asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any advance has been made in securing that the evidence of Christians shall be admitted in courts of justice in Turkey on a footing equal to the testing given by Mahometans; and, whether certain inhabitants in that country at present suffer from disabilities in reference to military service and the devolution of landed property?

Sir, the latest reports from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople state that in all the Turkish Courts, excepting those administering the Koran Law, there has been an advance towards placing Christian evidence on a footing of equality with that of Mahometans. In all criminal cases, without exception, Christian evidence is admitted in the new Court. Christians are not taken for military service, and pay a tax instead; but this is now regarded by them more as an advantage than as a disqualification. With regard to landed property, Sir Henry Elliot says that the subjects of the Sultan, of whatever creed, as well as all foreigners, are stated to be upon the same footing.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Under what authority large enclosures are being made at Dartmoor without compensation to the commoners; and, whether any payment is made by the Duchy of Cornwall to the Treasury on account of the labour of the convicts employed in the work?

Sir, the authority for the leases granted by the Duchy of Cornwall at Dartmoor is the Act 26 & 27 Vict. c. 49, s. 22, Duchy of Cornwall Management Act, 1863. No payment is made to the Treasury on account of convict labour, because the convicts are only employed on lands leased to the Prison Directors.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the case of the schooner "William," of Exeter, which left Hartlepool on the 25th June, and foundered at sea on 1st July; whether he is aware that this ship was known to be so unseaworthy that she had baskets of sawdust drawn under her that the action of the sea might suck the sawdust into the seams, and thus temporarily stop the leaks; whether the Board of Trade inquiry was held on the loss of this ship at Exeter, where the owner lived, instead of at Hartlepool, where the aforesaid facts were known; and, whether, as the finding was that the vessel was not unseaworthy, although it foundered in perfectly fine calm weather, and, to use the language of a correspondent of "The Times." she "took a header" and went to the bottom, he will cause the strictest inquiry to be made, and report to the House?

I have not hoard, Sir, of the baskets of sawdust; there is no mention of that in the evidence. It is true the inquiry was held at Exeter. The question where inquiries of this kind should be held is left to the solicitor conducting them, who decides on the balance of convenience. The Report states that the vessel had been repaired three months previously; but nevertheless she was not in all respects, a seaworthy vessel. The hon. Member is wrong in stating that the vessel foundered in fine, calm weather. Having read the evidence, I find that she was exposed to a very strong gale of wind—one of the witnesses said it blew very hard. She was struck by a very heavy sea at 11 o'clock in the morning of Monday, the 30th June, when it became necessary to work the pumps, and she did not founder till 24 hours after. She went down head-foremost three miles off the land, and the crew escaped in the boats.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Royal Commissioners on Unseaworthy Ships have power under the Order of Reference to appoint assistant-Commissioners to prosecute inquiries during the Recess at the seaports; and, if they have not, whe- ther it is the intention of the Government to supplement their existing powers to this end, so that there may be no de-lay in prosecuting the necessary inquiries?

Sir, the Royal Commissioners have full power to appoint assistant-Commissioners for the purpose stated. It will depend on the Commissioners themselves whether they exercise that power. I have reason to believe, however, that they think it desirable to see and hear all the witnesses themselves; and, in any case, the House may have full confidence in the way the Commissioners are carrying on their inquiry.

for Mr. OTWAY, asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When and how he proposes to give effect to the promise he made on the 17th June last, that the Civil Service writers should receive special pay for special kinds of work, that certain holidays should be granted to all writers, that sick leave on medical certificate should be granted to writers without loss of pay, and that an allowance for travelling expenses should be made to writers when ordered away on duty by the Government?

Sir, the mode in which effect should be given to this undertaking is now under the examination of the 'Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners, and it will very shortly be made known. I am not in a position to say more at present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the statement is correct that Sir R. Carden said—

"As a matter worthy of attention of the Home Secretary, that from the authorized book of cab fares now in use among cabmen, and which was published in 1870, there were no less than sixteen railway stations in the Metropolis, many of them being principal stations, entirely omitted;

and, whether this defect will soon be remedied?

Sir, the last authorized book of fares was published in 1872. New measurements are now being made by the Ordnance Survey Department. These measurements will be given from the 227 principal cab-stands to certain important points in the metropolis. Among the points to which measurements will be given, 35 railway stations are included, and among them all the terminal stations. The measurements to 89 cab-stands have been completed, and the whole will be completed and a new book issued as soon as it can be prepared.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in "The Times" of the 19th instant, in which it is stated that owing to the want of supply of water a house was destroyed by fire in Weymouth Street between two and three in the morning?

in reply, said, that his information was consistent with that contained in another letter on the subject which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman had seen, in which it was stated that there had been no deficiency of water and no delay in its supply.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If his attention has been drawn to a decision of the Magistrate of the Westminster Police Court directing that a penalty imposed under the provisions of "The Nuisances Removal Act, 1855," should be paid to the Receiver of Police for the Metropolis instead of to the Local Board of Works, the prosecuting authority, although the Nuisances Removal Act provides that all penalties under the Act should be paid over to the Vestry, District Board, or other local authority appointing an analyst; and, whether he will consider the expediency of providing that the penalties under this Act imposed in the metropolis shall be paid over to the local authority as in other parts of England?

Sir, I have considered that decision, which appears to me to be in strict accordance with the existing law. There are, undoubtedly, strong reasons of public policy in favour of pay- ing over these penalties to the local authorities, and thereby encouraging active and vigorous enforcement of the laws entrusted to them. On the other hand, the circumstances of the metropolis afford much justification for an exceptional course. The Treasury bears in the metropolis charges which elsewhere are borne by the local funds, especially the cost of the police magistrates and the police courts, and they have therefore a special claim upon these penalties. The subject is not clear of doubt; but I am not prepared to say that a change ought to be made.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the answer of the Chief Secretary on the 18th March 1870, Whether the revision of the List of the Irish Magistracy, "with a view of clearing the List of the names of the persons who ought not to be there, or who had ceased to be able to act," which was then stated to be "yet going on," has been completed; and, if so, has an effect been given to the said revision in any one county in Ireland; and, if so, in what county or counties; and, if not completed, what progress, if any, has been made in such revision; whether any effect has been given to the opinion of the then Chief Secretary, "That the Government should use their influence "to have advantage taken of" all fair and proper opportunities to reduce the inequalities" then admitted to exist in the undue disproportion of Protestants to Catholics on the magisterial bench; and, whether the attention of the Irish Executive has been directed to the grave dissatisfaction existing in Ireland with regard to the present condition of the Irish Magistracy?

in reply, said, the revision of the list, promised in 1870, had been going on, and had been completed for 26 counties. The grounds upon which in many cases removals had been made were—insufficient qualification or non-residence, the holding of offices incompatible with the position of justice of the peace, employment in land agency, the temporary appointments of military and naval offices, and death or absence. From the remaining counties no information had been received from the Lord Lieutenants, or the information was not sufficient to enable the Lord Chancellor to complete the revision. The work had boon one of considerable labour, involving an enormous number of inquiries, and some of them of a delicate character. A considerable number of Roman Catholic gentlemen who appeared to be duly qualified had been placed upon the Bench; but, considering the distribution of land in Ireland between the two religious professions, it was not to be expected that anything like equality should be established. He was not at all aware that grave dissatisfaction existed with regard to the present condition of the Irish magistracy. He was perfectly aware that dissatisfaction existed on the part of many persons that they had not received commissions; but he was not aware there was any general dissatisfaction.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether from the 19th of August 1871, to the 31st December 1872, the Public Works Loan Commissioners, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Treasury, have not granted loans, amounting to £869,833, to local authorities in England for sanitary purposes; whether further amounts have not since been granted for like purposes, and to what extent; whether, during the present month, the Treasury has not obtained power from Parliament to raise a further sum of one and a-half millions to enable the Loan Commissioners to grant additional loans at 3 per cent. to local authorities in England for like purposes; whether from the 19th of August 1871, to the present time, the Treasury has sanctioned any loan to local authorities in Ireland for sanitary purposes, save the one to Waterford at 5 per cent.; and, if any, to state their amounts; whether the maximum period for repayment of such loans in Ireland is not fixed by Law at twenty-five years and in England at fifty years; and, whether, if the facts be so, the Treasury will still insist on exacting in the latter Country a higher rate of interest by 1 per cent. than the 4 per cent. the Law authorizes them to fix and charge?

in reply, said, that from the 19th of August, 1871, to the 31st of December, 1872, the Public Works Loan Commissioners had granted £8,389, and not 2869,833, and since then £262,579 had been granted. This month the Treasury had obtained power to raise £1,500,000, to enable the Loan Commissioners to grant additional loans at 3½ per cent. Since the 19th of August, 1871, the Treasury had sanctioned, besides a 5 per cent loan to Waterford, loans to Ireland, through the Public Works Loan Commissioners, of £12,100 for the Inniskillen Waterworks, £800 to the Mill Street Union, Cork, and £4,300 for Dublin; and, through the Irish Board of 'Works, of £4,000 to Inniskillen. The maximum periods for repayment were in Ireland 25 years, and in England 50 years. He had not the least objection to abolish the distinction of 1 per cent higher interest charged to Ireland; but he was bound by the general rules under which the respective loans were granted. The Waterford Loan was, he believed, from the Public Works Loan Commissioners in England.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to make any use of the invention of Mr. James Duffey for the protection of gunpowder from explosion, which was tested at the Horse Guards in July 1869, in the presence of Sir Hope Grant, and on Wimbledon Common in 1870, in the presence of His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck and other officers; whether he is aware that the invention has been pronounced to be one of considerable value by them and other military and naval authorities; and, whether he is willing to assign any reward to Mr. Duffey for his discovery, which he patented in 1870, but for which he has not sought an extension of his patent in consequence of his belief that the favourable opinion expressed by the Quartermaster General would be acted upon by the Government?

in reply, said, the Government did not intend to make use of the invention, the advisers of the War Department having expressed a decided opinion that it was unsuited for military purposes. No award could be assigned for inventions which were not adopted into the service.

asked the Secretary of State for War, When it is intended to raise the second battalions of Militia regiments referred to in the Army localisation scheme; whether care will be taken to appoint Commanding Officers and Adjutants to the new battalions in sufficient time for them to superintend the posting of the officers and men transferred to them; whether the Commanding Officers of the new battalions will have any voice in the selection of the officers and non-commissioned officers of their battalions; and, whether the officers and non-commissioned officers will be appointed at a time sufficiently before the annual training to enable them to become properly organized before their men are attached?

Sir. It is intended to raise second battalions in those counties in which the state of the recruiting appears to warrant it; and arrangements will be made for doing so in the course of the autumn. Care will be taken to make the appointments with due notice, and at such time and in such manner as may most conduce to efficiency in each case. The commanding officers of the old battalions will be communicated with in respect to the formation of the new, and, generally, the arrangements will be made as far as possible to meet the circumstances of each regiment.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will state to the House the precedents according to which Her Majesty's Government propose to offer presents of plate to three of the Arbitrators in the late Geneva Award, and which precedents were referred to by him in general terms on the 10th of March last.

in reply, said, it had been the custom, from time to time, for a very long period, to give presents to foreigners who had discharged special duties or performed special services for this country, as it had also been the custom with other nations to give presents to persons belonging to this country who had rendered special services to them. The precedents he would quote in the present instance were these. There was the precedent of Lord Castlereagh, who received a valuable service of china from the King of France after the Congress of Vienna, in 1814. There were also the cases of Lord Sidmouth in 1815; Lord Bathurst in 1816; the Russian and Danish Ministers in 1822, from this country; the Bavarian and Spanish Ministers, from this country in 1823; the Danish Minister in 1834; the Brazilian Plenipotentiary in 1827; the Netherlands Ambassador to Constantinople in 1829. Particulars could be supplied if the hon. Gentleman desired them. Perhaps the precedent most relevant to this particular case was that of Sir Edward Thornton, our Minister at Washington, who received a present for his services as Arbitrator between the United States and Brazil, in the case of the vessel Canada in 1870. The hon. Gentleman would remember that in the present instance it was the United States Government which took the initiative.

said, that as all the Navy Estimates in regard to ship-building had been already passed, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he would redeem the pledge he gave some weeks ago by stating what type of Iron-clad it was intended to lay down this year? He would further appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to couple with that statement an assurance that he should have in a formal Return the specifications as to the dimensions of the ship and the weights she would carry.

Sir, with regard to the latter portion of the noble Lord's Question, I am more or less in the hands of the House; but I venture to submit to the noble Lord that it is not desirable that at the earliest stage of constructing a ship, notice should be given to all the world as to her exact dimensions and specifications. I will, however, make a general statement to the House. Ships are being designed and constructed for other navies to carry guns and armour exceeding in power and thickness anything which has been hitherto adopted, and it is necessary that this ship, which will take from three to four years to construct, should, when completed, be more than a match for any other ship in the world. The ship we propose to build at Portsmouth, to be named the Inflexible, carries out the views of the Committee on Designs for Ships of War. The system is an extension of that adopted in the Warrior, of having a central armoured citadel and under-water shot-proof decks. The requisite reserve of buoyancy in the event of the unprotected ends being penetrated to any extent is secured by the central armoured citadel. The area of the armour is diminished and its thickness increased in a corresponding degree. It is not advisable to give the figured dimensions of this ship in all their details; but I can state that the armour is thicker than has been contemplated for any ship or fort; that the guns with which this vessel is to be armed will be the most powerful that can be designed and manufactured; and that low freeboard and no sails are not essential features of the design. The ship will have a freeboard of 20 feet forward, and be able to set trysails if required in heavy weather, or in the improbable event of her four sets of engines being disabled. The dimensions, except the beam, which is much greater, are the same as the Fury, with 3 feet less draught of water. The coal endurance is the same; and the ship, with a full speed of 14, will steam 3,000 knots, at 10 knots speed. The estimated cost is the same as the Fury. The Controller of the Navy, with the Director of Naval Ordnance, and the Chief Naval Architect, who has prepared the design, concur in recommending it to the Board of Admiralty, who, after very careful consideration, are unanimous in their approval.

asked the Postmaster General, with regard to a Post Office Notice just issued, Whether he really-means after the 31st instant to require letters containing postage stamps to be registered; and if any such letter is not registered, to subject the person to whom it is addressed, before delivery thereof, to a double registration fee of eight-pence; whether this new regulation, or extension of the existing regulation as to coin will be enforced, however small the number or value of the stamps enclosed may be; whether the readiness of the people of Scotland and Ireland to acquiesce in the withdrawal, intended to take place at the same time, of the facility they have long enjoyed and habitually used in the power of remitting small notes by post; if he will lay upon the Table any Report made to him showing necessity for this rigid and novel procedure; if he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence or Minutes alluded to in the following passage from, page 7 of his Nineteenth Report to the Treasury, which has been issued this morning:—

"The evil to be remedied is still so great that, as you are aware, I have been obliged to ask for the authority adverted to, and, as you have been pleased to grant it, I have now to announce that, as soon as the necessary arrangements can be completed, the measure will be brought into operation;"

And what is the Act of Parliament on which he relies as his warrant and justification for the intended limitation of the individual convenience of the people?

There is no intention, Sir, to require letters containing postage stamps to be registered, except in cases in which, from bad folding or packing, the contents are obvious. As the object of the regulation is to prevent temptation to theft arising from carelessness, now very common, it will, when applicable, be enforced without reference to the number or value of the stamps enclosed. The reasons for the regulalation having been fully given in the Nineteenth Annual Report on the Post Office, just issued, it is not necessary to lay any other Papers on the Table of the House. The Act of Parliament in which power is given to the Postmaster General, with the consent of the Treasury, to lay down such a regulation as the one in question is 3 & 4 Viet., c. 96. I will undertake, however, that the regulation is not put in force until my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) has had an opportunity of submitting to the House his Motion on the subject.

asked, Whether he might hope that the discussion on the subject would be taken this Session?

said, that was a question which ought to be addressed to the hon. Member for Glocester.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If there is any truth in a paragraph in the "Pall Mall Gazette," of Tuesday, the 22nd, to the effect that he has abandoned the intention of proposing a plan for a Naval retirement during this Session; and, if he will inform the House when it is proposed to take the remaining Vote on the Navy Estimates?

Sir, there is no truth in the statement in The Pall Mall Gazette, if it is meant to convey the idea that I have abandoned those intentions which I expressed on the last occasion when the Navy Estimates were before the House. The plan then suggested, that, possibly, as a temporary measure, certain modifications of the retirement scheme of 1870 might be proposed, has not been abandoned; and I shall take the opportunity on moving the Half Pay Vote of stating my intentions on that point. I believe the Navy Estimates will be taken on Monday next.

asked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that there are still great complaints as to the inefficiency in the delivery department of the Glasgow Post Office; if it is with his sanction that boys of sixteen are employed in the service; and, if it be the fact, that the increase of staff stated by the new Postmaster to be necessary to make the service efficient, has been only partially conceded?

So far, Sir, from its being known that great complaints are still made, a Report from the Postmaster of Glasgow was received only yesterday, stating that the new arrangements are working well and giving full satisfaction to the public. Youths of 16 years of age are employed in the Post Office Service, as they have been for 50 years past, if not longer. [Mr. ANDER- sox: In the delivery of letters?] I am unable to state. The staff of the Glasgow Post Office has been increased to the full extent asked for.

asked the Vice President of the Council, If, looking at the difficulty of obtaining teachers for Elementary Schools and the great educational changes going on, he will hold out the hope that the provisions of Article 59 of the Code of 1873, whereby certificates of the third class are granted upon the Report of the Inspector to acting teachers reported to be efficient, will be allowed to remain in force for a further period; and, whether the examination of twenty children with fifteen passes would not be, as in the case of Scotland, a sufficient requirement?

in reply, said, it was too late to make any alteration this year; but he would promise that the subject should receive the attention of the Government.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that the Sorters and Letter Carriers of Dublin held a meeting on Monday evening in the large Sorting Room of the General Post Office, at which meeting a Memorial to the Postmaster General was adopted, asking for an increase of pay; whether he has received this Memorial; and, if so, whether he can state to the House what Course the Government intend to take in the matter; whether other Memorials on this subject have not been addressed to the Postmaster General on several previous occasions lately, of which no effective notice has been taken; and, whether it is a. fact that important reforms in the Post Office arrangements were recommended more than twelve months since by the local authorities in Dublin and approved by the Postmaster General; and, if so, whether he can state to the House why these reforms have not been carried out?

Sir, It is the case that the sorters and letter carriers of Dublin held a meeting on Monday in the sorting office of the General Post Office, and that a Memorial was then adopted, praying for an increase of wages; but, inasmuch as that Memorial reached my hands only this morning, I am not prepared to state what course will be taken in the matter. Other Memorials having the same object in view had already been received by the Postmaster General. It is not the fact that important reforms in the Post Office arrangements were recommended more than 12 months ago by the local authorities in Dublin and approved by the Postmaster General. The reforms, to which no doubt allusion is made, were recommended by an officer in London who was despatched by myself to Dublin. Of that officer's recommendations one involved an increase in the wages of the letter carriers. This increase was sanctioned in November last, and I can hold out no hope that in their case any further change will be made. The pay they now receive is identical with that of letter carriers in the large manufacturing towns in England, where the rates of wages are certainly not less than they are in Dublin. Others of the recommendations arising out of the mission to Dublin are still under the consideration of the Treasury.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering that the Post Office and Telegraph Vote was put off until full inquiry could be made as to the appropriation of balances for the purposes of the Telegraph Service, he will not now allow the discussion on that point to take place before the Vote itself is taken?

Sir, the practical objection to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is that any postponement of the Vote beyond Monday would involve the postponement of the Prorogation of the Session. The state of the case is this—It is scarcely true that the Telegraph Vote was put off until the conclusion of the inquiry; but it was put off in order that Members might be sure that they would have an opportunity of discussing the subject. There is nothing in the Vote which has any connection with the inquiry. It is a Vote for the Telegraph Service of the year, and it has no connection with the question of capital account. What the hon. Gentleman means, I apprehend, is that he should have a good and convenient opportunity of discussing the subject. We must go on this evening and to-morrow with strictly legislative business; but I will keep Tuesday morning, at 2 o'clock, free for the purpose of offering it to the hon. Gentleman, if he thinks proper to avail himself of it. Assuming that Supply will be got through on Monday night, I shall propose to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that on Tuesday evening, at 9 we should take the discussion of his Factories Bill. We will use every effort to have a House, and the subject is one to ensure a House, independently of any endeavour on our part. On Wednesday we propose to take the discussion on the Indian Budget.

wished to know when the Real Estate Intestacy Bill would be taken?

Not on any one of the days I have named.

asked when the discussion to be raised by his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) upon the subject of the West Coast of Africa would be taken?

said, he was afraid it must be taken on some day later than those he had just named.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If there is any truth in the Report that the South Kensington Museum and other allied institutions are about to be transferred to the management of the Trustees of the British Museum?

in reply, said, that the question of the present arrangements of the South Kensington Museum was under the consideration of the Government. They connected themselves to a certain extent with the British Museum on account of the necessity for modifying the arrangements of the British Museum, consequent upon the transfer of the Natural History Collection to South Kensington. Beyond that he could not at present go, except to say that the matter was still under process of inquiry.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, How much land belonging to Greenwich Hospital has already been sold; what is the quantity of land now advertised for sale; and what is the quantity still remaining unsold; what security there is that the money obtained by these sales will be retained as capital and not devoted to income; and, whether he will undertake that no more of the land belonging to Greenwich Hospital shall be sold until the House has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to the policy of selling land which is held in trust for public uses? He wished to add the further question, Whether it is true that nearly 6,000 acres were going to be sold, and in eleven lots?

in reply, said, that two estates containing 1,940 acres, and realizing upwards of £200,000, were sold by public auction in August, 1872 —one estate realizing £92,164, and the other £116,000. With regard to the quantity of land now advertised for sale—the Tyneside estate in Northumberland, containing about 5,768 acres, was advertised for sale by public auction at Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 5th of August next. The Admiralty had also under consideration the sale of the remainder of the Langley Barony, &c., estate, containing 8,581 acres; but it was uncertain whether that would be sold before the spring. As to the quantity still remaining unsold, there were 27,865 acres in Northumberland and Cumberland, besides ground-rents and house property in Greenwich and the Isle of Dogs, producing a gross rental of £4, 400 a-year. With respect to the security that the money would be retained as capital and not devoted to income, the 31st clause of the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1865, provided that the purchase-money paid in respect of lands sold should be carried to the Greenwich Hospital capital account. There was the further security of the detailed audit, by the Exchequer and Audit Department, of the capital and income accounts of Greenwich Hospital, in order to see that the provisions of the Greenwich Hospital Acts were duly complied with. Lastly, there was the additional security of the presentation of these accounts to Parliament annually, and their review by the Public Accounts Committee. He would undertake that there should be no more sales until spring; but, without knowing what course his hon. Friend might take, he would not pledge himself not to proceed to exercise the powers entrusted to him by Parliament. It was good policy on the part of the House to direct the sales of this land, because the Admiralty had plenty of public business to attend to, without having the management of large estates superadded to their other duties.

said, it would be his duty to move a Resolution expressing the opinion of the House on these sales, and if it decided that they should go on, he should endeavour to obtain an opinion on the part of the House that the land should be sold in small lots.

said, he accidentally omitted a part of his answer to the hon. Gentleman. He could not toll the precise number of lots in which the lands would be sold by auction. When he said that no more sales would take place before the spring, he did not mean that the lands advertised for sale would be withdrawn.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering the eminently satisfactory condition of the borough of Dundalk and the county of Louth, as evidenced by the calendar of prisoners, and the charges of every going judge of assize during the years 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872, and the present year, both as regards offences against the person and against property, and the statements of—1. Mr. Justice Lawson, at Spring Assize 1871—

"That both the county of Louth and the borough of Dundalk, he might with truth say challenged comparison for peace and order with any portion of Her Majesty's dominions;"

2. Mr. Baron Hughes, Spring Assize 1872, speaking of calendar and report of county inspector of constabulary laid before him—

"They are the most favourable I have ever read since I occupied a seat on the bench, and are highly creditable to every class in your county, but above all to the people in general;"

and, 3. Mr. Justice Lawson, at the Assizes held on the 8th instant—

"That the calendar, a perfect blank, and the constabulary returns laid before him, show a gratifying state of things, and places Louth in the first rank of a model county,"

he is prepared to remove the Proclamation of that borough and county under the Peace Preservation Acts?

in reply, said, he was happy to state that not only the borough of Dundalk, but that other counties besides the county of Louth, were in an eminently satisfactory condition, and the Government would take into consideration, at the earliest possible moment, the propriety of removing the Proclamation referred to under the Peace Preservation Acts. The decision of the Government, however, could only be arrived at in view of the condition of the surrounding district. The county of Louth, for example, bordered on the county of Meath, which was not in so satisfactory a state, and it would be undesirable to place in the hands of persons arms which would be accessible to the members of the Riband Societies of the county of Meath. Dundalk was a considerable port, and after what had occurred not long since in Cork, it was not desirable to give unlimited facilities for the importation of arms into Ireland. While he could not, however, promise the hon. Member that the restriction should be removed, he could assure him that the subject should receive the earliest consideration of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a Petition presented to this House, signed by Angus Mackintosh, and to two Petitions from the Commissioners of Supply and Town Council of Inverness, praying that a Committee may be appointed to inquire into the state of the Law with respect to the right of private persons to institute criminal proceedings in Scotland; and, whether, on the part of the Government, he will assent to the appointment of such a Committee next Session?

in reply, said, that he had received Petitions and Memorials on the subject; but inasmuch as the law complained of had been in force in Scotland for the last 120 years, and had generally given satisfaction, it was not his intention to take any stops to alter the law.

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, If the Local Government Board has received any returns as to the number of votes lost at the election of guardians through informality in filling up voting papers; and, if so, if the very great percentage of such votes lost through the use of the voting paper is such as to render it desirable to take into consideration proposals for altering the present mode of election, and if any proposals have been made from any Union for such alteration?

in reply, said, that no Returns had been made upon the subject, but he was aware that owing to informalities, a considerable number of votes had been lost. Proposals with reference to this subject had been made by several Boards of Guardians, and were now under consideration, and several of those proposals were to the effect that the voting should be by ballot.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether lie can state what measures have been or are being taken in view of the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutors Bill to fulfil the pledge given by the Government in 1872 to provide a remedy for the grievances admitted to exist in connection with the disallowances of expenses of Criminal Prosecutions?

in reply, said, that, as the hon. Member was aware, the Public Prosecutors Bill would, if it had been passed, have settled this question satisfactorily. Meanwhile, it was impossible that the Treasury supervision over expenses should be discontinued. He had, however, taken care that it should be exercised with due consideration for all parties concerned, and since that time he believed no complaint had been made of anything like unfair or improper treatment.

asked the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, What course he intends to pursue on the Household Franchise (Counties) Bill?

in reply, said, that many hon. Gentlemen had communicated to him their desire that an opportunity should be afforded for taking a division on this subject. As, however, that was the last week in which any satisfactory expression of the opinion of the House could be taken, he felt he should be best consulting the general convenience by moving that the Order for the English and Scotch Bills should be read and discharged. It was, however, his intention to reintroduce them at an early period next Session.

Sir, A Treaty of Commerce was signed yesterday at Paris between Great Britain and France. Its main provisions are—a renewal of the Commercial Treaty of 1860 up to the 30th of June, 1877, including most-favoured-nation treatment, the national treatment of vessels, and the settlement of the mineral oils question at the close of the present year. There is, I believe. an Article in it providing for a Supplementary Convention to decide upon questions of "expertise" and other matters of commercial interest.

said, it was his desire, in consequence of what had occurred with reference to the course of Public Business next week, to make a few remarks, and to put himself in order he would conclude with a Motion. It would be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. R. N. Fowler) asked the Prime Minister a few days since whether he would in the present year give a whole day, and not merely a morning sitting, to the Indian Budget? The answer of the Prime Minister was that he would take the proposal into his favourable consideration. Instead of so doing, however, he must have taken it into his unfavourable consideration; for, instead of appointing Monday or Thursday next, the Indian Budget was at the last moment fixed for a morning sitting. On the last occasion the Under Secretary of State for India occupied a considerable portion of the sitting, and for his own part, when the present Budget came on, he feared he would be unable to confine his remarks within a very narrow compass. It would be impossible to have the subject fairly and properly discussed in a morning sitting, and anything which appeared like a suppression of debate would, he believed, be felt in India as an injury. Tinder these circumstances he appealed most earnestly to the Prime Minister—not in his own interest—but for the sake of the deep impression this proceeding would produce in India, to reconsider his decision, and, at any rate, if he fixed the Indian Budget for Wednesday, to give a promise that if the debate should not close by a quarter to 6 o'clock he would make it the first Order for Thursday. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

The appeal of my hon. Friend is very fair, and I am not going to contest what he has said on the subject. My motive in fixing Wednesday was two-fold. In the first place, I found I could not arrange to make Tuesday the day for the Indian Budget, and my desire then was, that it should come on upon the earliest possible day, which was Wednesday. But I had another reason. When the command of private days is given to the Government at the close of the Session they are not given absolutely, but they are given with a view to enable public Orders to take precedence. For instance, I have no power to give precedence to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) on Tuesday, for his is a private Order; or to my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Charles Adderley) on Wednesday, for his Motion on the Gold Coast. On that account it would possibly be the best way to allow the debate on the Indian Budget, in case it should not be concluded on Wednesday, to be resumed on Thursday or Friday, I cannot say which. If that will not do, we might fix it for Thursday, but then it might run some risk of not coming on. However, perhaps the best plan will be to let the matter stand until Monday before making any final arrangement.

asked, whether it would not be possible to fix a day for the debate on the Gold Coast?

said, he hoped to be able to see his way further on Monday.

said, he had not had an opportunity of consulting his Friends om the subject; but as the right hon. Gentleman had kindly offered Thursday he hoped they should be allowed to have it the first Order of the Day.

The matter will be fixed finally on Monday.

said, he purposed, when taking the second reading of the Landed Estates Court (Judges) Bill, to ask the House to commit it pro formâ. He could not give Notice of Amendments until the second reading of the Bill.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I need not remind you that the House only came to a division on the second reading of this Bill at two in the morning on Tuesday last, and I rejoice that that stage of the Bill was only carried by a majority of 14 votes. On the present occasion I wish to observe, if I am not out of Order, upon the course which was then pursued by the opponents of the measure. They are said to be of opposite opinions with regard to the subject-matter of it; but my belief is, that we have one common ground of objection to the Bill, and although the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) and other hon. Members rested their objections upon what I may call the sectarian ground, still believe that they all feel with those who, like myself, do not attach to that ground the importance which they do themselves, an objection to the interference of Parliament with property, which this Bill like the original Act of 1869, entails. It appears to me, Sir, with regard to endowed schools, that this House is proceeding on the principle that where property belongs to a considerable number of people for a specific object, possession is entitled to less respect than in cases where property belongs to individuals. Now, Sir, I must say that I consider that a very dangerous principle. I know that in the county which I have the honour to represent, there are large properties in some cases, small properties in other cases, applied to the purpose of maintaining elementary education which strictly belong to the poor and the labouring classes of particular parishes. Well, Sir, what is the principle which this House has adopted? Literally, that whatever portion of such property in those several parishes is applied to the maintenance of the elementary education of the children of those parishes shall, because it is so devised, be confiscated. Well, I know that this House is too much accustomed to hear that word "confiscation," and that it has sometimes been applied in cases, where, perhaps, it was not so applicable as it is in this case. I will take an illustration. There are three parishes adjoining one another. In two of them I have property, and am a trustee for the property of the labouring classes and of the poor; I have also been asked to act as trustee in the third. Now, what has the legislation of this House done? The proposal is to extend that legislation and perpetuate the powers of the Commissioners, into whose hands this property so devoted to elementary education is transferred by this Bill and its predecessor. Well, Sir, I can assure the House that my neighbours of the labouring class are quite as well disposed as the average of their fellow-countrymen; nevertheless, they do feel very bitterly the sanction, which this House has given to the confiscation of property which belonged to them and to their fathers; property which had given them the means of education; and not only that Parliament has sanctioned the confiscation of that property, except some portion of it to be reserved as prizes, but is proposing that those same persons, who have been educated, father and son, out of this property, should, in addition to being deprived of that property, be taxed by the foundation of school boards for the very purpose from which that property, being their own, has been alienated by Parliament. I hope I have put the case fairly and plainly; and I do assure the House that this process is producing a bitterness of feeling of which we may hereafter have disagreeable evidence. Take the case of the parish of Bedworth and the schools there, of which I have been for many years a Governor. This is a charity at Bed worth, near Nuneaton, and was founded by a former clergyman of the parish for the benefit of the labouring classes. I, and my former Colleague, Mr. Dugdale, were two of the Commissioners. Minerals were discovered under that property, and we obtained the leave of the Charity Commissioners to provide for the further development of that property. It was let upon lease; the lessee failed, and for a certain period the Charity Commissioners allowed us to work those minerals until we could let them. That was a mark of confidence on the part of the Charity Commissioners which I hope has been repaid. So, literally, the Governors have created the increase of that property from a source which has given employment to these people upon their own property, and now, when 800 of their children are receiving education in schools which are admitted to be the best in the district, I am likely to have to tell these people that "Parliament has decided that the £800 a-year of your property, property which has been devoted to the education of your fathers, yourselves, and your children, shall be taken away—and why? Because you have been so educated out of your own property!" Well, they will look across the canal which separates this property from mine, and in their homely phrase will say— "They are going to take away our pits; why don't they take Newdegate's?" What answer am I to give? Who would expect me as an honest man in this House not to oppose what I consider a downright robbery? Because, if you object to the form of education, Parliament, in its discretion, might alter that education. I might lament the change, for it is the best education that the Governors can devise and provide; but I should not feel, as I do now, that Parliament was about to take away from this people the property which had been applied beneficially to them and their fathers for generations. Sir, I am directly and distinctly opposed to this principle of confiscation; and we feel it none the less acutely, because this principle is specially applied to property which is devoted to education in the tenets of the Church, of which I and the great majority of these people are members. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their sectarian heat, can scarcely have considered the feeling that they must be arousing in the hearts of those possessors of property, who are as sincerely attached to the religion they profess as hon. Members may be to the religious views they entertain. Look at the matter from another point. If there is one denomination of religion in this country more defiant than others in raising their institutions, it is the Roman Catholic denomination. Not less than 300 of these monastic and conventual institutions have of late years been erected in England and Wales, the most of them being for educational purposes; but Parliament which has dealt thus with the property of the educational establishments belonging to the Established Church, has never yet completed even an inquiry into the existence of this other property which is held against the law, is administered in defiance of the law, and yet remains secured from the rough process which is applied to the educational property of the Church of England. I ask hon. Members, then, who are in the habit of talking so much about equality, where is the equality between the treatment that you have extended to the Church of England educational charities, and your abstinence even from inquiry into those increasing establishments of the Church of Rome? I cannot think that hon. Members who represent various Protestant sects can have looked at the subject as it stands; but I feel it to be my duty to bring it distinctly before the House, because I am convinced that Parliament is dealing with this matter in a sense which the people feel to be directly undermining their independence; for, disguise it as you may, this determination that there shall be no educational property, except that administered to the operative classes either out of the poor rate, or an education rate, which is equivalent to a poor rate, levied under an administration similar to that which levies the poor rate, is inflicting upon them a sense of deep degradation, a feeling that when you take away the property which is their own for the same purpose, and saddle them with this great sustained system of rating, you are treating them as if they were indeed a class apart, unfit to possess or to enjoy property, unfit to have it administered to their immediate wants, especially their educational wants, the urgency of which you are perpetually pressing upon the attention of Parliament. Let not hon. Members mistake the feeling which is thus engendered. It is very well for you to tell us that because the rate is to be administered by elective boards, therefore it is more these people's own than the property which they now enjoy. The people feel nothing of the kind. You may suppose that country gentlemen like myself have no sense of responsibility. You may suppose that I could have used this trust property as I liked, and yet go scatheless among my neighbours. You know little of the English people if you believe anything of the kind. I thank God that the people of my district have always been of a very independent mind, and if they suspected me of anything like abuse or foul play, they would let me know it before a week was over, and that in no very doubtful terms. I know that well. With people of that temper, if you think that your present process is pleasing, you are very greatly mistaken; and tell you that when it is understood it is most distasteful to them. Hon. Members may be pleased to treat this as a question that is closed, whereas it is a question that has only lately opened itself to the understanding of the people, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Education Department of the Privy Council admitted the other night whilst apologizing to some of his Friends, that the puny concessions which this Bill contains had been wrung from him by the pressure from without, and by the apprehension that the House of Lords might respect those feelings of opposition. Well, Sir, I believe that whatever the hidden jealousy or sectarian feeling hon. Members may represent, as opposed to those charities because they are connected with the Church of England, still there lies at the bottom of their opposition a recognition of the fact that the process which you are applying is calculated to undermine the independence of the labouring classes; an independence which I have always respected; an independence which I believe to be at the foundation of our national greatness; an independence which I have never done anything to violate; an independence which I hope that the House will ever respect. I have given Notice of my intention to move that this Bill be committed on this day three months, because I believe that this Commission ought to be brought to a close. Had it been a Commission of Inquiry, had it been a Commission for the correction of abuses, had it been a Commission for obtaining the restoration of property that had been misapplied, I should have hailed it; but I have it stated in the correspondence of these Commissioners that no matter what may be the merits of a school, or however thoroughly good may be its administration, the one fact that any such school is sustained out of property which belongs to the inhabitants of a parish, at once condemns the property so applied to confiscation, vpso facto, from no imputation upon its management; but simply because this House will not permit property for elementary education to be held for the people of this country in the form of a trust, the trustees being bound to give effect to the intentions of the founder. Now, Sir, that decision applies not only to the Church of England, but to every denomination that may hold property of the kind; and I say this—I myself may have thought of devoting property for the purpose of continuing elementary education to au increased and increasing population already in the enjoyment of some of this trust property. But I will do nothing of the sort, if Parliament is to pass an Act, that, first confiscates the larger charities applied to those purposes, and vests them in these Endowed Schools Commissioners to be alienated from their original objects, and then, as a concession in this Bill, merely changes the appropriation of the smaller charities, confiscating them from the possession of the locality and investing them in the Committee of Privy Council. Sir, such petty concessions as this are no concessions of principle, as the right hon. Gentleman informed the House the other night, but constitute a perpetuation of the same principle to which I am diametrically opposed. I wish the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had reached the public. I am sorry to say, that, perhaps owing to the lateness of the hour at which it was delivered, the reports of it were very much curtailed; but such was the zeal displayed by the right hon. Gentleman that I made a note of one passage. He said—

"My hon. Friends must be aware that in several instances the House of Lords has rejected schemes which have been proposed by the Commissioners. I very much regret that the House of Lords has possessed that power."

It seems, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is so ardent in the cause, that he would even disfranchise the other branch of the Legislature in order to further his object. That is Sir, an excess of zeal which must be dangerous in its consequences. I object, then, to the continuance of this machinery for the carrying out of that which in my neighbourhood will be a process of confiscation. I object to it the more, because it is a confiscation of the property of the labouring and the poor classes; and it is for these reasons that I have given the Notice which I now beg to place in your hands, that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill on this day three months.

seconded the views of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and he did so all the more readily because he was very anxious to leave on record the grounds of his support. He did not think it was just that Parliament should, under any circumstances, ignore the right of inheritance which existed in the children of the poor, especially as every proposal of the Commissioners seemed to be—indeed, was almost openly avowed to be —to take from that class, and to provide for the children of another, which ought to be able to provide for the education of its own children. As soon as that Commission came into operation, they had this state of things—that the Commissioners proceeded to deal with some of the charitable foundations of the country which ought not to have been touched at all, or, at least, not until after all the misused endowments had been thoroughly dealt with. He asked the House to consider whether it had not evidence before it, that the very first schools that were attacked were those which were well conducted and the least requiring alteration. He was one of those who did not believe in competitive examination to the extent to which it was at present carried, because he knew that practically it meant cramming; and he especially disliked competitive examination when it actually dealt with the children of the indigent poor whose early lives were commonly passed in great straits, and who, therefore, had not the pecuniary means to place their children on the same footing as those of comparatively richer people. Under such circumstances there could be no "fair start," inasmuch as the poor man's child must necessarily be over weighted in such competition. He, therefore, cordially seconded the proposition of his hon. Friend, because he wished it distinctly to go forth throughout the length and breadth of the country that, without using the word "confiscation," the alienation now going on was as near confiscation, so far as the heritage of the poor was concerned, as was possible. The time, however, was fast coming when that class of the people would thoroughly understand to whom they were indebted for that state of matters, and, no doubt, it would be precisely and correctly appreciated. For his own part he believed that no man, or no body of men, call them by what name so ever they pleased had the right, even under the sanction of an Act of Parliament, to alter the devolution prescribed by the will of a Founder, without the most urgent necessity.

thought it would be a very serious misfortune and great calamity to the public, if the Bill now before the House did not pass, and the Commission were consequently allowed to expire. In a great number of instances in which the Commissioners had dealt with these endowments, they had conferred a large benefit on the communities of different localities. One great advantage had been that the Commissioners had saved an enormous amount of litigation in the course of their proceedings, because they had settled schemes of endowments for a large number of charities which otherwise could not have been settled without the institution of separate Chancery suits for each individual charity. When the endowments were made there were comparatively very few elementary public schools; but now the national education establishment existed, or would exist everywhere. Why, then, should not some of these endowments be applied towards the provision of a higher grade of education than that given by the mere elementary schools? One of the great wants of the day was, that they should give a better sort of technical education to the children, and this was one of the points recommended in the Report of the Commissioners, which he hoped to see accomplished.

said, he was not without considerable sympathy with his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, in regard to several points in his speech; but as the House bad arrived at the point of going into Committee on the Bill, he confessed that he would rather prefer seeing what could be done with it in Committee than give any opinion of the measure in its present shape. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in the undesirability of a discussion at this stage. He strenuously denied that confiscation was contemplated, or had been committed, under the original Act, and with regard to the case referred to by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, it had not yet come before the Commissioners. The duty of the Commissioners—which he believed they had tried to fulfil, and which the Government took care that they did fulfil—was not to confiscate the property of the poor, but to see that the property was applied in a manner that would best help the poor. Considering the provision which was made by law for elementary education, it was desirable, in dealing with great endowments, to see whether we could not do something more with them than teach merely reading, writing, and arithmetic. What he said the other night was, that this House was bound to consider facts as they were, and that it was in the power of either House to carry out its own peculiar views in any particular matter on the consideration of a scheme. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire might take some comfort from that fact, seeing that he had so much confidence in the other House. This "confiscating" Commission had been at work for some years, all its schemes, with the exception of some half-dozen, had become law, notwithstanding the check upon them possessed by both Houses; and the unsuccessful schemes had not been rejected on the grounds taken by the hon. Member.

admitted that he had been fairly beaten the other evening, and, accepting the decision of the House, wished to get into Committee, where he would again endeavour to give effect to his views. His objections were exactly the reverse of those of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; he complained of the Bill clipping the wings of the Commissioners and curtailing their power.

could not admit that schemes met with approval in the country, because the rejection of them was not moved in either House. He knew of several instances in which great discontent had been evinced at the schemes of the Commissioners.

explained that he had mentioned the case he had adduced as an illustration and type of those dealt with in schemes, and that the principle to which he had objected, the alienation of endowments from the labouring classes, was embodied in letters he had received from the Commission as Chairman of two Trusts. He wished to take the sense of the House on that principle.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "not being,' to "is" in line 16, on the ground that the clause was drawn with certain limitations as to grammar schools and the amount of endowments. Under the limitation in the clause all grammar schools having endowments of less than £100 a-year would be liable to be deprived of such endowments. The object of his Amendment was to fulfil the promise which his right hon. Friend had made over and over again—that the voluntary schools should not be injured by the Bill of 1870.

said, it was impossible for him to give his hon. Friend an assurance in the matter. His hon. Friend proposed to withdraw all grammar schools under £100 a-year from the purview of the Bill; but he trusted the Committee would not accede to such a proposal, on the ground that there were a large number of small grammar schools which had degenerated into miserable elementary schools, not only not doing good, but harm, by preventing other and better schools being established, and leading the people in the district to believe that no other school was required. He had little doubt that the Commissioners would find a great deal to do with respect to the more important schools first; but he could not consent to omit 416 grammar schools, or nearly one-half from the Bill. For himself, he should have liked to see the clause not go beyond £50; but, nevertheless, there was an advantage in framing the Bill on the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commissioners.

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, he wished to propose an Amendment in another direction. There were a great many elementary schools throughout the country, and he could not see why the amount should be limited to £100. The right plan would be to remove all these elementary schools from the operation of the Commissioners till they had concluded their work in regard to grammar schools. It did not at all follow, that because these schools were removed from the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, therefore they would be removed from all improvement. For example, they might be subjected to regular Government inspection, and have the power of charging fees. The Commissioners had stated that the reason why they might fairly divert funds given for elementary education to the purposes of higher education was, that the country had now made provision for elementary education. He maintained, however, that the country had not done so; because where voluntary schools existed it was not necessary to raise rates. He could not see why, when they had to deal with elementary schools provided for out of endowments, they should not be put upon as good a footing as others, nor why they should insist on putting them in the hands of a Commission that did not want them. He would move as an Amendment in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "1870," to "in," in line 21.

said, the Amendment would produce large results certainly not contemplated by the Select Committee. The clause, as it stood, would affect about 1,200 schools under £100 per annum. Certainly a larger endowment than that could scarcely be applied with advantage to this elementary education in a national school. [Mr. GATILORNE HARDY pointed out that under the 3rd section all elementary schools would be liable to inspection.] But the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would include 400 or 500 additional schools, some with incomes varying from £4,000 to £8,000. In Bristol alone there were three of these large foundations now devoted to mere elementary education. There were two leading objections to the proposal. Firstly, the Education Department had not a staff for investigating the working of such schools, and for making new schemes for them, while the Endowed Schools Commission had been organized for the very purpose. Secondly, it would be unfair to the schools themselves; for if they were handed over to the Education Department they came under the Act of 1870, which gave powers to that Department to ratify new schemes under its own authority, and to amend them at its own discretion. So that the schools would lose all those safeguards which were provided by the Endowed Schools Act. They would thus lose their power of three appeals—from the Commission to the Education Department, from that to the Privy Council, and from that to the supreme authority of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman could scarcely have contemplated that that would be the result of his Amendment. It was true that, under the Act of 1870, the initiative for reform must come from the schools; but to preserve that motive for sluggishness could not be the object of the Amendment.

said, that the exemption applied to endowed schools that were really elementary schools, and when they were put up to £100 a-year they had to deal with a very different range of schools, some of them with endowments of many thousands a-year. That was the very class of schools that required reform, and he therefore hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to. The Commissioners were bound to take care of the interests of the poor, and they would do so. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do by his Amendment was to leave the trustees of these large endowments unreformed, and the effect would be to strike out many schools that really required reform. The Education Department were not provided with the organization and the Staff necessary to send down Inspectors and arrange schemes for these large schools. If such schools as the Colston Schools at Bristol, which ought to be under the supervision of the Commissioners, were to be inspected in the higher branches, they would require a large increase of Inspectors. The duty of the Education Department was to look after elementary education, for the promotion of which large sums were voted to Parliament. Under the operation of that Amendment Emanuel Hospital would have been exempt, and it would exclude from the possibility of reform large institutions which required improvement as much as any endowments that came under the purview of the Commissioners.

in reply, said, that his remarks would not appl3 to the Colston Schools, nor to the Emanuel Hospital, which were really charity schools, and did not come under the description of elementary schools.

said, this was the opportunity for providing against the assumption on the part of the Commissioners of powers which lie felt certain the House never intended them to exercise, and which, if employed, would be attended by very mischievous results. He would therefore move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out all after "scheme" and insert—

"To make provision, as near as may be, for the educational interests of the class denoted in the gift or bequest of the donor as that for which his endowment was intended, and no proposal shall be inserted in any scheme alienating any portion of such bequest or gift for the benefit of persons in any other class in life or of persons in the same class resident in any other county or town than that named or otherwise indicated by the donor."

No one could doubt, looking at the evidence taken before the Select Committee, that the Commissioners had assumed to themselves a discretion with regard to the transfer of endowments from place to place and from class to class, which Parliament never intended to confer upon them. When introducing the Act of 1869, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council expressed his hope that no attempt would ever be made to apply the school endowments of the country to the purposes of elementary education. He could state from his own knowledge, cases in which, in the opinion of the communities concerned, the most grievous injustice was impending by the exercise of this assumed power on the part of the Commissioners. He had that morning received an answer to a letter lie had addressed to a friend, requesting information as to the feeling in South Devon with respect to the manner in which this power had been exercised. In reply his informant stated that with regard to the correction of abuses, he and his friends I were perfectly satisfied; but that the Commissioners had exercised an arbitrary discretion concerning many endowments which were regarded with much discontent—that they had taken away the means of education from the humbler and poorer middle class in order to create elementary schools which might be otherwise provided, and had thereby done a greater wrong to the real poor than if they had left the endowments as they were. Now, the real poor were not the members of trades unions, earning 40s. and 50s. a-week, and who could raise for them the price of fuel at their will and pleasure. The real poor were the half-pay officer, the curate, the clerk, the surgeon, and the man of small means of various degrees, whose children it was of the utmost importance to have properly educated, and for whose benefit these endowments were originally given. It was now for the Committee to decide whether, in passing the Endowed Schools Act, Parliament meant to constitute a triumvirate over the endowed property of this country, to do with it what no Department of the State would venture to do—namely, to change altogether the purposes for which it was bequeathed. As a member of the legal profession, he ventured to say that the assumption by the Commissioners of the right to overturn the old doctrine of cy pres, was never intended by Parliament. The doctrine of cy pres rendered into vulgar English was this—when a donor had given of his wealth for purposes of education or charity, and it became difficult in after times to find exactly the object designed by the deed of gift, you were to go as near to it as might be. That was common sense and common honesty, and the Courts of Equity had always upheld it. And was Parliament now, with Communism looking in at the door, to overrule that principle? And, besides, the purpose of the gift, he maintained that place was one of the elements to be considered. The Commissioners had usurped functions which Parliament had never given them. When examined as a witness recently before the Select Committee, Lord Lyttelton had avowed the doctrine that after 50 years property belonged to the State. He asked where were they to stop? Would any gentleman feel his property as secure as before if Parliament gave its sanction to such a doctrine? The right hon. Gentleman had laid on the Table a coil of schemes which he had approved, but which, from pressure of business, the House had not had time to examine. The day was, perhaps, not far distant when Members would bitterly regret that the Anaconda folds of that serpent had not been cut. He submitted that the whole course of their legislation and law was opposed to the discretion vested in the Commissioners, and on which this clause placed no efficient check, and for the purpose of enabling the House to decide whether this check was required or not, he now moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

trusted the Committee would abide by the words of the clause which were those agreed upon by the Committee upstairs. The alteration had been determined upon after much consideration, and for the purpose of giving effect to the view arrived at by the Committee after taking a great deal of evidence. His hon. Friend had said that this clause would give to that "Triumvirate" powers which had been given to no Department of the State. It did no such thing. The power given by the original Act was vested in the Government, and the Commissioners were only the machinery made use of in framing the schemes. But the Government had found that there was a disadvantage in their not having the power to amend a scheme, being limited to approval or disapproval, and that power was taken in this Bill. But, undoubtedly, the Bill left the Government absolutely responsible for these schemes, and it was an entire delusion to say that the matter was left to an irresponsible-triumvirate. The illustrations given by his hon. Friend referred to schemes not yet agreed upon or approved by the Education Department. He affected to be horrified at the Anaconda coil of schemes that had been laid upon the Table. But, if his hon. Friend was so horrified at that dreadful serpent, which was coiling itself around .hon. Members of this House, why did he not himself come to the rescue and cut the coils? He doubted whether the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would carry out his own object. He had alluded to one scheme—that, he supposed, of Dulwich College; but no county was named by the original Founder, and the different parishes interested in Dulwich School had different opinions on the subject; a scheme was settled not long ago which did not give full satisfaction to one or other of them. It was the duty of the Commission to examine into the matter and propose a scheme which would be just to all sides. By the clause as it now stood the Government took care that due regard should be paid to the interests of the particular class originally intended to be benefited, and the Amendment of his hon. Friend would only fence round and limit the action of the Commissioners much more than would be desirable.

said, he agreed with his hon. Friend who had moved that Amendment, that no greater mistake could be made than the adoption of a policy which took property from some people simply for the purpose of giving it to others. The Commissioners had made many mistakes in the exercise of their functions, and he had the greatest objection to the tyrannical powers with which they were armed. Representing as he did one of the parishes interested in the Dulwich School, he must say great complaints were made of the course they had taken in regard to that school. A scheme had been prepared, but it was kept back from the public, in the hope that in the meantime the powers of the Commissioners would be renewed. The Commissioners were three tyrants in the country, and they seemed to think that they could do anything they liked.

stated that the Bill would come into operation on the 1st of September, and would apply to all schemes which were sanctioned after that date. He was prepared to give a, pledge that no scheme should be approved of by the Department between the present time and the 1st of September.

moved, in page 2, line 25, the omission of the word "express" believing that the Commissioners construed it too strictly.

could not consent, by omitting the word, to widen the clause, which he would not have proposed himself, but which was recommended by the Committee upstairs.

proposed to insert, in line 26, after "endowment" the words or of the statutes or regulations made by the Founder or under his authority in his lifetime, or within fifty years of his death."

said, that the clause related to the appointment of ex officio clerical Governors, and it was one which he would not have proposed himself. Having been adopted by the Committee, however, he felt it his duty to submit it to the House. It provided that ex officio clerical Governors might be appointed where the wills of the Founders expressly contained a provision to that effect, and he could not consent to the introduction of any words widening the operation of the clause.

said, he would assimilate his Amendment to that placed on the Paper by the hon. Member, and move the addition of the words "which terms have been observed down to the commencement of the principal Act."

in moving to leave out the clause, said, it was a Church of England question, and the ex officio member who would be retained in office by the clause was generally the clergyman of the parish. He objected to ex officio members who were named in trusts being confirmed in office by this clause. The will of the Founder should be interpreted in accordance with the spirit of the time. His view was that when property was once dedicated to the public, after a reasonable lapse of time, the public should have the right to say how it should be administered and to deal with the endowment. Ex officio clerical members of the Board might find themselves unable to work harmoniously with the elected members. In Wales the great majority of the population were Dissenters; and therefore the life appointment of the Church of England clergyman would be obnoxious.

must ask the Committee not to consent to the omission of this clause, the effect of which it was quite possible to exaggerate. His own individual opinion was that it was a mistake to have a trustee appointed for life as an ex officio member; but if the Committee struck out the clause, although it might or might not endanger the passing of the Bill, he felt sure that the House of Lords would strike out every scheme in which the will of the Founder was thus interfered with. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Amendment.

asked why it was that the clergyman should be placed in this preferential position by statute? As a rule he would, by his position, by almost certain of appointment by the Commissioners. He believed the Government, by pressing this point, would lose their own supporters in the country. As to the possibility of the Lords taking the course which had been supposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not think that consideration ought to weigh with the Committee.

could not consent to exclude the clause from the Bill, and called upon the Committee to oppose the Amendment.

said, he must press his Amendment to a division, as it in- volved a question of principle and not of practice.

said, he wished to move an Amendment which he considered one of considerable importance. This clause introduced a principle entirely novel, and which had never before been introduced into England—namely, it declared that all endowments connected with religion were to be considered non-religious, unless made subsequent to the reign of William and Mary—that was, in effect to say that all endowments up to that time were not to be respected, because they were made before the Act of Toleration. There were just as strong Church endowments made before that time as since. Even in the case of the Irish Church Disestablishment and Disendowment Act the Government respected the endowments which had been made long previously to the time of the Toleration Act. Were they going to say that in this country they should not be respected? He begged therefore to move, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 32, to leave out from "endowment" to "if" in line 35.

said, the clause was intended to widen the term by which under Section 19 of the old Act schools were excepted from Section 17 and one or two other sections. That was a question which occupied a long time in Committee, and several propositions were made very much enlarging the scope of the clause. He himself would have preferred that the clause had been left as it stood so far as regarded exceptions; but as now proposed, it was not without argument in its favour. When the majority of the members of the Governing Body, or the principal teacher, or the scholars edu- cated in the establishment were declared by the original endowment to belong to a particular denomination it would be considered a denominational school. That was the first condition. The second condition was that the endowment must have been made under such circumstances as must render it plain that it belonged to a. particular denomination. It was only fair to require that in the latter case the words should show a real denominational intention. He must, for those reasons, oppose the Amendment.

said, he would not move the other Amendments which stood in his name; but would now look to another quarter to remedy the injustice which had been done him by the Committee.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 35, after "terms," to insert, "or manifest intent."

declined to accept the Amendment, on the ground that it would be very difficult to interpret the words. But with regard to the remark which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), he must say that, both in Committee and in that House, the Government had shown a great desire to meet legitimate objections as far as they possibly could, and certainly they had to show that desire contrary to the feeling of many of their own Friends.

moved, as Amendments, in page 3, line 3, after "of," insert— "or shall attend the public worship;" and in line 10, after "section," insert—

"In any such scheme it shall be provided that not less than two-thirds of the governing body shall always he members of such church, sect, or denomination."

He did so, formally, to prevent the Amendments being lost, through the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), in whose name they stood on the Paper.

in moving its omission, said, that Clause 19 of the Endowed Schools Act excepted certain schools from the operation of some provisions of the Endowed Schools Act. The clause now before the House extended these exceptions, and enacted that when by the statutes of the Founder, or by statutes made within 50 years of his death, the members of any Governing Body, or the advantage of any endowment, were confined to any particular sect, such limitation should hold good in perpetuity. Now, that clause seemed to him entirely in opposition to the spirit of recent legislation; it was a distinctly retrograde step—a clause for the perpetuation of schisms and sectarianism. It was quite right to leave great powers in the hands of testators, to allow almost any experiment, provided only the time was limited. But these endowments were not really endowments of religion; they were endowments of individual opinions. It was said that the law of England abhorred perpetuities; but no perpetuity was so bad as that of an erroneous or untenable opinion. In fact, they might with truth say that these endowments tended to the multiplication and perpetuation of temporary errors. They were attempts to influence the opinion of future generations, not by appeals to their intellect, but by taking advantage of the pressure of pecuniary necessities. The Universities had very wisely been thrown open, and yet it was proposed to maintain a spirit of sectarianism in the case of schools. He did not deny that there were advantages in the existence of honest and healthy differences of opinion on religious matters. Nonconformity had done great things for the country, but then it was tested and ennobled by self-sacrifice. A variety of religious sects, dead in themselves, but galvanized by money into unnatural vitality, would be an unmitigated evil. He begged to move the rejection of the clause.

hoped the Committee would not be deterred by the threat which had been held out by the right hon. Member for Oxford. University, who had just left the House, from doing their duty. Because he had failed in making a trifling alteration in this clause he had distinctly threatened the House that he was not satisfied with their decision, and would appeal to "another place." It was the first time he had ever heard such a threat held out. Unless there were good grounds for retaining the clause, he should not be influenced by any such threats; but vote for its omission.

said, he had heard the language used by his right hon. Friend, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that no threat whatever had been used. His right hon. Friend had been entirely misunderstood. He merely said, as his Amendment had not been adopted by the Committee, he hoped it would be adopted in "another place." His right hon. Friend was the last person in the world who would venture to threaten the House in any way whatever.

was in the recollection of the House, and he hoped the House would express its opinion whether he was right or wrong in his interpretation of the language which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman.

observed that, as the clause had been brought in in the interests of conciliation, there was much to be said in its favour. But after what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, his feelings were quite altered respecting it. He had taken down the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and they were—" That he would look to another place' for that justice which was denied him by the Committee." After they had been told that the clause was to be altered in a certain sense in "another House," the best thing would be to leave no clause to be altered, by omitting it.

thought there was nothing disrespectful to the House in expressing the hope that in "another place" a different decision would be arrived at. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Maidstone, he took exception to the hon. Member's statement that this class of endowments were intended to promote, not religion, but the opinions respecting religion held by the founders, and were therefore not entitled to be defended by the law of England. The same doctrine struck at the foundation of every Dissenting place of worship in the kingdom. The maintenance of these endowments was in accordance with the principles of justice. He supported the clause.

rather regretted the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think it was intended to bear the interpretation which had been given to it. To be candid, he must say that that was a clause which he proposed in the Committee in the interests of conciliation, and he thought it was a fair addition to Section 19 of the principal Act. There was fairness in saying, as it did, that since the Toleration Act, no endowment, in which, by the original instrument and by invariable custom since that time, it had been required that the majority of the Governing Body should be members of a certain denomination, and that the principal teacher should belong to that denomination, should be interfered with, and he did not think it went beyond the principle of the original section. He could understand those who objected to the original provision objecting to that also. The reason why it was proposed was that there were certain endowments which everybody expected would come under the provisions of the original Act which had not come under it. It must be remembered that it was even possible for a Church school to have a majority of Governors belonging to Dissenting denominations; at any rate, provision was made for the admission of Dissenters as members of the Governing Body, as well as for meeting the conscientious views of the parents whose children might attend such schools.

remarked that if small men made observations similar to that attributed to the right hon. Gentleman no indignation was aroused by them. ["Oh, oh"] When the Agricultural Children's Bill was in Committee of the House, and a certain Amendment had been carried, he said he would not trouble the Committee to divide again, because he hoped the Bill would be set right in "another place." No indignant remark was uttered when he made that observation.

said, it was their duty to express their honest convictions, and to leave those in "another place" to do the same. Most of the schools which would come under Clause 19 were in Cathedral cities, where, as might be inferred from the course of that discussion, there was a good percentage of Dissenters. The result of passing that clause would be to prevent many of these Dissenters from being on the Governing Bodies of the schools, for it had been the practice of the Commissioners to confine co-optative appointments to the members of the Church of England. It was both unjust and impolitic to admit Dissenters to a trust, and at the same time to provide that in no case should there be a majority of them. If they had civil and parochial rights, why should they be treated in this exceptional manner? Why were they not to exercise the rights of the majority, if they were the majority? What was done from expediency in the case of the Irish Church was no guide as to what should be done in utilizing schools which were of a national character. So far from being privileged schools they were substantially national schools. What civil, parochial, or educational right had a Dissenter given up by building a chapel and providing for religious services there? He did not thereby subject himself to any disability, in respect of property or privilege of the Church by law established.

said, he should support the clause, as it was a small step in the right direction, but it failed to meet the justice of the case.

moved, in page 4, line the omission of the words "such scheme may be approved of by Her Majesty without being laid before Parliament." He objected to these words, becsuse they took away the control exercised by Parliament over these Commissioners. It was becoming rather fashionable on the Treasury Bench to talk of the inconvenience of the control of the House of Commons, and they knew that with regard to a certain contract the Minister principally concerned had expressed his opinion that Parliament should have no control over such matters.

said, the effect of the Amendment would be that no appeal, such as at present existed, would be possible; and that was hardly what the hon. Gentleman was aiming at. The Committee thought there were a great number of schemes which it was not worth while burdening Parliament with, and which it was desirable to pass without any unnecessary delay.

thought it would be enough if the Commission were continued for three years, instead of five, and would move accordingly in line 28, page 6, to leave out from "one thousand eight hundred and seventy six," to the end of the clause.

said, he would accept the Amendment.

complained that an Amendment of his, limiting the duration of the Commission to one year, although handed in to the Clerk at the Table prior to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Boston, was not placed upon the Paper in its proper course. Owing to that arrangement, the words which he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) proposed to amend were swept away, before he had the opportunity of doing so; but nevertheless, he would stand upon his right, and move the substitution of 1874 for 1876. The Government had not yielded a single point in Committee that night, and now the Vice President of the Council did not scruple to try by taking advantage of a printer's error to shut out an Amendment which challenged the policy of prolonging the existence of the Commission for more than one year. But there was such a thing as being "too clever by half." The Government had brought in three educational measures this Session professedly founded upon a policy of conciliation. The first foundered in a calm sea, and the Ministry had to take to the Brighton boat to get safe to land. They saved the second Bill by throwing over half the cargo; and now upon the third Bill, the House could not agree upon a single clause, although the Bill had had the advantage of a patient examination by a Committee upstairs. The matter became of the more importance when hon. Members were threatened with the loss of their seats, if they did not vote according to the dictation of the Birmingham League. He regarded that as an exceedingly bad Bill, and had voted against the second reading with great pleasure. He appealed to the conscience and fair play of the country against the proposal to increase the arbitrary power of these three Commissioners, and should move accordingly to substitute "1874" for "1876," in page 6, line 28.

ruled that the date 1876 having disappeared from the clause in the last Amendment, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, substituting for it 1874 must fall to the ground.

complained that he had an Amendment on the Paper, which should have precedence of the one now under discussion.

by leave, withdrew his Amendment.

moved, in page 6, line 28, to leave out "76" in order to insert "74."

said, he understood that some remarks had been made in his absence on something he had said at the close of the discussion on a former clause. He did not go out of the House at the moment, and he should have thought if any hon. Gentleman wished to comment on what he had said, he would have preferred to do it in his presence rather than when he was away. But if he were to speak over again, he should say exactly the same thing as before. He did not recognize that this House had an absolute right to determine everything, irrespective of the people outside the House, or the Lords, who were a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature. What he had said was that, in his belief, injustice had been done in some of these clauses, and that he looked to the Lords to remedy it. [Cries of "Order!"] He was quite ready to obey a call of Order from the Chair.

It is the duty of any hon. Member of the House to rise to a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not warranted in repeating a speech made on a former occasion. The right hon. Gentleman is appealing to Members, and is repeating what he said. I say that is not in conformity with Order.

It is, I believe, the universal feeling in this House to concede to any hon. Member a hearing when he desires to offer a personal ex- planation. In this respect I think considerable latitude is allowed. In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman had no intention to exceed, nor does he exceed that latitude.

said, that he did not wish to exceed that latitude; but he was in Order, because it must be remembered that he was speaking in Committee, and he had a perfect right to repeat everything and go into every case connected with the Bill. The Motion now before the House was, whether the Endowed Schools Commission should continue one year or five, and he understood that in his absence, some hon. Gentlemen had made some remarks on what he had said. He was quite sure that they would have been glad to have made them in his presence; but what he said was, that he considered some injustice had been done, but that he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing any further, but that he would look for justice on those points "elsewhere", and nothing more. He did not hesitate to say what his meaning was; he might appeal to the people, or the House of Lords, and he was quite entitled to say that he considered the people to over-ride that House, and the House of Lords to be co-ordinate with it. It was not said in an offensive manner, and he in no way threatened the House, and in point of fact the right hon. Gentleman might just as well be accused of doing so when he had told them that they must do certain things, or it would bring about a collision with the House of Lords. He had never been wanting in respect to any hon. Member, nor had he ever disparaged the House of Commons. On the contrary, he should stand up just as much for the privileges of that House as the House of Lords.

explained that he did express his regret at the absence of the right hon. Gentleman at the time he was making the remarks, and what the right hon. Gentleman now stated quite confirmed what he had said. He admitted that he complained that the right hon. Gentleman had threatened them by dangling the House of Lords before their eyes; but if he had misapprehended him, he must express his regret.

said, he thought they might now go on with the business of the Committee. His hon. Friend had proposed to omit the word 1876 and substitute 1874. The Government were willing to give up the two years, and thus continue the Commission till 1876; but they could not be blamed for supporting the provisions of their own Bill. He was surprised that they should be accused of unwillingness to make concessions, after the one they had just made. Every clause they proposed was in accordance with the views of the Committee upstairs. He hoped the Committee would not accept the limit of one year as proposed.

said, that the decisions of the Committee upstairs were very much the reflex in their essential part of the will of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would therefore urge the hon. Member for Finsbury not to trouble the Committee by dividing.

proposed a clause which would open to the graduates of any British University the office of head master in any endowed school, which was now restricted to graduates of Oxford and Cambridge. A Clause (Graduate of any University of the United Kingdom, if otherwise fit, shall be held qualified where the statutes require the head master to be a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge,)—(Sir John Lubbock,)—brought up, and read the first time.

opposed the clause, which was altogether beyond the scope of the Bill. It appeared to be a very mild, benevolent clause, but it would over-ride the constitution of all endowed schools. He would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should bring in a Bill on some Wednesday next Session for the purpose of carrying out the object he had in view.

defended the clause, pointing out that a similar provision had been introduced into every scheme already sanctioned which had become law, and that to their honour be it said, neither Oxford nor Cambridge had made any objection. The provision that masters and head masters should be graduates of Oxford or Cambridge was not intended to favour those Universities, but to secure competent men. The degrees granted by the University of London were as thorough and complete as any other degrees in the world; and. he believed there was now no British University the degrees of which were open to criticism. The Committee, therefore, need not fear if they adopted the clause that they would be lowering the standard of qualification for masters. That was a question which could not be determined by a case of individual hardship, but must be dealt with on liberal principles. If necessary, however, he was prepared to show that it was no theoretical grievance which would be remedied by the clause.

observed that the term "British" would exclude graduates of Trinity College, Dublin.

said, he would alter the phraseology to graduates of "any University in the United Kingdom."

said, the clause differed entirely from the whole framework of the Bill, and of the existing Act. It was not by the provisions of the measure that schools were affected, but by schemes framed under the Act. He did not object to the qualification in favour of a graduate of the London University; but he objected to have an isolated provision acting of itself, and by itself, instead of by schemes adapted to the several eases.

said, it seemed to him that the clause could not be really objected to. He hoped that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) would withdraw his opposition to it, or at all events, that the Committee would not think it necessary to divide.

complained that the hon. Member for Maidstone had proposed his Amendment without one word of explanation. That was only another instance of the irregularities which had characterized the proceedings of that evening.

said, that if in past times people were foolish enough to give their money for these purposes, expecting that their wishes would be abided by, he did not see why they should not have full power to choose the graduates of what Universities they liked. It seemed to be the fashion now to try to upset everything. The Scotch Universities existed at the time the Founders made this choice, and he thought that their wishes ought to be regarded. The clause might have something in it, but it certainly introduced a very new and. wide principle which was quite alien to the whole framework of the Bill.

said, he would divide the Committee against it, as he could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the opposition to the clause.

supported the clause. No one could object to putting all the Universities on a level. The objection, therefore, was merely a technical one.

thought the present was another instance of unnecessary legislation. He thought the proposed alteration could be effected by scheme, and objected to the insertion in an Act of Parliament, on a totally different subject, of a provision that would place all the Universities on the same level, and make no distinction between the ancient institutions of Oxford and Cambridge and the mushroom Universities of modern times. The question, if raised at all, should be considered in a separate measure.

said, he could not help expressing his surprise at the opposition of the right hon. and hon. Members for Oxford and Cambridge Universities. He believed it would be for the advantage of those Universities that the clause should be inserted. He thought no disrespect could be more marked than that which excluded a graduate of a University from equal competition with the members of the older ones.

said, he would remind the Committee that the schemes of the Commissioners included many subjects of modern learning, such as physical science, and therefore it was desirable that they should extend the area of selection for the teachers of these schools as much as possible.

asked why they should over-ride the will of a Founder who designed to benefit graduates of Oxford? He thought the clause went further than the hon. Mem- ber intended. If its operation were confined to existing Universities in the United Kingdom it would be a great improvement.

objected that there was no reciprocity in the clause, and that if it passed in its present form London University might still enjoy any monopolies of its own.

said, that before the clause was added to the Bill he wished to propose an Amendment which would place all the Universities in the kingdom on an equal footing. He accordingly moved the omission of the words "the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge," to make way for the insertion of the words "a University graduate."

pointed out that the Amendment would virtually exclude Oxford and Cambridge, even if named in the will of the Founder, and he suggested that the better way would be to omit "Oxford and Cambridge," and insert "some specified University or Universities," which would meet the difficulty.

agreed with the hon. Member as to the desirability of inserting such words.

moved the insertion of the words "existing at the time of the passing of this Act," the object being to restrict the clause to existing Universities.

said, that Universities did not rise spontaneously, like mushrooms. No University could be created without the consent of the Crown, and they had had experience in the early part of that Session how very difficult it was to create Universities. He did not think the objection of the hon. Baronet ought to prevail. It was not an unreasonable presumption that if new Universities should be founded it would be because some better principle was devised which would make them something more in accordance with the spirit of the times; and he did not see, therefore, that the elder Universities were entitled to any particular preference in this matter, for if any fault were to be found with them, it was that they had been too easy in giving their degrees.

moved the following new clause:—

"The power of the Commissioners under section ten of the Endowed Schools Act (the principal Act) for removing any governors or trustees of schools shall be restricted to those cases only in which it may appear that the governors or trustees have proved themselves unfitted for the execution of their duties by reason of neglect or mismanagement.

He thought that some hon. Members were under the impression that it was the duty of the Governors to teach the boys. In fact, their duty was to see that the establishment was managed according to the scheme laid down for that purpose. Any unnecessary removal, or the introduction of new Governors unacquainted with the management, would only tend to produce confusion, and he hoped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) would accept what he considered a very mild proposal. If he could not agree to it in the shape proposed he trusted that the object would be met by some other words.

opposed the clause, which, he said, if carried, would put the whole of this matter in the same position as it would have assumed under the original Resolution proposed in the Committee by the hon. Member for Kent, and which was rejected by the whole of the Committee, with the exception of its Mover and Seconder. Restrictions were already numerous enough, and it would be most difficult to carry out reforms under the conditions which the clause proposed.

thought it would be wise on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the clause, as it would have the effect of lessening the unpopu- larity of the Commissioners in the country.

observed that the unpopularity of the Commissioners had been so often talked about, that people began to believe in it. According to his own experience, the action of the Commissioners was welcome, popular, and satisfactory.

supported the clause, though he had no expectation that it would be carried. He thought that trustees who had faithfully and without legitimate complaint fulfilled their duties to their schools ought not to be liable to removal.

gave Notice that on the Report he would move, as an Amendment to Clause 13, a Proviso to the effect that whenever any Motion for an Address to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her assent from any proposed scheme of the Commissioners was made in either House of Parliament, it should be incumbent on the President or the Vice President of the Council to move the assent of the House to such scheme within two months. The object of the Proviso was to prevent the inconvenience which had been suffered in some instances from Motions in the hands of private Members expiring by effluxion of time.

said, that, since his statement that he should proceed with this Bill, the Government had re-considered their position; and, though there would be great convenience in obtaining legislative sanction for the course of not filling up the second Judgeship, it was not absolutely incumbent upon the Government to fill up the appointment even without legislative sanction. The Government, therefore, did not propose to proceed with the Bill, upon the understanding that, unless unforeseen circumstances rendered it necessary to do so, they would not fill up the appointment. He regretted to learn that the learned Judge upon whose advice the Government had acted had been unjustly assailed, and his motives in giving that advice had been entirely misrepresented. That learned Judge did not originate the proposal not to fill up the appointment; but, upon being asked., he gave a straightforward answer, which was the only answer he could give, and he had refused to take the additional £500 a-year which was to have been granted to him during his life-time, unless that increased salary was attached to the office and continued to his successors. He would move that the Order be discharged.

said, the course taken by the Government would give general satisfaction; but he hoped the noble Lord would not meanwhile commit himself one way or the other as to the filling up of the vacancy. In his (Dr. Ball's) opinion the second Judge should be appointed, especially as there was a considerable amount of property which had belonged to the Irish Church which ought to be dealt with in this Court.

proposed a new clause, taken almost word for word from the Scotch Education Act of last year, providing that any person who took into his service a child under 13 years of age, unable to read or write, should be deemed thereby to undertake the duty of a parent as to elementary education. New Clause (Any person who takes into his service a child under thirteen unable to read or write shall be deemed thereby to undertake duty of parent as to elementary education,)—(Viscount Sandon,)—brought up, and read the first time.

observed that it had been often said that an Act of Parliament could do anything but convert a man into a woman, and that clause proposed to convert an employer into a parent. A person who took a poor child into his employment, really from motives of charity, would, in consequence, be saddled with serious consequences, and in his opinion the clause was a most objectionable one. If it were passed, the result would be that a benevolent employer would dismiss the child from his employment, rather than have such heavy responsibilities imposed upon him. The ultimate consequence of the clause would be to drive such poor children into the street, and more unwise or despotic legislation for the purpose in view could not be imagined. He hoped the House would not fulminate such a decree against persons who were acting in the interests of benevolence.

thought that though the clause might, with advantage in some instances, be carried into effect, yet it raised too important and complicated a question to be adopted at the present late period of the Session. He was aware, however, that the clause had been urged by many school boards after much consideration.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had entirely mistaken the object of the clause, which had nothing to do with vagrant children, but was a general clause making education a condition for employment of labour. This kind of indirect compulsion was chiefly relied upon by some countries, as in Denmark, and certainly, before we succeeded in making compulsion universal in this country, direct compulsion must be backed up by some form of indirect compulsion of this kind. But with the doubts which had been expressed by competent authority—that the words of the proposed clause would interfere with other forms of indirect compulsion already existing in the Factory and Workshops Acts, he would suggest to the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) that he should not push his new clause at present—though, if he did, he would vote for it.

remarked, in answer to Mr. HARCOURT, that such a sys- tem of compulsion as that which he proposed existed at present under the Factory Acts. He had been urged only five minutes ago by the Vice President of Council to bring on the clause; but after being deserted by him in a manner of which he had right to complain, he would not persevere with the clause.

explained that he told the noble Lord that there was a great deal in his proposal which deserved support, but that it would require a good deal of alteration.

put the Question, That the clause, by leave of the House, be withdrawn. [Cries of "No, no!"]

said, that if it was intended to divide, he should like to say a few words on the clause. It went much further than the Factory Acts, as it provided no modified half-time system at all. The school boards were beginning at the wrong end by taking hold of these children who were learning how to earn their living, instead of turning their attention to the education of those poor children who wandered about the streets of large towns and never went to work.

expressed it to be his intention, if the House went to a division, to vote for the clause. He, however, hoped it would be allowed to be withdrawn.

said, that the Government did not object to the principle of the clause, but they must vote against it for two reasons. First, it was a subject upon which a serious difference of opinion existed, and it was undesirable that at so late a stage of the Bill any provisions should be introduced into it that did not meet with the full consent of the House. Secondly, the clause was objectionable in some of its details. It would be the duty of the Government to vote against it; but that must not be taken as an indication that the Government disapproved of the principle of the clause.

moved a new clause for dividing the Lambeth division of the London School Board district into the Lambeth and Wandsworth divisions—the Lambeth division to consist of the borough of Lambeth and the parts of the parishes of Lambeth and Camberwell outside the borough; and the Wandsworth division, of the parishes of Clapham, Tooting Graveney, Streatham, Battersea (excluding Penge), Wandsworth, and Putney. The parish contained 500,000 people and had an area of 32 square miles.

said, if that was the proper time, he should fully concur with the hon. Member in thinking that a division of the area of Lambeth was desirable. But there were other large districts, such as Greenwich, Finsbury, and Marylebone, which also required to be divided; Greenwich for area, and Finsbury and Maryle bone on account of population. The question was, whether such arrangements could be made at that stage of the Bill. Though he considered the hon. Member had a good case, for the reason he had stated he could not vote for the clause.

said, the reasons for the division of Lambeth were so strong that if the hon. Member for East Surrey divided the House he would vote for the clause.

supported the principle of the clause, as he thought the population of Lambeth was too large to be represented as they were now on the School Board.

said, the difficulty of the proposition was, that it opened a much larger question than the division of the borough of Lambeth—in fact, it would lead to the consideration of the larger question of the re-distribu-of seats on the London School Board. That was a grave question, which ought not to be raised at present, especially as he understood that no representation had been made by the representatives of Lambeth to the Education Department or to the School Board on the subject. It would be quite time enough to consider the question when such an application was made.