said, he wished to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Health whether it was his intention, at that late period of the Session, to proceed with the Public Health Bill?

said, that considering the late period of the Session, and the fact that he had been allowed to pass through Committee a very long and important Bill, as well as to make considerable progress with another, it would hardly be acting fairly by the House if he attempted to persevere with the Public Health Bill that Session. He might, however, take that opportunity of remarking that the Bill had been very maturely considered by a Committee which had sat upon it twenty-one days, had taken a great deal of evidence, and had suggested several Amendments. It had afterwards been reprinted and circulated in the country; and he had received a great many further suggestions, some of which he intended to adopt. He proposed therefore merely to move the committal of the Bill pro formâ, in order to insert those further Amendments, and then to allow it to be again circulated in the country during the recess. It would, however, be necessary to provide, by a short Bill, for the continuance of the General Board of Health for one year, and he should propose to insert in it clauses for the reappointment, if it should be thought necessary, of a medical council, and also to attach a medical officer to the Board. To that Bill he hoped no objection would be made. With regard to existing interests, and particularly with regard to gas and water Companies, he had to remark that the clauses now in the Bill were not the original ones, but that they had been inserted by the Committee at the suggestion of an eminent professional man who had appeared before them on behalf of several of the Companies. Those clauses had since met with great opposition from gas and other Companies, and it would be his duty during the recess to consider any representations that might be made to him on the subject. There were, however, other parties to be considered besides the Companies—namely, the public—and it would be for him so to arrange matters, that whilst a due regard should be paid to the interests of the Companies, the interests of the public at large should not be endangered.

said, he begged to ask the hon. Secretary of the Treasury whether the authority under which the retiring allowances lately granted to certain Poor Law Inspectors, named in the return No. 320 of the present Session, was derived from any Act of Parliament, and, if so, which? or whether the power of granting pensions, other than those sanctioned by the Act 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 24, and other Acts, was claimed by the Treasury?

said, he believed that from time immemorial it had been the practice of the Treasury to grant retiring allowances, whenever arrangements were made which had for their object the public benefit. Those allowances were not however absolutely pensions for life, for there was a clause in the Superannuation Act which rendered the parties receiving them liable to be called upon at any time to perform other duties; and, in point of fact, one of the gentlemen referred to had already been appointed to another place under the Crown. The Act required that the Minute granting retiring allowances should be laid on the table the following year, and this Minute would not, therefore, be laid on the table until next Session.

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the admiralty whether Her Majesty's Government had received any report of the bombardment and destruction, on the 9th of January last, by Her Majesty's steamship Antelope, Lieutenant Commander Young, of Old Town, at Calabar, on the coast of Africa, by which the property of British missionaries residing there was destroyed; by whose authority Lieutenant Young acted, and what were the reasons assigned for such a proceeding; and if it was by the orders of Her Majesty's Government that the British consul there had interdicted the inhabitants from rebuilding the town?

said, Her Majesty's Government had received an account of the bombardment of Old Town, Calabar, by Her Majesty's ship Antelope, and it was done at the particular request of Her Majesty's consul. The reason for taking that course was, that an article of the treaty with certain chiefs had been infringed. The missionaries represented that the chiefs were in the habit of murdering persons by administering what was called "the poison cup." The consul called upon the chiefs to give an assurance that they would abstain from the practice. The chiefs, in spite of remonstrances, having repeated the offence, the consul called upon the commander of the Antelope to bombard the place. He (Sir C. Wood) did not know whether the property of the missionaries had been destroyed, and he was not aware of any steps being taken to prevent the rebuilding of the town.

Sir, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister. It has been stated publicly in the circular which Count Buol addressed to the diplomatic agents of Austria, dated the 25th of May, that, considering the circumstances under which the Austrian proposal had been rejected and the grounds on which its value had been contested, it appeared to the Emperor of Austria his duty to give the Cabinets of Paris and London another opportunity of considering the plan and the consequences to Europe of its rejection. Count Buol states that full explanation of the plan, with the motives of the Austrian Government and a refutation of the objections which had been urged on the part of the allies, had been communicated to the Governments of England and France. I wish to ask the noble Lord whether there will be any objection to lay before the House this communication, or any correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Austria relative to the Austrian proposal? I have not given notice of this question to the noble Lord, and, therefore, if he does not feel at liberty to answer it now I will repeat the question to-morrow.

I have no difficulty, Sir, whatever in answering the question of my right hon. Friend, by saying Her Majesty's Government have already determined to lay upon the table of the House the whole of the correspondence bearing upon that Austrian proposal. It is now in preparation, and I hope in a couple of days, at all events, to be able to lay it upon the table of the House.

I wish to put a question to the Home Secretary relative to the riotous proceedings of yesterday, to ask whether it was in consequence of any orders given by him that when the mob were breaking the windows yesterday in Belgrave Square there were no police present—in fact, no person for the protection of the public, and to check the violence of the mob?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should think it necessary to ask me whether, when the mob yesterday were breaking windows in Belgrave Square, Wilton Street, Eaton Square, and in Tottenham Court Road and the Hampstead Road (where much the greater damage was done), it was in consequence of orders from me that the usual protection of the inhabitants was withdrawn. It is scarcely necessary, I should suppose, for me to say I gave no such orders. I may say I had no intimation, nor was it known to the police, or any one connected with the Government, that the mob would by a sudden impulse, or by the sudden guidance of others, rush from Hyde Park to Belgrave Square, where there was no more than the ordinary number of police-constables in a district usually very quiet. The damage was done in a quarter of an hour, before the reserves of police could be brought up to prevent the violence which had then been actually committed. The reserves were, however, brought up in time to check the further progress of that violence.

said, he did not think that the answers given by the right hon. Baronet were at all satisfactory. They had now had a third consecutive Sunday riot, and he wished to know in what way they were to protect themselves from a fourth? If he might be allowed to make a short statement—["No, no!"] Surely it was the custom to allow hon. Members to preface their questions with a short statement, and if the House would grant him that indulgence he would promise not to detain them more than two minutes, whilst he narrated what he had himself witnessed. He saw in Grosvenor Place yesterday a parcel of boys, about fifty or sixty in number, walking down the middle of the street breaking windows. They were surrounded by a large number of the lowest rabble, and there were also present a number of respectably dressed persons, who called themselves "spectators," and who certainly might have been better employed than idly looking on. Not a single police officer was present, but the right hon. Baronet was perhaps aware that a large number of the force were in the neighbourhood, at the top of Constitution-hill, and at Hyde Park. In fact, as soon as the disturbance was over the streets were occupied by them in numbers that might have resisted a hostile invasion with great success—and they remained there for the remainder of the evening. What he wished to know was whether the right hon. Baronet would state to the House what were the orders the police had received; and if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to give that information, he (Mr. Adderley) would move that the orders be laid on the table of the House. He should also be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what was the number of persons that had been taken prisoners; and likewise if he would state in what way the public were to protect themselves in future—whether, in short, they were to take measures for their own defence, or whether they might trust to the police for protection.

said, the description given by the hon. Gentleman correspondend pretty much with the statement which had been communicated to him both by the Commissioners of police and by other persons; although he thought the hon. Gentleman had rather underrated the number of persons who followed the knot of boys and the other parties engaged in breaking windows. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the police were not in the immediate neighbourhood of Hyde Park, and whether they had not abstained from interfering. Now he was informed that there was a sudden rush from Hyde Park to Belgrave Square, and he was afraid the hon. Gentleman himself had suffered to a considerable extent. The mob was followed by a largo number of persons, who had been attracted by a curiosity which he could not help considering was blameable—and those persons so obstructed the road that the police could not force their way through the crowd to the front in time to prevent the mischief. In addition to sending a body of 400 men from the park after the mob, a message was despatched to the stations south of Belgrave Square, and 100 men, who were ordered to meet the crowd, succeeded in arresting some of the ringleaders. The hon. Gentleman said that there were no police in the streets; but in point of fact the ordinary police officers were on duty. [Mr. ADDERLEY—No, no!] The hon. Gentleman might be better informed; but he (Sir G. Grey) was told that the ordinary police officers were on duty, though, of course, they were quite unable to resist so large a crowd. The mob ran away as soon as the police were seen to arrive, including those boys who had committed the acts of violence in front. He believed that only one of the persons actually charged with throwing stones and breaking windows in that district had been arrested. He was arrested by a gentleman, an acquaintance of his (Sir G. Grey's). If other persons who were looking on while these acts of violence were committed had vigorously exerted themselves, he believed that several others of the offenders might have been taken. The person who had been so arrested had been fined 40s., or one month's imprisonment. In the Tottenham-court Road district, eight persons had been arrested. The same disorderly and riotous proceedings had taken place there by apparently the same class of persons; and the police certainly could not have had any suspicion that such proceedings would have taken place in a district like that, there being no person resident there who could be supposed to be at all obnoxious to the rioters; and the ordinary police on duty there had not the power of putting a stop to the riot. The orders given to the police were to hold in readiness a large reserve, in order that they might be prepared to act wherever there was any disturbance. In some instances, where it had been anticipated, disturbances did not take place; in others they did. But the orders given to the police undoubtedly were to arrest every person guilty of any act of violence or of obstruction of carriages. Of course, without any special instructions, in the event of open acts of violence like those committed on the preceding day, it was the duty of every policeman—and not only of every policeman, but of every subject of Her Majesty—to do all in his power to put a stop to such lawless proceedings.

said, he wished to ask if the right hon. Baronet was aware that a gallant admiral, Sir George Seymour, had attempted to put a stop to the destruction of property in his own neighbourhood, and had been struck down by a stone on the head, and had been severely injured.

said, he had learnt with most sincere regret from a letter which he had received from Admiral Seymour, that a most dastardly attack was made upon him by the populace, when he, with the courage of a British seaman, seized one of the persons who were most active in committing violence against the property of the inhabitants in his own neighbourhood. When the gallant Admiral called upon the spectators to afford him their assistance in arresting the aggressors they, he regretted to say, did not respond to the call. Had they done so—and they were persons having the appearance of gentlemen—the gallant Admiral would not have sustained any injury. With regard to the number of policemen on duty, it was the same as upon ordinary occasions. ["No, no!"] He believed that they were the same in number.

said, he rose to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Health upon a subject of vital importance to the inhabitants of London—namely, the impure and pestiferous state of the river Thames. A letter from Professor Faraday appeared in The Times of that morning, containing a description of the impure condition of the river, the correctness of which he was able to confirm by his own observation. Under these circumstances, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any plan had been decided on by the Government for diverting the sewage of the metropolis from the river Thames; and, if so, at what period that plan would be likely to come into operation?

said, he was sorry that at present there existed no power whatever, either in the Government or in any other authority, to remedy the nuisance which had been so justly complained of as arising from the state of the river Thames. Up to last year, there was a Commission of Sewers appointed for the metropolis, the appointment being made wholly by the Crown; but by a Bill of last Session a new body was constituted, part of which was appointed by the Government; the ratepayers and vestries of the districts appointing the other part. But those Commissioners had no power whatever to acquire land for outfall works; and before any attempt could be made to divert the sewage from the Thames, it would be necessary to acquire that power. In the Metropolitan Government Bill, which had passed through Committee, he had taken power for the Metropolitan Board of Works to take land for outfall works, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and to take it compulsorily for that object. He understood that the present Commissioners of Sowers had before them a variety of plans, suggested by Mr. Stephenson and other eminent engineers, for the purpose of effecting that object. The Metropolitan Board of Works, supposing the Legislature to pass the Bill, would be constituted before the close of the year; those plans would be submitted to that Board, and would be presented to them in such a state that the Board might act upon them as soon as they thought proper. And they would have ample power, not only to take land for outfall works, but to raise the necessary funds for carrying out the object.

said, he should move that the Bill be recommitted. He did not think that the right hon. and learned Lord was aware of the effect of his own Amendments.

said, he was perfectly aware of the nature of the Amendments in the Bill, and should oppose the recommittal.

said, that the tendency of the measure had been very much changed for the worse within the last few days. He considered that if the House agreed to it they would be taking a backward step in legislation, and therefore it would be most unwise to assent to it. His main objection to the principle of the measure was, that it vested the control of education in Scotland in an irresponsible Board, and he did not think that experience had shown that, where the State had interfered, the results of such interference had been so advantageous as to render the extension of such a principle expedient. Those establishments which existed at present under the care of the Committee of Privy Council had not been so well conducted as to lead them to hope that the system could be well applied in Scotland. If, indeed, it could be proved that the people were actually destitute of educational establishments, and that no voluntary efforts to meet the want had been made, it might be proper to institute State schools, but, until that proposition had been proved, it would be wise to abstain. It did not follow, that because Scotch Liberal Members supported the Bill the people were in its favour, for various reasons could he mentioned which would account for the support of those Members. But he denied that there was any degree of enthusiasm on the part of the people of Scotland on the subject, such as existed last year. Indeed, nothing could be more offensive to the various sects than an enactment which would compel them to support State schools, nor did he think that, on inquiry, the opponents of such a principle would be found to consist of a very small minority. For these reasons, he trusted that the House would reject the Bill.

said, he now would propose the addition of the following clause:—

"If any complaint shall be made to the School Committee in regard to the religious or moral teaching of the master, it shall be lawful to the Board, on the report of the School Committee, to direct such complaint to be inquired into by the School Committee, with the assistance of the inspector and of such other persons as the Board may appoint, and who may be willing to undertake such duty."

said, that this was the clause in which the whole security for religious teaching existed. His hon. Friends around him did not think that the clause contained any such security. Now, supposing that an inquiry was instituted as the clause authorised, he wanted to know what was to be the result. There was no power given to the Board to do anything more. There was no power given to punish the schoolmaster if he were found guilty. The clause as it stood was utterly inefficient. He would therefore vote against it.

said, he wished to know what was meant by religious teaching. Was it the religion of the Presbyterians, the Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Independents, or the Unitarians, that was meant? He considered the clause as most objectionable. The Bill tried to be religious, but it was not and could not be religious. It was, in fact, a delusion practised upon the people of Scotland.

said, that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government proposed that a grant should be given to the Roman Catholics in Scotland, there was a storm of opposition raised in the Protestant papers of Scotland, which was calculated to appal the Government. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate then made a kind of compromise upon the subject by proposing the present clause, which really meant nothing.

said, those Liberal Members who had opposed the Bill had acted in a manner perfectly consistent with their principles. There was not one single liberal principle in the Bill, to which Liberal Members could point as a justification for their support of it. It was not a liberal Bill in point of religion; it was one apparently got up by the Free Church party, and contained much evidence of the selfishness and intolerance of that sect. The whole object accomplished by the measure would be to transfer the management of the schools in Scotland which were now under the Established Church, te a management shared between the Established Church and the Free Church, under the direction and supervision of a Government Board. Why should he be called upon to support the Bill when he found that voluntary efforts were treated in it as a nullity, and when he remembered that out of 5,000 schools in Scotland 2,000 were on the voluntary system? On the whole, he said deliberately that he would rather leave education in Scotland where it was, than place it in the hands of the right hon. and learned Lord as desired by the Bill, and if the hon. Member opposite carried his Amendment to a division, he should certainly support it.

said, he should vote against the clause, on the ground that it was one intended to carry out, to its full extent, the objectionable principle of centralisation.

said, he opposed the clause, because he believed that it was entirely without an object, and accomplished nothing.

said, the religious difficulty which caused so much discussion in that House, was no difficulty at all, for whether religious teaching was provided for by the Bill or not, the people of Scotland, it was well known, would take care to have religious teaching. It was only those Gentlemen who could not speak three sentences without betraying their ignorance of the people of Scotland that made any difficulty on that head. The Members for Scotland knew very well that it was so, and one of the most determined opponents of the Bill told him that such a provision was not at all necessary for the people of Scotland. He had altered the 27th clause of the Bill to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but finding that they opposed it as much as ever after that alteration, his eyes were opened to the nature of their opposition. He was glad to say, that a large majority of the United Presbyterians supported the Bill, and finding that it was a hopeless attempt to conciliate the opposition, he was not willing to interfere even with the prejudices of those who were favourable to it. It was with that view he prepared the clause now under consideration. It would enable the Board to inquire whether the teaching of the schoolmaster was irreligious or immoral, to call in the assistance of a minister if necessary, and under the general clauses of the Bill the schoolmaster could be dismissed if his teaching was either irreligious or immoral. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would give up squabbling about mere theories, because all the religious difficulty would vanish the moment the Bill passed. It might be necessary to have a separate provision for the Roman Catholics in the large towns, but in all the schools the religious instruction to be given would be so framed as to enable persons of all denominations to attend them.

said, that many of his hon. Friends had given notice of Amendments upon the 15th clause, but were induced to withdraw them in consequence of a clause to be proposed by the Lord Advocate. That clause, however, was subsequently withdrawn, and the present one substituted. Those hon. Members complained of the course thus taken by the right hon. and learned Lord, as they considered that the present clause was not practical. The right hon. and learned Lord had omitted to state what would be the practical effect of it. He wished to know whether there would be power to punish or remove a schoolmaster in the event of his misconducting himself? [The LORD ADVOCATE interposed a remark.] Yes, the schoolmaster might be dismissed if the Board chose, but hon. Members on his side of the House had no confidence in the Board, which had no religious element in it.

said, it was quite clear if the schoolmaster be found guilty, under the clause now before the House, he might be dismissed under the general powers of the Bill.

said, it was feared that the separation of the religious hours from the secular hours would lead to the separation of religion from the education generally.

said, he considered the present Bill even more objectionable than the Bill of last year.

said, he must complain of the course taken by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in inducing him (Mr. Lockhart), as well as others, to withdraw Amendments of which they had given notice, upon the understanding of a certain clause being proposed by the right hon. and learned Lord, which clause was subsequently withdrawn, and the present one substituted.

said, he must likewise complain that the right hon. and learned Lord had taken the House by surprise by introducing the clause at a stage of the proceedings when it was expected that there would be perfect harmony amongst them, and that nothing would be brought forward to create a difference of opinion respecting the measure. He objected to the clause upon principle, as it gave no guarantee for religious teaching in the schools, and he believed the people of Scotland sympathised with him in his opposition. The clause had been ingeniously drawn, for whereas, while it affected to establish local control over the schools, it still left their management in the hands of the central Board.

said, he would beg to leave out in Clause 21 from after the word "report" to the word "burgh," and insert instead the following words, "shall address a letter to the chief magistrate of such burgh, requiring him to call a meeting of the ratepayers, for the purpose of considering such proposed measure; and the chief magistrate shall, within ten days after the receipt of such letter, call such meeting, which shall be advertised as he may think fit; and such meeting shall be attended by the inspector, who shall give any explanations which the meeting shall require in regard to such school; and such meeting shall proceed to establish such school, and to assess themselves."

said, he wished to know why the Lord Advocate proposed to give greater salaries in respect of borough schools than were paid for parish schools? The money was coming out of the pockets of the public generally, and hence some explanation was due to English Members. It should be remembered that these payments once fixed by Act of Parliament could not be dealt with like sums annually voted. He should also like to know when the Bill would come into operation.

said, that the reason why Scotland received so much of the public money was solely because she contributed so much for educational purposes by voluntary contributions. The sums proposed to be paid under the Bill were greater on account of borough schools than of parish schools, because in respect of the latter the heritors were subject to certain charges which went towards their support. With regard to the borough schools no such charge existed. The Bill would come into operation two years after its passing. As to the amount required for its working, as far as he could calculate, it would not exceed, and would in fact be within, the sum which had already been mentioned.

said, that by the last Census there were 5,242 schools in Scotland, which number the preamble of the Bill stated was short of that which should exist. He would take the number, then, at 6,000. Of these, 1,000 parochial and burgh schools, at 16l. each, would receive from the Consolidated Fund 16,000l.; 5,000 new, at 25l. each, 125,000l.; half the rent of school and schoolmaster's house, at 10l. would come to 50,000l.; the board and secretary would cost 3,000l.; and the pay of forty inspectors, giving to each 150 schools, at 400l. salary and 200l. for travelling expenses, would amount to 24,000l. This would make the cost of the working of the Bill 218,000l. To this add retiring allowances, which would give a total expenditure of 240,000l. a year, and the ratepayers would have to pay about the same sum in addition, beside the school fees. That was a rough estimate, but he believed it to be nearer the truth than any statement they had yet heard.

said, that there was already a very good system of education in Scotland, and he could not see that any case had been made out for the lavish profusion proposed by the Bill. He could not understand why the parochial schools now in existence were to be absorbed in the Government schools at the expense of the public.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the establishment at Kneller Hall had already cost the country the sum of 62,000l., which was at the rate of l,000l. for every teacher sent out from the school, and he had no wish to see a similar experiment tried in Scotland.

said, he hoped that the Government would be able on the third reading of the Bill to state the expenses likely to be incurred under the Bill, and the necessity which existed for incurring those expenses.

said, he thought the House ought to receive some clear and definite statement from the Lord Advocate as to the expenditure under the Bill.

said, that the parochial schools were about 1,200 in number, and it would be found that about 16,000l. or 17,000l. would be necessary under that part of the Bill. To that must be added a sum for retiring allowances, but which would be a very small sum in comparison, because there would be only a few persons put upon the list from year to year, and they would in the course of nature drop off. The calculation of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire as to new schools was beyond all bounds, and was, indeed, ludicrous in its exaggeration. The object was, to have one good school in a parish, and not to keep up three or four where they were not necessary. So far from bringing all those schools under the new system, they would be, if possible, merged into one. A calculation of 1,500 additional schools would be over the mark. A sum would be required for school buildings, but half of the capital sum expended in school buildings was to be repaid. The hon. Member had put down 24,000l. for his Board of Inspectors, who were to be forty in number. Now, how many inspectors were there at present for 5,000 schools? Why three, and they were found sufficient.

said, he must remind the House that the inspectors for Scotland did not inspect the parochial schools.

said, that, if 200,000l. a year were to be applied in that way, it behoved the Scotch Members to see that the Bill was withdrawn.

said, the payments for schoolhouses, &c., were to be made by the Committee of Privy Council first, but a sum of 3l. 5s. per cent per annum upon the amount expended was to be assessed upon the ratepayers for a period of twenty-two years. This amount of 3¼ per cent for twenty-two years, however, would not repay the capital, and one-half would fall to be paid by the Committee of Privy Council. The whole question, in considering the expense, resolved itself into the following—what would be the number of new schools? If there was to be any result at all from the Bill, it must show itself in an increase of schools, and the House should bear in mind that the Lord Advocate had all along held it up as a measure which was to give greatly increased means of education for the whole country. The expense must, therefore, be in proportion to the increase that took place; and they were to consider that, whatever was the amount taken from the Consolidated Fund, the rates would come to as much more. Perhaps his patriotism might not have led him to find fault with the amount to be paid from the Consolidated Fund, were it not for the large amount of rates that followed it. There would be imposed by the Bill a burden of not less than 500,000l. a year, one-half paid by the country and the other from the Consolidated Fund.

said, he felt called on to complain that the Lord Advocate had given no statement of the sum total that would be imposed on the country by the Bill. The whole system appeared to him to be one that would give a monopoly of the grants to the Free Church, while it would have the effect of keeping down the free action of the voluntaries whose principles prevented them from taking any portion of the grants. He thought the Bill would have a pauperising tendency, and that it would tend to demoralise rather than educate and elevate the people of Scotland.

said, he thought the House was entitled to demand that a clear and explicit printed statement of the expense caused by the Bill should be laid before it.

said, no part of the empire drew so little of the public money as Scotland did. England and Ireland received large amounts for various purposes, while Scotland got comparatively nothing. He thought that when they consented to be rated more than one-half what they drew from the public funds, the people of Scotland were not likely to go too far in that direction. In the calculation of the expense made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Blackburn) he left out of sight the sums now obtained, which were—for the Free Church, 21,000l., and for the Established Church, 19,000l. a year—payments that would cease when the new system was established.

said, the statement made by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) was clear and distinct, and he believed it was also correct—that under the proposed measure the cost of education in Scotland would be 240,000l. a year, and that sum being deducted from the annual grant of 380,000l. would leave but a small proportion to be applied to purposes of education in England and Wales, although they contained a population five times larger than that of Scotland. The amount now granted annually for education in Scotland was 40,000l., and English Members were, therefore, imposing a tax of 200,000l. a year upon their constituents to provide education for the people of Scotland. He would have no objection to the measure if they placed England upon an equality with Scotland, and voted 1,250,000l. a year for educational purposes in England and Wales; but, in his opinion, the present proposition involved great injustice to England and Wales as compared with Scotland. The grant, too, would be secured to Scotland by Act of Parliament, while the grant for England and Wales must depend upon an annual Vote of that House.

said, he had been astonished to hear Scotch Members charged with refusing to accept public money. He did not think Scotchmen were generally liable to such an accusation, or that much weight would be attached to it by the House. The Scotch Members were ready to accept any amount of money that was necessary for education in Scotland, but they thought the proposed measure would lead to an unnecessary expenditure, and on that ground they objected to it. He regretted that, after the statements of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, the Lord Advocate had not thought it necessary to explain more fully what would be the operation of the measure. He (Mr. Scott) was satisfied that when English Gentlemen understood the subject they would find that this was really a Bill to extend expenditure and to contract education.

said, he regarded the measure with great suspicion, in consequence of the studied caution manifested by the Lord Advocate in indicating the expenditure which it would entail upon the country.

said, he must repudiate the imputation that the Roman Catholics had been bribed by promises of educational grants to support the measure. He had voted for it last Session, because he looked on it as an attempt to introduce a large and liberal measure in the room of the narrower one which had hitherto prevailed in Scotland. He thought that the Roman Catholic Members had good reason to complain of the conduct of the voluntarists in this matter.

said, that no persons were disposed to do more for the Roman Catholics than the voluntaries; but, with regard to the measure now before the House, he felt that it was opposed to all religious equality, and he thought that the Roman Catholic Members would have acted wisely if, instead of accepting the bargain made with them by the Government, they had stood forward as the advocates of religious equality, and had opposed the Bill.

said, that as yet the only answer that had been given to the statements which had been made with regard to the expenses of the measure had been cries of "Oh, oh!" He, for one, should certainly like to hear some explanation as to the amount of expenditure contemplated under the Bill.

said, he did not see the propriety of calling on the Lord Advocate to estimate the expenditure that would be required to work the Bill, because he did not see how such an estimate could be formed with any accuracy. He deprecated such complaints as they heard about the money going to Scotland. He thought that they ought to get rid of all such invidious distinctions. He thought, too, that a quarter of a million would be well laid out in raising the character of Scottish schools. It had been argued that the Bill was opposed to the principle of free trade in education. But the principle of free trade was not of universal application. Free trade pre-supposed the existence of a correlative supply and demand. But ignorance never demanded knowledge. Besides, the voluntarists had themselves overthrown the principle of free trade; for they had formed societies for the express purpose of crushing the efforts of individual speculators in instruction. What then, he wished, was to see that large society, the State, doing what was now being done by these smaller educational societies. Let those who complained of sending so large a sum to Scotland be consistent, and vote next year for applying an equally complete system to England and Wales.

said, he would now move to strike out the words "by the Master" from Clause 27, so as to leave the inculcation of religious instruction to the School Committee.

said, his object in introducing the clause was to put a stop to controversies on the subject in the Committee, an object which, if he assented to the Amendment, would be completely defeated.

said, he rose to move that the House do go into Committee upon the Bill that day three months. In doing so, he must complain that the Bill had been introduced and carried on without the usual opportunities for discussion. It had been brought in without any explanation, and had been read a second time without his having any opportunity of expressing his objections to it. He, therefore, took the present occasion to explain his reasons for objecting to the measure, and he believed he would be able to adduce the opinions of great economists and men of high commercial standing in opposition to the Bill. It was to be expected, that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade, would have shown some deficiency of capital required for carrying on manufacturing and commercial undertakings which rendered necessary the measure he proposed; but nothing of the kind had been proved. The Bill was very artfully drawn, in order to captivate all those who were about to retire from business, whom it would enable to retire—leaving, say 5,000l., with which any clerk or other person who might be selected could speculate without rendering the retiring party liable beyond the amount he continued in the business. It was also his opinion that the Bill was unnecessary, because now that the usury laws were abolished, a person might retire from a concern, taking 10 per cent for the capital he left in it, and then, if a failure took place, he would be treated as an ordinary creditor, an arrangement which was advantageous to all parties. He would not support his objections to the Bill by referring to antiquated French writers, but he would call the attention of the House to the opinion of the greatest modern authority upon the subject. Mr. M'Culloch, in his work upon limited liability, said that several large concerns, such as railways and canals, might be carried on by Joint-stock Companies established upon the principle of limited liability, but there was a class of concerns of a totally different description, such as partnerships for manufacturing, or agricultural, or trading purposes, in which it was necessary to adopt measures suited to sudden emergencies as they arose, and to that class the principle of limited liability could not be advantageously applied. Mr. M'Culloch went on to observe, that the limitation of the responsibility of partners would tend to increase reckless speculation; that the public would have no security that the published capital of a company had been bonâ fide paid up, or had not been dissipated; and that the prohibition to the partners en commandite to take a share in its management would be practically good for nothing. He would particularly call attention to the remark of Mr. M'Culloch, that he feared the system now proposed would materially affect the high moral standing of the British merchant, who at present felt himself bound to maintain that responsible and honourable course of conduct which had raised him to the eminence and credit which he at present enjoyed. "It was not," said Mr. M'Culloch, "easy to see how such a system could be productive of any good result." What branch of trade he (Mr. Hastie) would ask, what manufacturing or what commercial house was there at the present moment, which could not raise money at 4 and 5 per cent? If, then, capital could be so easily raised, that there was no great work which could not be carried on in any part of the country, why adopt a measure, the effect of which would only be to bring capital into the market at a rate of interest which would be barely more than was obtainable at the present time? Mr. M'Culloch then proceeded to say—

I rise to order. I presume it is not usual that Gentlemen should be allowed to read whole pamphlets as portions of their speeches.

I have only followed the practice which I have long found to be pursued in this House, and which the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this measure himself adopted when bringing it forward. [Mr. E. BALL: The right hon. Gentleman only read extracts.] Well, those which I am now quoting are only extracts, and, when an hon. Member who is not accustomed to address the House finds extracts in a publication by one of the most shrewd and sagacious writers of the day so clearly and so distinctly to the point under discussion, I think it is no waste of the time of the House for him to refer to them. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read other portions of Mr. M'Culloch's pamphlet.]

I rise to order. The hon. Member for Paisley might as well read to the House the whole works of Adam Smith, or all that has been written pro. and con. on the subject of limited liability as the pamphlet of Mr. M'Culloch. Why does not the hon. Gentleman make a speech of his own?

The hon. Member for Paisley is quite in order in quoting extracts in support of his own views, provided he confines himself to quotations which are pertinent to the question. At the same time, there is a discretion to be observed in making such quotations. It is not regular to quote a whole pamphlet.

With great submission, Sir, I believe the quotations I have read are quite pertinent to the question; and, in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. J. MacGregor), I would with much deference say to that hon. Gentleman, that unfortunately I do not happen to possess that gift of eloquence, and that rare power of speech, which it is the good fortune of that hon. Gentleman so pre-eminently to possess; and, therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will permit me to read a few more extracts. [The hon. Member then read further portions of the pamphlet, vith a view to show that a system of limited liability would be productive of very great disadvantages, unaccompanied by any countervailing advantages.] I must now advert to the several provisions of the Bill, and, with regard to the second clause, I contend that it will give rise to a system of the grossest fraud. I cannot avoid expressing my astonishment that the author of the measure should not at once have perceived the fallacy of that provision. I am convinced that the tendency of this Bill will be to increase fraud and bankruptcy, and to destroy the credit of the English merchant.

in seconding the Amendment, said that, when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade had introduced his Bill, he adduced but few cases of grievance under the present state of the law; he, in fact, only brought forward two special cases—that of parties who, on retiring from a firm, were desirous of leaving money to their successors, and the case of patentees. The last-mentioned class of cases was very limited, and in the former class of cases no difficulty had, as yet, been found in the way of preventing parties from carrying out their wishes. The present measure was not called for by the public—no petitions had been presented in its favour, and the commercial gentlemen who were examined before the Commission appointed to inquire into the subject were against the proposed alterations of the present law of partnership. He considered that where parties, on the one hand, had the power of making large speculations and receiving unlimited profits, they ought not, on the other hand, to be liable only for losses to a limited extent. That, at all events, was the abstract Justice of the case, and they were, therefore, not called upon to make any alteration in the law, either on the ground of the general opinion of the public being in favour of the change proposed, or from a want of capital to carry on the trade of the country. All the evidence brought forward went to prove that they had more capital than was adequate for the business of the country; and, as the tendency of the present Bill would be to create a large amount of surplus capital, the consequence would be that wilder schemes and speculations would be entered upon than had hitherto been attempted. With respect to the details of the measure, the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) had conveyed the impression, that under the second clause, gentlemen out of business would be able to lend money to partners en commandite, and would still have the control and supervision of their money; but it certainly was not so; for if they engaged in the active operations of the business they would, under the Statute law of the land, become partners in the concern. Clauses 4, 5, and 6, of the Bill imposed no effectual check upon fraud, and even the slight provision for that object originally contained in the Bill had been modified by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie). If B lent A 10,000l. of capital under the Bill, and in six or twelve months afterwards found that A was doing badly in his business and likely to be ruined, B might withdraw his money in time to save it from forfeiture, provided he registered its withdrawal. The former Bill, however, afforded such an amount of protection to the creditors of A, that it rendered B's capital liable for a period of a year anterior to bankruptcy; whereas, by the altered shape of the measure, the twelve months had been reduced to three months. Moreover, B was to be allowed to withdraw, not his capital only, but also his profits within the same period. Now, was it to be supposed that merchants, who were engaged in multifarious transactions, had nothing to do but to study the register daily, in order to know what capital had been advanced to, and what withdrawn from every firm with which they might have dealings. Practically, therefore, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred parties trusting A on the strength of B's 10,000l. would never be aware that the money had been withdrawn. Thus, the Bill would offer a premium to illegitimate speculations, and enable a system of the most gigantic frauds to be introduced with impunity. The argument founded on the practice of foreign countries on the subject was inapplicable, there being no real analogy between the case of England and those of France, Belgium, and the United States. In the latter country there was a want of capital, whereas in England that article was abundant, while in Belgium and France the fact was, that the principle of partnership en commandite was rapidly falling into discredit, as had been sufficiently illustrated by the figures adduced even by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) himself, showing that in France only one-fifth of the partnerships were now conducted on that system. On those grounds, therefore, the House ought to support the Amendment before it.

said, he hoped the House would give him a little of its attention on the subject now under consideration. Seeing that he had had the honour to draw up no fewer than forty-two Reports, which were presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, on the subject of the commercial system of the nations of Europe and of other parts of the world—seeing that he had also been officially connected for nine years with the Board of Trade, and that his recommendations on the questions of import duties had all been ultimately carried through Parliament by Sir Robert Peel—he hoped that he had some claims upon the attention of the House, although he might not boast the same gifts of eloquence as the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Archibald Hastie), who had favoured the House with such literal quotations from a pamphlet. Nobody but the large capitalists were opposed to limited liability. Therefore he was not surprised that Lord Overstone was hostile to it. He should much like to know, however, whether that nobleman's father, when he travelled about as a Unitarian minister, would not have been glad to invest 5l. if he thought he could get 5 or 10 per cent interest for it. He (Mr. Macgregor) thought it right to tell bold truths, because Lord Overstone was now a millionaire of commanding influence in that city, but for which circumstance he would never have been Lord Overstone. An honest man who told the whole truth was a better man than one who went as plenipotentiary to any part of the world. There were many persons who wished to become Lord Overstones by preventing the poor man from investing 5l. without incurring an unlimited responsibility. He (Mr. Macgregor) was in favour of a liability limited to double the amount subscribed, but beyond that he would not go. Without the system of limited liability Lille and Lyons and Marseilles and Bordeaux would never have become the seats of industry they now were. Let them take warning by the past. They were at one time offered an 8s. duty on corn, and a protection of 50 per cent on West India sugar; but where were they now? He was present also when a deputation of several shipowners prayed Mr. Huskisson to keep on the timber and other shipbuilding duties, in order that the smaller capitalists might not be in a condition to compete with them. He warned them how they denied their just rights to the industrious classes.

said, he should support the principle of the Bill. It was said that capital abounded where there was a reasonable prospect of an advantageous return. But he believed the present law was a great hindrance to the profitable employment of capital. The Hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. W. Brown) said in his evidence before the Committee of 1854 that the less they interfered with individual enterprise the better. He willingly admitted that principle, and therefore it was that the advocates of the measure were not looking to legislation, but to repeal legislation. He thought that the labouring classes would not be able to avail themselves of borrowed capital, but they would be discontented as long as they were not allowed the opportunity of getting it. He hoped the House would not allow the Bill to go into Committee.

said, he thought no more time should be occupied in preliminary discussion at that hour of the night, but the House should go into Committee at once. He only wished to clear himself from a misconception, which seemed to have arisen about the observations which he made upon a former occasion. There were two grounds upon which persons could be held liable for the debts of a partnership. One would be, that they held themselves out to the public as partners; and the other, that they participated in the profits. These grounds were totally distinct and separate. The Bill dealt only with the second condition, participation in profits; and the statement which he had made with reference to the Bill was perfectly correct. A man might, consistently with the operation of the Bill, if he were a dormant partner, enter by deed and document into stipulations which would enable him to protect his capital; but the Bill would not enable him to do so whilst holding himself out to the world as an active partner. That would be contrary to every principle of law and justice, and he (Mr. Cardwell) could never consent to any enactment of that kind.

said, he thought that a fallacy ran through the arguments of the hon. Members for Paisley (Mr. Archibald Hastie) and Bridport (Mr. Mitchell), inasmuch as they had entirely overlooked the fact that the Bill did not address itself to ostensible partnerships, but solely to dormant partnerships. The hon. Member for Paisley complained, that the Bill allowed dormant partners to withdraw without the public being made acquainted with the fact; but he did not see how that could be a grievance, since the public never were aware of those partners joining. As the law now stood, a man could silently join a partnership, and silently retire; but under the proposed Bill a man could neither join nor retire without the public being made cognizant of it through the means of registration. With regard to the much-used argument, that there was no want of capital in the country, he must observe that there was no lack of capital for the rich, but that there was a great want of it for the poor. There was a great want of capital for men who were commencing life—there was none for those who had gone through it and had made money. What was required therefore was a rational system of dormant partnership, which should encourage the advance of capital by those who had it to those who had it not, but who had industry and energy, without the capitalist incurring those large risks which amounted practically to an entire prohibition—a measure which should promote the union of capital with skill, industry, and enterprise, which were such essential elements of success in a commercial country. He did not rely upon the authority of the great capitalists, like Lord Overstone, upon a question like the present; he would rather take the opinion of Lord Overstone's father, who began the world as a poor Dissenting Minister, and who would better understand the interests of young men struggling to establish themselves in business. He gave his hearty support to the Bill.

said, it seemed to him that the object of the Bill was to set up a new class of petty monopolists; its principle was extraordinary, and was objectionable. The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had voted two to one against it, and men of business thought the country were of the same opinion.

said, he must also express his disapproval of the Bill, and his fear that it might tend to disturb the high commercial reputation of the country, and eventually be as injurious to the general interests of England as limited liability had proved to be in France and elsewhere.

said, he wished to point out that there existed no very clear definition as to what a banker was, and, therefore, it might happen that a man might lend money—the borrower might do some act by which he would be held to be a banker, and so the creditor might be liable to an unlimited partnership by an act on the part of the borrower to which he was not privy. He thought it a matter of consideration whether some clause should not be introduced defining what a banker was within the meaning of the Bill.

said, that by a recent Act of Parliament, all bankers were compelled to register their names at the Stamp Office and pay for an annual licence; and that he took to constitute a definition of what a banker was.

said, it was perfectly possible that a firm which ought to return itself in that way might not return itself, and in that case it could hardly be said that by such an omission the firm was taken out of the category of bankers.

said, he wished to point out that the Bill was borrowed almost entirely from an old Irish Act of Parliament, which bore the date of 1781. One very curious provision in that Act was that half the profits made by the anonymous partner should remain invested in the business, and also that any anonymous partner who meddled in the business transactions should be held liable to the extent of his means. It was rather unfair that the wisdom of the Irish Parliament should be made use of for the purposes of an English Act without one word of acknowledgment.

said, that the Irish Act in question was so clogged in its details with regard to registration and other matters that it was rendered a perfect dead letter; and, so far as he knew, no partnerships had taken place under its provisions.

said, he proposed to add to the second clause the following proviso:—"Provided that the moneys borrowed shall not exceed the amount of capital employed in the trade or business." It appeared to him that, without such restriction, the clause would leave a door open to great fraud, and, though the original capital en commandite might be exceeded three or four times by the profits, yet in the case of the bankruptcy of the concern the lender would only be liable for the amount of the loan.

said, that it was often impossible to ascertain the amount of capital embarked in a business, and even if it were, the proviso would not be just or expedient.

said, he fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the proviso would go far to defeat the objects of the Bill.

said, that it would not only nullify the objects of the Bill, but it would be impossible that a balance could be struck so as to let a creditor know every day and every hour the amount of capital in a concern.

said, he did not intend to object to that part of the Bill which referred to Lady Raglan, but he thought it was highly objectionable to tax posterity for an annuity for the present Lord Raglan. If anything was to be done for that young nobleman it ought to be in the shape of a sum of money paid by the present generation. The annuity proposed for Lord Raglan exceeded the pensions conferred upon very distinguished officers who had rendered great service to their country. For example, Lord Rodney obtained only, 2,000l. a year, and the same sum was conferred upon the descendants of Lord Nelson; yet no one would say that the services rendered by the late Lord Raglan were to be compared to those rendered by either of those distinguished men. Lord Gough had only 1,000l. a year, although his services were at least as valuable as those of Lord Raglan. He could mention other cases of the same kind, but, after the opinion expressed by the House upon a former occasion, he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, contenting himself with having addressed those few remarks to the House.