorney General for Ireland, and everybody who has been connected with that country, know that all these things exist, and that Westmeath cannot be dealt with by the Peace Preservation Act, because when you put the law in force, these things still exist in spite of it. Conspiracies exist and are carried on in open day, and the police know the men who are concerned in them and if the Habeas Corpus Act were to be suspended to-morrow, they would be able to put their hands on them in a moment. I tell you that it is a fact well known to the head of the Government and to the noble Lord that they could to-morrow, if they chose, put their hands on the perpetrators of these acts. I feel so strongly on this question that, if the Government would do something, I would not stand in their way. Rather than we should have a mean, cowardly, dishonourable giving-up of duties of Government, and that nothing should be done, I would even vote for this Committee. The Government has undertaken so much, has promised so much—although the noble Lord tells us that these hopes have never been held out. Why, it was only yesterday that I came across a speech which reminded me of the sort of hope they had held out. What said the right hon. Gentleman, whose voice I am sorry to say is at present silent in this House, but whom, I trust, we shall soon hear again? The right hon. Gentleman who was at the head of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bright), speaking in January last of the legislation of the Government, told us, as he had done in former times, that there was no statesmanship in acts of force and repression, for that men the most clumsy and brutal could take such measures. What we wanted, he said, were men of higher genius, and he marked out the right hon. Gentleman; we wanted men of the highest patriotism, and no doubt he felt that he and those who were working with him were men of that class, and that these were the men to remedy the evils of Ireland. He said—

"All crime shall cease, and ancient frauds shall fail;

Returning Justice lift aloft her scale;

Peace o'er the realm her olive wand extend,

And white-robed Innocence from Heaven descend.'

This may appear the language of great exaggeration, but if we are able to banish agrarian crime, if we can unbar the prison doors, if we can reduce all excess of military force, if we can make Ireland as tranquil as England and Scotland now are, then, at least, we shall have done something to justify the wisdom and statesmanship of our time."

Yet, at this very time, the same crimes are being enacted in Westmeath, the same dark conspiracy exists as then, and yet you come for no further powers. The right hon. Gentleman near me (Mr. Disraeli) asks why you do not come to Parliament for the necessary powers to enable you to deal with this terrible state of things. The reason, no doubt, is because the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has used such strong language with respect to the Habeas Corpus Act that he wants the House of Commons by a Committee to give him some sort of sanction for the measure he finds it necessary to ask for. When last year the right hon. Gentleman was asked—was urged, to apply to Parliament to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, he said he could not do so, that he would never do so except we were on the immediate verge of a civil war. In addressing his constituents in Lancashire, he distinguished between the policy of those with whom he was acting and that of those who sat on this side of the House. But now he has found that his remedial measures have failed; that his Peace Preservation Act has failed; that the men, women, and children whom he is bound to protect in this county in Ireland—for he is responsible for their protection, and every day and every hour that he does not bring forward measures for their efficient protection increases his responsibility—are in danger of their lives. I say, with a full sense of the difficulties of Government, and without wishing to taunt those who sit opposite, that when murder stalks abroad, when crime of that kind which makes every household a misery and a trouble to itself is prevalent, and when the Government merely comes down here and asks for a Committee, it is a Government which, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to employ a word which he used with so much emphasis the other night—it is a Government which makes itself contemptible.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Previous Question just now (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) greatly underrated the gravity of the circumstances with which we have had to deal in a small district in Ireland, I think that the passion of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has led him grossly to exaggerate the condition of affairs. ["No, no!"] When I use these words I understate my conviction of the effect of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has taunted me with not having dared to propose to this House measures for the suppression of agrarian outrages in Ireland. Such taunts come strangely from a right hon. Gentleman who sat opposite to me this time last year, when it was my duty—from which I did not shrink—to propose measures more stringent, more effective, than any that have been proposed at any time within the memory of the present generation of public men—["Oh, oh!"]—more efficacious in their conception and in their result. The condition of things with which we have to deal is certainly singular, and therefore well deserving of the consideration of this House, and of Members of this House in whom we can place confidence. The Act of last year, not, I am happy to think, standing alone, but combined with the great remedial measures of that and of the previous year, has, as every person in Ireland knows, effected a marvellous change in the country for the better. [Laughter.] I hear a laugh from those hon. Members who have not had the opportunity, or have not taken the trouble, to ascertain the real state of the case for themselves; but I appeal to every fair man, of every creed and party in Ireland, as to whether what I say is not true, and whether the legislation of the Government, taken as a whole, including their measures for the preservation of peace and order, have not, in the short time that has elapsed, proved to be of the most remarkably satisfactory character. That is a fact acknowledged by every man, woman, and child in Ireland. Very different views are taken of this subject outside from what are held inside this House. I know that there are some hon. Members within these walls who hope for the failure of measures which come from their opponents—who long to see the failure of measures which have cost the Government and Parliament infinite thought and labour. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, there are minds, at all events, that catch at the first excuse for believing that failure has taken place. But this is not the case out-of-doors. It is perfectly well known in Ireland that we have succeeded beyond expectation, and almost beyond hope, in improving the condition of the country, and that at no time within memory has Ireland been so prosperous, so calm ["Oh, oh!"]—I know what I am speaking of—I repeat, so prosperous, so calm, so confident of the future, so contented, so loyal as she is at the present moment. But those measures having failed in a very small portion of the country, is it so extraordinary and so unreasonable that we should come to this House to ask it to appoint a Committee, consisting of some of its best, its most capable, its most trusted Members to examine into the causes of this exceptional and limited failure? If that Committee be appointed we shall be most happy to lay before them all the facts connected with the subject, and they will be enabled to say whether we have failed in any point in giving full effect to the powers which we possessed. Although I readily admit that the information so to be obtained will be of value to the Government, still I believe it will be of equal value to the House as enabling them to ascertain beyond dispute the facts and causes of this want of success, which, as I have said, has been limited and exceptional. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire has alluded to the state of Ireland in 1852; but I say that any accusation that could be brought against the present Government at the present time would apply with double force to the Government of 1852, because I venture to say that the state of things in Ireland at that time was far worse than it is now. Sir, our standard of measurement has risen, I am proud to say, since those days. We do not pretend to be satisfied with the condition of certain districts in Ireland, or to tolerate the state of society that might have been tolerated in 1852. We have done our best to remedy some of the greatest and most admitted grievances of Ireland. We have kept the peace, at the same time, by introducing measures of an exceptional nature, no doubt, but which we thought were justified by the circumstances, and the wisdom of which has been proved by their success. We think that when we find existing a singular exception to that rule we are justified in asking the House to look into the matter in association with the Government. And if Members chosen by the House will look into the case free from the passionate partizanship of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—["No, no!"]—his passionate but genuine partizanship — and free from that more calculating partizanship which we heard from the Leader of the Opposition at an earlier period of the evening—if they will approach it in the spirit of Sir Joseph Napier, the then Attorney General on the opposite side of the House, who said he would think himself disgraced for ever if he were to use such a subject as a party question—then I believe that they will be able to render a service to the Government, and to the cause of peace and order in Ireland.

really felt that the time had come when it was absolutely necessary for some English Member to speak out plainly his mind with regard to this constant intrusion of Irish subjects upon the very gravest hours of the Session. The House had freely spent a large amount of time in considering, with the greatest care and tenderness, the real grievances of Ireland, and no one on that side of the House had felt that the time had been lost, however much they might have regretted the measures which had been brought under their consideration. They one and all entirely and heartily discarded those feelings to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. C. Fortescue) had allowed himself to give currency, when he expressed a supposition that any hon. Member on that side of the House rejoiced in the failure of measures honestly designed to conduce to the welfare of Ireland. But it was utterly impossible that they, as men of sense, could forget the bitter cry of distress which arose from the Irish Secretary when he rose to propose the measure the House was then considering. He could see that the noble Lord, with his faltering voice and downcast air, was deeply and solemnly affected by the task put into his hand. The House could see that it went to the heart of the noble Lord as an Irish proprietor, and pierced his very soul as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, to make such a proposition as he brought forward. And no wonder that with faltering lip and trembling tongue the noble Lord expressed the regret he felt in admitting that the country had had enough of hasty legislation for Ireland. Hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House had felt that, though, perhaps, they had not dared to mention it so tersely as the noble Lord had done; and now it was surely not totally unbecoming that hon. Members representing large commercial constituencies should appeal to Her Majesty's Government to consider whether they were not very seriously affecting the commercial stability of the country by bringing forward a sensational Motion for a Secret Committee, and then, after the lapse of only 48 hours, telling the House that nothing serious, grave, or tremendous was intended by the proposal that the Committee should be a secret one. This proposal had not come upon the House at any slight crisis in our national life. The Government must surely know the very critical nature of our relations with America; and was it not of the very deepest importance that the position which England holds imperially in Ireland should not be exaggerated in the eyes of America? It was no slight matter to enable American politicians, who seemed already to trade upon the supposed weakness of Ireland, to say they were right in treating Irish malcontents with the dignity and consideration recently shown to the released Fenian convicts, by receiving them with the highest honours of the State. Had not Her Majesty's Government themselves to blame somewhat for the exceptional state of things they now came forward in formâ pauperis and asked the House of Commons to redress? To what were they to trace this contempt for the law which prevailed in Ireland, and how could they suppose that the Irish people would imagine the English Government had any great respect for the decisions of its highest tribunals when they remembered that the very first act of the present Government, when it came into power, was to release from prison certain persons who were suffering the punishment of the highest crimes they could commit under the law? This sudden alarm in Ireland was surely explained when they remembered that only a very short time ago some of the greatest criminals known to the English law were liberated and sent across the Atlantic in a state almost of dignity. If such things were to be repeated, the Government could not surely expect to be respected long, either in Westmeath or King's County. If Her Majesty's Government, with their full knowledge of the facts, had put it to the House that the safety of Ireland required the immediate adoption of remedial measures, no hon. Members occupying seats on the side of the House on which he sat would have failed to support the action of the Government; but they felt it to be a very grave question that of turning the Committees of the House of Commons into Committees of public safety—mere Committees of detective police—who should not have the power to suggest remedies for the dreadful evils so feelingly described by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and so deeply deplored by the House, but who should simply collect information and leave the Government to apply some haphazard measure as a remedy. The Chief Secretary for Ireland made use, in the course of his speech, of the now hackneyed phrase "justice to Ireland," and he hoped the programme of the Irish Secretary would prove more powerful towards rendering that justice than some hon. Members supposed it would. He hoped, further, that the House of Commons would never allow that cry to become the instrument, even in the hands of the strongest Minister of the day, in order to induce or force the House of Commons to arrogate to itself the legitimate functions of the Executive Government, and to become a Committee of public safety, instead of acting the part of the trusted advisers of the Crown.

said, he did not think Her Majesty's Government, in making the proposal before the House, had any desire to shirk any part of its legitimate responsibility; in fact, he did not think such a plan would be possible of execution, even if it were contemplated. He felt certain further, that, before the Government could take any decisive action in reference to the matter, they desired further information upon it; information they would be able to obtain through the agency of the Committee it was proposed to appoint. The learned Serjeant who moved the Previous Question (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) said he wanted no further legislation, but the course he proposed would defeat his own object; for if the Committee were refused, coercive legislation would proceed immediately, without further inquiry being made. Nobody on that side of the House pretended that the two great remedial measures for Ireland recently passed were final—that they would at once result in peace and prosperity being restored to that country. They were only links in a chain, and further measures were necessary before Ireland would be completely pacified. The Leader of the Opposition had talked of principles of morality; but it was hardly consistent with such principles when he said that his measures of 1852 would have been different if he had had 100 majority at his back.

, as an Irish Member, deeply regretted the measure which the Government had proposed for Ireland. He should vote against that Motion on grounds different from those that had been advanced from the opposite side of the House. He believed, that the law, as it stood, was sufficient to meet every case of outrage in any county of Ireland. The Peace Preservation Act of last Session gave power to institute inquiries much more searching than any Committee appointed by that House could institute. If he was rightly informed, a Committee of the House could not inquire upon oath. They must, therefore, depend entirely upon the honour and the conscience of those who might be called before them to give evidence. The Peace Preservasion Act enacted that if a felony, or even a misdemeanour, was committed in any proclaimed district in Ireland, the magistrates had the power to bring before them every person of that district who they believed could give evidence on that felony or misdemeanour; they could examine them upon oath, or commit them if they refused to be sworn. Now, that was a power no Committee could possess. Was the state of Westmeath worse now than it was 12 months ago? The noble Lord admitted that it was much improved. The noble Lord stated that from the year 1869 to February, 1871, seven murders had been committed in that part of Ireland to which he referred, and in five of these cases the parties were amenable, awaiting trial. The noble Lord referred to two murders, the perpetrators of which had not been arrested. But was that a case for coming to the House for extraordinary powers? He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) remembered that last year seven murders were committed one morning in London. Then, in Sheffield, scenes of horror had occurred that had never disgraced Ireland. Yet no extraordinary powers were asked for on that occasion, a Commission only having been appointed which gave witnesses certificates of indemnity—Broadhead, who paid sums of £40 for the perpetration of murder, having received one. In Mayo, which, was the worst county in Ireland a year ago, there was now no crime, and he believed time would work marvels in that respect. He knew personally that the people of Ireland were grateful for the remedial measures that had been recently passed with regard to that country; they felt now that they had something to be loyal for. He deeply regretted that the first official act of the noble Lord the new Chief Secretary should have been to ask for more repressive legislation.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

I do not object to the Motion made by my right hon. and gallant Friend for the adjournment of the debate, but I wish to have an understanding that the debate shall close to-morrow evening. There is an important Motion that stands upon the Books for to-morrow evening, but that Motion is one which I do not think the House would deem it convenient to discuss at much length, because the President of the Poor Law Board will very shortly introduce a measure on the subject. I will not press for the withdrawal of that Motion; but, whether the hon. Member withdraws his Motion or not, I hope it will be understood that if this debate in which we are now engaged comes on at a convenient hour to-morrow evening, we shall finish it. It will lead to very great inconvenience to the public if that should not be the case, inasmuch as the next Government night has already been fixed for the consideration of a Bill of the highest importance.

said, he was not in a position to answer the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government as to the course to be taken on Tuesday; but from all he could gather from hon. Gentlemen who were sitting near him, the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Motion referred to could not make any arrangement at present. If any difficulty should arise from the course which his hon. Friend might choose to take, it would be solely attributable to the conduct of the Government in calling for this Committee to act for them instead of acting for themselves.