said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, seeing that the whole income and outlay of public Hospitals and Infirmaries is expended in relieving the wants of the poor, Her Majesty's Government will not introduce a Bill to exempt such public Hospitals and Infirmaries from being liable to the payment of poor's rates?

said, he would also beg to ask, Whether there is any intention to introduce a Bill to exempt Sunday Schools and Day Schools for the education of the working classes from the payment of rates. He would beg to refer to the precedent in the Act of 1833.

replied that he quite admitted the importance of the question; but in the present state of public business, quite irrespective of anything else, it would appear to be impossible to attempt to introduce a Bill on this subject. He tried to refer to a Select Committee the exemptions which still remained, but they thought their inquiry had been so protracted that they adjourned without reporting on that branch of the question under their consideration. In addition to the proposed exemption of Schools and Charities, there was also to be considered the exemption of property purchased by the Crown. All he could promise was that the subject should receive his most anxious consideration, in conjunction with that of the Secretary of the Treasury, with a view to the introduction of a measure, if it could be appropriately done, in the succeeding Session, but certainly not in the present one.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is intended by the proposed Amendment of Clause 31 of the Representation of the People Bill to give to the Boundary Commissioners unlimited discretion to recommend fresh divisions of Counties, irrespective of the temporary divisions constituted by the Act. The question was much the same as one he put yesterday, but it had now been put in a more definite form, with the view of eliciting a clearer answer than had been given?

Sir, as a clear and definite answer is expected from me it would have been well if the hon. Member had put his question in a clear and definite form. It is intended to give discretion to the Boundary Commissioners, but not unlimited discretion, because that discretion is limited by the language of the clause which we are about to consider. The language of the clause is this—

"The Boundary Commissioners shall inquire into the divisions of counties as constituted by this Act, and as to the places appointed for holding Courts for the Election of Members for such divisions, with a view to ascertain whether, having regard to the natural and legal divisions of each County, and the distribution of the population therein, any, and what, alterations should be made in such divisions or places."

Those are conditions which make it quite impossible to say that they will have an unlimited discretion, but subject to these conditions they will have unlimited discretion.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the proposed Amendment in Clause 31 of the Representation of the People Bill, Whether, by giving power to the Boundary Commissioners to inquire into and Report on the temporary divisions of Counties as constituted by the Bill, it is intended to give them power to inquire into and report as to whether it is advisable to divide any Counties into two divisions, with three Members each, or into three divisions with two Members each? He put the question because there was some misapprehension as to the power of the Boundary Commissioners.

I think, Sir, that I gave a plain answer to the inquiry of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Buller) as to the discretion of the Boundary Commissioners, and must express my surprise at the question of the hon. Gentleman. They are Boundary Commissioners, and have to deal with boundaries. To suppose for a moment that boundary Commissioners will have to settle the future Representation of the People, is to suppose what I cannot imagine Parliament would sanction. That is the privilege of the Sovereign Legislature of the country, and it cannot for a moment be contemplated that the Boundary Commissioners should exercise any such privilege. Of course, if the Committee sanction the appointment of the Boundary Commissioners, instructions will be addressed to them by the Government as to the fulfilment of their duties; but under no circumstances would such an office devolve upon them as that contemplated by the question of the hon. Member for Bradford.

Will the letter of Instructions be laid on the table of the House?

We shall follow the precedent of 1832, when, I believe, the letter was laid on the table of the House.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When he will lay upon the table of the House the Despatches which he has already stated have been sent to the Governor of Jamaica and the Governors of other Colonies, respecting the proclamation of permission of Martial Law within the Colonies?

, in reply, stated that he expected to receive the papers referred to daily, and he would present them to Parliament as soon as possible. They would include the Despatch of Lord Carnarvon in January last, addressed not to the Governor of Jamaica, but the Governor of Antigua, which had been sent as a circular to the other Governors in the West Indies, requesting them to submit to their respective Legislatures a proposition for the repeal of any Act or portion of Acts giving to any Governor in the West Indies power to proclaim Martial Law. There had been also a Departmental Committee on the subject, from whose report rules had been drafted for caution and guidance to colonial governors, in case of insurrection or emergency beyond the reach of ordinary law. There would be ample time after the production of the Papers referred to, for their consideration, before the discussion of the Motion of which notice had been given. He believed that it would be necessary to have some further [legislation on the subject, in the way of giving larger powers of arrest in cases of necessity.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any confirmation of the statement made in the newspapers that Omar Pasha had set fire to twenty-three villages, destroyed the vineyards and orchards, and besides burning various mills and buildings, and put to death upwards of 100 women and children, burning some women alive, besides committing other atrocities?

Sir, the statements to which the hon. Member's Question refers are contained in a manifesto issued by the Candian Revolutionary Committee, and intended to create sympathy and obtain assistance. Such documents by their very nature are not, and are not expected to be, either impartial or strictly accurate, and setting aside wilful misrepresentation, we have only to carry our minds back to the time of the Indian mutiny to recollect what wild exaggerations were long current in reference to the acts of the revolted sepoys. I hope, therefore, for the sake of human nature, that there is very great exaggeration in these statements. Certainly they are not in their full extent confirmed by any Consular Reports which I have received. At the same time it is not only probable but certain that upon both sides in this unhappy contest there have been committed many violent and barbarous acts.

I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we should come to the consideration of this; clause with greater advantage if it were postponed. It could then take its turn sit some later period of the discussion upon this Bill: that is to say, after such of the new clauses as would naturally take their place before this clause is determined. On a point of this nature it is desirable to avoid controversy, and to keep free from all those political considerations which naturally divide us more or less upon many points comprised in this Bill; and for that purpose time should be given to Members of this House and the country to consider the terms of the clause, and the names of the Commissioners. When I remind the Committee that this clause was only printed for the first time yesterday, and the names of the Commissioners, forming part of the clause, were only made known to the House yesterday, and put into print this morning, they will, I think, see that this is a matter which requires more time for consideration. Judging by what has reached me I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that if we proceed after so short a notice to discuss these matters, they are likely to occupy an undue period of time; and I am not without hope that that time may be abridged if the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accede to the suggestion which I now make, that the clause should be postponed. I found this suggestion not only upon policy but upon obvious considerations of propriety, that a clause of so much importance which has been only in print for a single day is hardly in a condition to be discussed with advantage by hon. Members. I will not make a Motion on the subject, but merely express a hope that this may be the view of the Government.

I must say I think at this season of the year, and when there is so much business before the House, that the request of the right hon. Gentleman is rather unreasonable. The clause is one of a very simple character. I would also remind the Committee that the placing of these names at the disposition of the House is a voluntary act on the part of the Government. In 1832 nothing of this kind was done. Commissioners were appointed by the Government of the day on their own responsibility, and the boundaries were arranged under their instructions. We thought, on the contrary, that if the House joined with us in appointing these Commissioners, it would create a degree of confidence between the House and the Government which was very desirable, and which, reflected out of doors, would contribute much to promote the satisfactory settlement of this question. Now, the names of these Commissioners have been selected with the greatest care, and I can safely say, on behalf of my Colleagues and myself, that we had no object in view but to place the arrangement of this matter in the hands of gentlemen who would command the confidence of the House and of the country. There is nothing complex or complicated in the character of the duties which are expressed in this clause, and, though I should be sorry under any circumstances to precipitate the decision of the Committee, yet I do not see what advantage is to be derived from delaying the consideration of this clause until after the new clauses have been disposed of. As, however, I am anxious to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, I have no objection to postpone this clause until after the remaining clauses in the Bill, have been disposed of; but I cannot consent to postpone it so indefinitely as to the end of the new clauses also. [Mr. GLADSTONE: That would be any day after to-day.] It would come on on Monday.

I wish to make a few observations on this clause before it is postponed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated the remarkable impartiality of the Commission, but I beg to say that I entirely differ from him. I think he has failed in arriving at the point at which he aimed. There is not a single name on this Commission which may be said to represent in any degree the party which in this House has been most prominent in urging the question of Reform. I having nothing to say against the Chairman of the Commission. Lord Eversley is too well known to us to make it possible for any man to suspect that he would do anything that he did not conscientiously believe to be fair and honourable in the matters intrusted to him. But Lord Eversley will only be the Chairman, and probably will not himself go into the country to listen to the evidence and make the inquiry. Well, then, you come to other Gentlemen whose names I do not wish to read over, nor do I wish to comment upon each particular name; but I venture to say this—that of the two Gentlemen whom the right hon. Gentleman would say were not of his party in politics, one of them, I believe, never was known to do anything on behalf of Reform, and the right hon. Gentleman who sits on this back Bench, I am bound to say during last Session and during this Session has not manifested any hearty enthusiasm in the cause. I do not mean to say that it is necessary that only persons who have manifested this hearty enthusiasm should be on this Commission, but when the House is engaged in the settlement of a great question, which has been most urged on by one section of the House—I mean by the Gentlemen who sit at this end of the House—it is an unheard-of proposition that there should not be on the Commission a single name which represents that section or that party. Therefore, I protest against the Commission as it is, and I venture to say that its conclusions will be liable to be called in question, whatever they may be, where any part of the population of the boroughs may think themselves aggrieved by the determination to which they may come. Now, let the Committee bear in mind that although the House, I presume, will have the power hereafter, when the Report of the Commission is brought before it, to make any change which it may please to make—I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman's proposition with regard to that is; I think that at the time of the Reform Act of 1832 a very bad system was adopted, by which the Privy Council, if I mistake not, had the right of making changes, and I believe they made some changes that were very unfair, and rather in the interest of the then ruling party than in the interest of the public—yet this, I think, is clear to all of us, that whatever is the recommendation with regard to any particular borough made by the Commission, it will necessarily have great weight in this House, and it will be very difficult to obtain any change. Therefore, the more difficult it may be, the more it is necessary to see that the Commission shall be one which shall give unlimited confidence to all sections of politicians in the country; and I maintain that if there be no gentleman upon this Commission, whose devotion to the question of Reform has been manifested before the present Session, that confidence will not be placed in it which ought to be, and the Government will have no right to expect it. So much with regard to the names. There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it relates to the second portion of the clause. It is this—that I think some attention ought to be paid to a suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire last year, with regard to the propriety of making the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs conterminous with the boundaries of municipal boroughs.

I did not suggest that the boundaries should be absolutely identical, but that wherever the boundary of the municipal borough was more extensive than the boundary of the Parliamentary borough, the latter should be made the same as the municipal borough.

I knew that it had reference to the municipal boroughs. I will take the borough in which I live, which I presume is a sample of a great many others. That borough is a mile and a half in diameter. It is a circle, and the municipal borough centre is only a few yards removed from the Parliamentary borough centre, and therefore the boundaries are very nearly the same. Now, if these Commissioners were to go down to the town of Rochdale as one of the boroughs, and propose to enlarge it, they might enlarge the Parliamentary borough; but they would have no power whatever under the Commission, nor is it right that they should have, to enlarge the municipal borough. The mayor, or the chief officer of the corporation, is the returning officer, and he has to determine the functions of those who are outside his municipal boundary. Well, then, again you bring into action, as a sort of corporate body in returning a Member to Parliament, those who are not united in local affairs and in local taxation, which I think of itself is an undesirable thing, and therefore I should be glad to propose, and I shall probably do so, when we come to that part of the clause, that some words should be introduced providing that there shall be a reference in the whole of this examination by the Commission to the question, what are the present municipal boundaries? and that there should not be, except under extraordinary circumstances—and I doubt whether it would be advisable anywhere—an extension of the boundaries of the Parliamentary boroughs wider than the present extent of the municipal boundaries. While you send these seven gentlemen, who are practically nearly all of one political party—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—indeed I know as much about these gentlemen as anybody in the House—while you send these gentlemen, who are nearly all practically of one political party, with a roving commission to examine into the maps and boundaries of all the boroughs of the kingdom, they have no power to contract the boundaries, and they have no power whatever to shut out great portions of land which have no business whatever in fifty boroughs. These Commissioners have no power to contract; they only have power to enlarge; they may go down to hear such evidence and to make such Report as they please; and when their Report is made the House may then feel it is almost hopeless to deal with the subject. I say then, first, that the Commission should be so constituted as to command the confidence of all parties; and, secondly, there ought to be words in this clause more clearly defining what are the powers of the Commission. The House ought not to commit to any Commission, I will say, however chosen, powers so great and so undefined as those which are included in this clause. I make these observations merely for the purpose of introducing the question to the Committee. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has consented to postpone the clause for a time; and I hope in the meanwhile he will not render it necessary that there should be a Motion made in the House for the substitution of another name for any of those contained in the clause. I do, however, urge on him, in the interest of his own Bill, and in order to give satisfaction to the country, the importance of at least placing upon the Commission one gentleman who is and has been known both in this House and in the country as honestly and earnestly in favour of a real representation of the people.

said, that he did not quite understand the object of the hon. Member for Birmingham. The hon. Member objected to the composition of the Commission on the ground that the Members of it were too impartial. Was it the hon. Gentleman's wish to have the Members of the Reform League put upon it—the men who had been parties to the late Reform row in St. James's Hall? Or would the hon. Gentleman put on the Commission those friends of his who had signed the Fenian Petition, of which he would say that it was received with contempt and disgust by the House, although the hon. Gentleman contrived to have it placed on the table? Perhaps it was Mr. Beales, or others like him, that the hon. Gentleman wished to have placed on the Commission?

said, that, as the right hon. Gentleman had consented to postpone this clause, he hoped the Committee would not then enter into a discussion as to the names of the Gentlemen who were to compose the Commission, or as to the powers that were to be entrusted to them. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the proposal of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) was unreasonable, and that it would involve delay. But it need not involve any delay, because if they entered upon the discussion of the clause it might occupy the whole day, and they might, after all, come to no conclusion upon it. Then the right hon. Gentleman had talked of taking the House into his confidence. But it had been shown that it was absolutely necessary that full time should be given to consider the names proposed, because the House was now asked to assume a share of the responsibility for those names. The Committee ought also to be able to form an opinion as to the principles upon which the Commissioners were to act. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had no objection to lay on the table the instructions under which the Commissioners were to proceed. It was quite necessary that they should have definite instructions. In 1832, the Commissioners were instructed, among other things, to ascertain whether there was any local Act of Parliament under which definite limits were assigned to the towns; and letters were addressed to the town clerks to ascertain the facts. At that time the Municipal Reform Act was not passed, and therefore reference was necessarily made to local Acts. Now, without tying up the hands of the Commissioners, it would be quite necessary that they should be provided on the present occasion with Instructions laying down principles for their guidance beyond those laid down in the clause. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would have no objection to lay such Instructions upon the table, and he thought it would be very desirable if that course were taken before the clause came on for discussion.

said, he wished to remind the Committee, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham as to the boundaries of boroughs, that he had brought the subject before the House last year. The fact was that at the time of the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act the boundaries of boroughs, the limits of which required to be altered or extended, eighty-one in number, were left untouched, for this reason—that the House was very jealous of permitting the Commissioners to deal with the boundaries, and deferred the matter in order that Parliament might deal with it by some future measure. That time never arrived, and the consequence was that nothing had been done with respect to these eighty-one boroughs for a period of more than thirty years. Taking the case of York, for example, there was one portion of the borough which was wholly excluded from representation. Now, he thought it was very desirable that the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries should, to a certain extent, be identical; and if the Government were going to frame any definite Instructions, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the case of the eighty-one boroughs to which he had called attention ought not to be forgotten.

said, he remembered the discussion which took place in 1832, and which was exactly of the same nature as that which was now going on, as to any Instructions which were to be given to the Commissioners. He recollected that on that occasion Lord Althorpe made use of words which gave very general satisfaction to the House when he said that it would be the duty of the Commissioners to include within the limits of the borough all such places as were so closely interwoven and intermixed with the borough as to form a natural part of it. The hon. Member for Birmingham was hardly correct in saying that the decisions of the Commissioners were not on that occasion subject to the revision of the House. A considerable amount of discussion took place at the time when the Commissioners were appointed, and odjections were taken to the very large powers which were given to them. A great part however of those objections was obviated by the stress which was laid on the fact that all decisions of the Commission were to be subject to the revision of the House.

said he had very great doubt as to whether it would give satisfaction to the country generally that any person should be appointed a member of a Commission with such large powers who had any personal interest in the matters to be enquired into. It was contrary to all ordinary principles of justice that any person should exercise an office, in its nature judicial, who might have any interest in the question into which he was about to inquire. Two of the Gentlemen named were actually Members of the House, and another was a Gentleman who had been a Member for some time and might probably again be a candidate for a seat—he meant the late Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). He did not mean to throw any imputation upon those gentlemen that they would be unfairly influenced; if they had any bias, he had so much respect for their characters that he thought it highly probable that that bias would be in the direction contrary to their own interests; but he thought that that very argument was strong against the appointment of Members of the House, who might become personally interested and affected at any moment by the proceedings of the Commission. He had so much confidence in his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney) as to believe that if a question arose affecting his interests he would, in a case of doubt, decide against himself. That would be his hon. and learned Friend's ratio decidendi. But it was a rule which prevailed in all Courts of Justice, that no person who had any interest in a matter should be a party to a decision by which he might be affected. If however they were to have members of the House on the Commission, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that they ought to have men of pronounced opinions upon it—a thoroughgoing Liberal on the one side and a thoroughgoing Tory on the other, and not attempt to choose men of no strongly pronounced opinions, from a notion that they would thereby obtain perfect impartiality. One thing was quite certain, that in this Commission the urban distinguished from the county interest was not sufficiently represented. Most of the Gentlemen named were in the main connected with the agricultural interest, thus giving a preponderance to county interests where county and borough interests did not run together. He hoped that before the clause came on for discussion the Government would consider these points, with a view to making such alterations in the composition of the Committee as would obviate objections which were otherwise sure to be raised.

said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham that it was desirable that the boundaries of the parliamentary boroughs should always be conterminous with those of the municipal boroughs. There were many large and growing towns situated outside of the municipal boroughs to which the franchise ought, in his opinion, to be extended, though the inhabitants would not desire to be incorporated with the municipalities, and he did not think it would be advisable to lay down any strict rule which would limit the discretion of the Commissioners in the matter. The borough which he represented (Oldham) was an instance of this, and he thought it was a fortunate thing that the Parliamentary area was made so wide in 1832, for otherwise those townships would virtually have had no representation.

said, he thought it would on that occasion be altogether out of place to attempt to criticise the mode in which the Commissioners should discharge their duties. There was one observation in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, in which he entirely concurred, namely, that the Commissioners should have power to curtail as well as to enlarge the boundaries of boroughs. A recent Return showed that there were eight boroughs containing within their present area less than 10,000 inhabitants each, but which, if the whole parish were included within the Parliamentary boundary, would exceed that number. The borough of Bridport, for instance, contained only little less than 10,000 inhabitants within a space of one square mile; that of Chichester, 1 1–10th, of Guildford 9–10ths, of Lewes 1 3–10ths, and Lichfield, Newport, Poole, and Windsor were similarly circumstanced. Windsor, with an area of four square miles, had a little under 10,000 inhabitants; but if the whole parish were taken in its population would be 12,454. Tiverton, on the other hand, had an area of twenty-seven square miles, and just over 10,000 people. Now, it was manifestly unjust to take one Member from Windsor and leave Tiverton two. These anomalies were not entitled to respect as being the growth of ages, for they dated only from 1832. The question was whether they would adopt the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which proposed to curtail the discretion of the Commissioners in this matter, empowering them only to enlarge boroughs, or whether they would also invest them with the discretionary power of diminishing the borough areas. In his opinion it would be better to pursue the latter course on an occasion like the present, when they were reviewing and re-constituting our whole Parliamentary system.

said, there were a few points with respect to which he wished to obtain some further information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The clause as originally framed provided that the Report of the Commissioners should have no validity until it was confirmed by Parliament; but he observed that that proviso was not repeated in the new clause which the right hon. Gentleman at present proposed to postpone. That was, he supposed, a mere accidental omission; but he was anxious to know whether he was right in entertaining that impression. The original clause also contemplated the appointment of assistant Commissioners. The present clause, however, said nothing upon that subject, and he begged leave to ask whether the Government had made any change in their first determination upon that matter? He had also to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would lay upon the table a copy of the Letter of Instructions to be issued to the Commissioners before he asked the Committee to sanction their appointment.

wished to know whether the Government intended to issue a separate Commission for Scotland, or whether the same Commissioners would act for the whole of the United Kingdom.

said, that the discussion on which the Committee was engaged seemed to him to open out the wider question whether it would not have been better policy to have made the boundary examination antecedent to the re-distribution of seats. In his opinion it would be desirable before they partially disfranchised any borough, to know what were the area and the circumstances under which the amount of the population was determined, both in case of the boroughs which were partially disfranchised, and of those which were wholly retained. Certain boroughs had been deprived of one Member and had been otherwise hard hit in debate, because their population was less than 10,000; would it not then be natural for the Commissioners to prop them up by giving them as large an one as possible? But if that were done they would find next Session, when they were giving the finishing stroke to Reform, that certain constituencies of from 10,000 to 15,000 inhabitants, returned two Members, while other constituencies with a larger population and greater area, returned only one Member. Now, could any man of sense believe that that would be a satisfactory settlement of the Reform question, and that it would not, on the contrary, be a nest-egg of future agitation? At present it was understood that we had only two classes of representative areas — namely, counties and boroughs. But henceforward we should have three classes—namely, counties, boroughs, and quasi-counties with a borough franchise. He did not believe this would be a good or desirable settlement of the question, for the existence of such constituencies would be a direct invitation to the residuum of the counties—more limited constituencies, though larger areas—to claim that the counties themselves should be reduced to a condition of household suffrage. He knew it was generally considered that those rural boroughs were Conservative institutions, because it was calculated that the peasant householders would vote as their landlords wished; but he thought it would be a most fallacious and unfortunate position for the Conservative party to base itself upon the ignorance and subserviency of the country population. He believed that Conservatism was an intelligent and discriminative political system, and he flattered himself that Conservative politics stood the test of reason and examination; so he should be sorry to find that their supporters depended upon mere passion and the influence of landlords. He did not attach much belief to the opinion which was fashionable on that side of the House that these boroughs would be useful for the future, as the means of introducing young talent into the House. He feared that with the new household suffrage those boroughs would be perfectly altered and spoilt for that purpose. The institutions which were once really useful in introducing young talent, were the old nomination boroughs; but in the case of nomination boroughs, there was no corruption, or subserviency, or tampering with ignorance. The system which led to a seat in the House being procurable by an agreement with the patron of Gatton or old Sarum may have been unjustifiable in the abstract, but it was not degrading nor yet corrupt, for the patron of such a borough was a man of the same social standing and education as the candidate, and the bargain was openly made. But with these rural householder boroughs, intelligence would go for much less than money, and the candidate would have to pay his way through a dense phalanx of chawbacons. He feared that the course which they were adopting in that matter, creating, as it probably would, some twenty or thirty such constituencies, would only lead in a very short time to another democratic agitation for another Radical Reform Bill.

said, he wished to offer a few words of explanation in reference to the observations made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Colonel Dyott) with respect to the case of Tiverton. He dared say he could do as well without his hon. Colleague as his hon. Colleague could do without him. But he did not think the hon. and gallant Member was right in supposing that the borough of Tiverton was the creation of the Act of 1832. The fact was that Tiverton was an old borough, the boundaries of which were formerly conterminous with those of the parish, and the only difference between its past and its present condition was that its two Members were now returned by 600 electors, which number that Bill would nearly double, whereas before the Reform Act twenty-four persons sent two Members to that House.

said, he hoped that justice would be done to boroughs like Windsor, which he had the honour of representing, and which possessed a population just under 10,000. The fact, with respect to Windsor, was that many persons who really formed a portion of the population lived within the parish, but just outside the boundaries of the borough.

I hoped that as it has been generally agreed to postpone the consideration of the clause, this discussion upon it would also be closed, and I should not have risen but for the appeals made to me, and the questions which have been put. With regard to the composition of the Commission, with which the hon. Member for Birmingham finds fault, I can only say that we start from different principles as to the elements of a Commission of this kind. The hon. Member for Birmingham thinks that the Commission ought to consist of men of decided political opinions. [Mr. BRIGHT: I did not say anything of the kind.] We have endeavoured, on the contrary, to exclude gentlemen of very strong political opinions, and it will be found that I have not recommended that any Friend of mine of very decided opinions should be placed upon the Commission. I admit that it was the wish of the Government originally that no Member of Parliament should be put upon the Commission; but it was urged upon us by persons in authority in a most impressive manner, that it would be extremely desirable that the Commission should be represented by Members of this House, so that if discussions should arise on their decisions they should be represented by Members of the Commission, and not by friends in this House, or by the Government as a mere public duty. I should have been very glad to select an individual from either side of the House to perform this duty, but in a matter of this kind you have to consider not merely your own convictions, but the popular feeling of the country, which would not be satisfied unless both sides are represented. On the part of this side of the House I recommended the name of a right hon. Gentleman who, I think, the House will agree with me, is a man of high judicial qualities, and will be generally acceptable on both sides of the House. On the other side of the House I ventured to recommend the name of another right hon. Gentleman whose feelings and opinions are in accord with those of hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House, and who, from his experience and high character, is also well qualified for the office. It was thought advisable to place upon the Commission two Members of the other House as well as of this House, and accordingly I recommended Lord Eversley and Lord Penrhyn, with whom as Colonel Douglas Pennant, hon. Gentlemen have all been long familiar. We know his talents for business, his high character, and temperate opinions, and I believe that to be on the whole a very judicious recommendation. With regard to the other Gentlemen whose names I mentioned there is Sir John Duckworth. He was a Member of this House, and I think it very advisable that if the Members of the Commission are not actually Members of this House they should be men thoroughly acquainted with Parliamentary functions. Sir John was a Member of this House. He was a very able and competent man of business, and of very temperate views. The late Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) is a man of very decided Liberal opinions. Mr. Bramston is a man known for his habits of business, and distinguished for his independent political views. He sat on this side of the House, but I used to see him very seldom in the same lobby as myself, he being one of the most valuable supporters of the Government of Lord Palmerston. At the same time, every one who knows him knows his acquaintance with all the matters likely to be brought under the consideration of the Commission. I really believe that Her Majesty's Government have recommended to Parliament the names of those who will obtain the confidence of the country. As I have said, I look at this matter from a different standpoint from the hon. Member for Birmingham, and I say that no individual, with strong political or party opinion, or who is very much mixed up with our party struggles, ought to be appointed on this Commission. With regard to County Members, there is not a single County Member on the Commission, but there are two Members for boroughs. It was important if possible to select some Members from the North of England, but it is in the nature of things that the distribution of Parliamentary power should be towards the North of England; and therefore, although I could have named Gentlemen on both sides in whom we should feel great confidence, we could not but feel that these Gentlemen would have been called upon to decide questions in which they are personally interested. I am surprised that a Gentleman of such experience as the hon. Member for Bradford should make the inquiry he has made as to whether the decisions of the Committee are to be valid without the sanction of Parliament. It is, of course, impossible that the laws of this country can be changed by any body of men without the consent of Parliament. But the words of the original clause appearing to be ill drawn we have substituted words which will be much more satisfactory. The Reports of the Commissioners must be the foundation of legislation; and when the Boundary Bill is before the House, there will be no detail in it which it will not be open to every hon. Member to criticise or propose to alter. The hon. Gemtleman also asked me whether there will be assistant Commissioners. To a large extent the duties of the Commission can be performed without subordinate assistance, but it is impossible to say now how far that will be the case. If we were to attempt to decide that now, we should be embarking on the question of a large and, perhaps, unnecessarily expensive staff. When the Commissioners are appointed they will meet to consult together and form some estimate of the duties which will have to be performed; and although I do not contemplate that the Commission will itself visit all these various localities, yet I have no doubt they will avail themselves of their right to do so when that is expedient; and, of course, they will require some subordinate assistance. The House of Commons is not to be troubled with all the details, and at the present moment it is impossible for me to form an opinion as to their exact character. When, however, the Commissioners have met and considered the extent of the duties to be fulfilled, they will communicate with the Government as to what assistance may be requisite. With respect to laying the instructions to be issued to the Commission on the table before this clause is passed, I cannot undertake to do that. We wish the Commission to be appointed by Parliament; and of course, whenever the instructions are given, they will be laid on the table of the House. I do not think those instructions will be of so elaborate a character as on the previous occasion of 1832, because, since that time, the Municipal Reform Act and other important Acts bearing on these matters have been passed. But in the fair discussion which we shall have on this clause I hope on Monday that both sides of the House will come to a clear understanding as to what the functions of the Commissioners will be. I trust the clause respecting the appointment and the duties of this Commission will not be allowed to enter into the elements of party conflict. I do not myself take the exaggerated view which some hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to take of the duties which the Commissioners will have to discharge. I believe they will fulfil those duties discreetly, and will contribute very much to the beneficial working of this Bill; but it will be our own fault if we do not come to a clear understanding as to what we wish them to do. I have been asked whether it will not be necessary to have a Boundary Commission for Scotland also. Well, as far as I am informed at present, I do not see any necessity for that; but really until the House has come to a conclusion on the details of the Scotch Reform Bill, it would be premature to speak positively one way or the other on that point. I hope it may not be requisite to have recourse to that expedient, the circumstances of Scotland being rather different from those of England; but, if it cannot be avoided, of course it will be adopted. I hope the Committee will now proceed with the next clause and make some progress with this measure.

In the observations I made a little earlier I did not pretend to discuss the names of the proposed Members of this Commission. But the right hon. Gentleman has brought them out and given his opinion of the Commissioners, dividing them into those connected with counties and those connected with boroughs. Now, I take it to be a very important circumstance that there should be any separate interest between counties and boroughs in this matter. I would not myself vote for any man to be placed on this Commission who, in the discussion of the boundary of any borough, would be influenced by the consideration that this or that boundary would be more likely to make a county more Liberal or more Conservative than another boundary would do. Any man who could be actuated by such a feeling as that would in my opinion be altogether unfit to be placed on this Commission. But assuming, if you like, that these Gentlemen will be as impartial as any others who could be named, I believe the public will not entertain that opinion as regards the list which is before us. Setting aside the Chairman (Lord Eversley), my own opinion is that the House of Commons would have done wisely to commit the whole of this matter to men who are not Members of the House of Peers. I do not understand why Lord Penrhyn should be a Member of the Commission. He is a great landowner and a man of enormous wealth, to which none of us can object, but he was very recently a county Member. The right hon. Member for Southampton is the Recorder for the city of London, and he has his business in Parliament as well as his recordership to occupy him. I am bound to say that if the Members of this Commission are to pay much attention to their duties, a better selection—I am not now complaining of it in other respects—might have been made than of a Gentleman whose judicial, professional, and other duties must take up so much of his daily time. Sir J. Duckworth was not, I admit, a county Member; he was a borough Member, and was once Member for Exeter, but his connections are all with that class to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. But Mr. Walter was a county Member, and, I may say, looks to be a county Member again. He is connected with a powerful journal, and I do not know how it is, but one sees a great deal of court paid by Ministers to that journal. This I can speak positively of Mr. Walter, that I have never come into personal communication or discussion with any man while I have been in Parliament who has, as I should call it, a more fanatical admiration of what is termed the territorial interest of this country. On grounds therefore on which this Commission may properly be attacked or defended, I say that Mr. Walter is not a person free from strong opinion on a matter of this kind, although I would not insinuate for a moment that there is a doubt in my mind that he would intentionally do anything which he did not believe to be quite fair and honourable. The right hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Bramston was an independent Member of this House. Of course, we are all independent Members in a sense, but Mr. Bramston was a Member of the party opposite and the Member for a county. So that, looking at the whole of these names—and I would not have mentioned them but that the right hon. Gentleman himself has done so—I say this Commission is not one such as will give perfect satisfaction to the country. I do not believe that the most impartial men in this House are those who never open their mouths. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, or even I who now address the House, would be quite as impartial in a matter of this kind as any of the silent Members who sit and so patiently and so frequently listen to us. Therefore because Gentlemen do not take an active part in the debates of this House, that is no reason for supposing they have not strong opinions and strong party opinions. Why, it requires twice the strength of party opinion to induce Gentlemen to come here every night to vote incessantly and listen to long speeches that it does for Gentlemen who have the excitement of addressing the House, as some of us do so often. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in telling us that these Gentlemen have a sort of neutral tint which will make them do everything that is fair. Probably they will; but let us have a Commission such as the country will believe to be fair. The first thing these Commissioners will do when they meet will be to appoint the real Commission—that is, the Assistant Commissioners. The men whom we have had named to us are the Gentlemen Commissioners who will look over the working Commissioners, and give their sanction to their labours. We shall have no real superintendence over that assistant Commission. I do not know that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have anything to say in the appointment of these Gentlemen, though his recommendation will of course have some effect. But the House will have no power in the matter. The Assistant Commissioners will go down to all these places and will make their reports to these Gentlemen Commissioners, who will naturally be guided very much by the views of the majority of those whom they have themselves appointed. I say, therefore, that the constitution of this Commission is not such as gives me a perfect confidence—and I do not believe it will give confidence at all to the country—that their judgments may be relied on. You should appoint men of whom the country on looking at their names will say, "This is a perfectly fair Commission; if some one upon it be of strong opinions on one side, there is another member who is of strong opinions on the other side; and, by their joint decisions, we may believe that common justice will be done." I do not wish to suggest that any of these names should be left out in order that some others may be included; but I wish to leave it open for myself hereafter either to move to omit some of the names, and put others in their place, or to add to the list. I do not know why the number should be rigidly fixed at seven. It might be increased to nine, and its composition may be greatly changed. I give this notice in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may consider the matter before we resume the discussion of the clause.

said, he was at a loss to know how the hon. Member for Birmingham would really like to have the Commission constituted. He understood him, in the first place, to say there should be no Peer upon it. [Mr. BRIGHT: No]; and, next, that no county Member should be selected. [Mr. BRIGHT again expressed his dissent.] Whom then would the hon. Gentleman have upon the Commission? Were the Commissioners to be men of no experience, no profession, and no employment? But the hon. Member even went further, and seemed to object to a man who wished to stand as a candidate at another election. The hon. Gentleman did not tell them what description of person he desired to see appointed.

It is evident the hon. Gentleman is not one of those to whom I just referred as coming down to the House and paying attention to the speeches which are made.

I can hardly regret that this preliminary discussion, though it has occupied an hour of our time, has taken place, as I think it will be of use when we come to consider the clause. I confess I think that very great credit is due to the Government for proposing to submit to the House the names of the Commissioners. I at the same time very much doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a perfectly just measure of the consequences which are likely to arise from the decision to admit the House into his confidence at which he has arrived, instead of appointing, as in 1832, the Commission on the responsibility of the Executive Government. I do not intend to enter into the various points to which the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech referred, because it is better, in my opinion, that the discussion of them should be deferred to the proper time. There is, however, one point to which I would now wish briefly to advert. An appeal has been made to the right hon. Gentleman to the effect, that if the Government should propose to issue instructions to the Commissioners those instructions should be laid on the table; and the right hon. Gentleman has promised that this shall be done. But the point I wish to suggest is, that if the Commissioners are to be Parliamentary officers, it is impossible to say from what source is to be derived the authority of the Executive Government to instruct them at all. If they are to be the officers of the Government, then let it by all means issue to them such instructions as it may deem fit. If, however, they are to be affected by this Statute, then I say, without hesitation, that the right hon. Gentleman will have no more authority to instruct them than myself, and I need not say that that is very little indeed.

said, it is quite clear if we are to act upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be wise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw those names and to appoint the Commissioners himself.

said, that he felt delicacy in referring to individual Members, but as the matter had been discussed, he thought hon. Gentlemen might express an opinion whether hon. Members of that House were the fittest persons to be placed upon the Commission, and for his part he thought they were not. Another of the proposed Members was connected with a potent journal, and was placed in a position of peculiar delicacy; and he thought they might make a better selection than that particular Gentleman. He said that with the most perfect regard and respect for that Gentleman, whom he hoped to see again a Member of the House.

said, that, under the Act of William IV., a voter might be placed on the register and might be enabled to vote at an election, although for eleven months previously he might have ceased to reside in the borough for which he was registered. That state of things was found to cause much inconvenience, and as a consequence that provision of the 6th of Victoria, which it was now proposed to repeal, was passed. All that he proposed to do was to leave the law exactly as it stood with regard to the old voters, and to extend to the new voters precisely the same safeguards applicable to those now on the register. The Government might at one time have said they were about to introduce voting by voting papers, and that that would save expense, and render it possible to repeal this enactment without ruining candidates by travelling expenses of non-resident voters; but they were now deprived of that argument, and, indeed, even it would not have met the opinion maintained by Sir James Graham, in the discussion on the clause now sought to be repealed, that when a person had ceased to reside in a place ten or eleven months he had ceased to have that interest in it which was some security for the due performance of his duty as an elector. He concluded by moving the omission of the words, "There shall be repealed," and the insertion of the words, "From and after the passing of this Act," with a view to making the clause read, by further amendment, that so much of the 79th section of 6 Vict. c. 18, as related to the residence of voters at the time they gave their votes should extend and apply to all new voters.

said, it would be best to omit the clause altogether, as the object in view would be attained by Clause 40.

said, he had looked into Clause 40, and thought the desired end would not be attained without the insertion of words especially applying to the new voters.

said, that if they were to adopt the amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman they would get into the greatest possible confusion. The proviso referred to in the clause was part of an Act regulating the registration of voters, and if the words were not sufficiently extensive to apply to new voters under £10, they must be made so. It was best to strike out the clause and bring up a new and comprehensive one.

said, he thought it would be desirable that it should be left to the returning officer to inquire of a voter whether he retained the qualification under which he presumed to give his vote.

said, he thought that the clauses referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were so uncertain in their language that they would be sure to lead to litigation, and that the Committee would do well to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, as it would extend a very useful principle of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, to the new class of voters to be created under this Bill.

said, he thought that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member would lead to endless discussions before the returning officer.

said, that if the words in the 40th clause were not sufficient to meet the case, there would be no difficulty in adding to them. The Amendment, if adopted, would lead to doubt and difficulty.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

proposed to leave out the words "for the purpose of enabling him to be registered as a voter;" and observed that the payment of an elector's rate by a third party was bribery, and that this might be made to apply to the poorer class of occupiers who were relieved from the payment of their rates by reason of their poverty. This poorer class of occupiers was numerous in the boroughs, and if the landlord or election agent were to pay their rates they would not derive a farthing of profit from it. He did not see what practical difference there was between the payment of £4 or £5 to a railway company for the travelling expenses of a voter, in order that he might exercise the franchise, and the payment of 2s. or 3s. to a parish for enabling a man to do exactly the same thing. He was anxious that these rates should not be paid by candidates; but in order to attain that object you must have some different machinery from that suggested by the Government.

said, he would ask whether it was desirable that the Committee should give facilities for the creation of fagot votes; they had already laid down the principle, that a man who was relieved by the parish from the payment of rates should not vote, so that the effect of paying a man's rates was to put on the register one who otherwise would not be there because he had not fulfilled the duties required by law. What was the payment of a man's rates but to enable him to be put on the roll of electors? To omit these words, therefore, was to go against the whole spirit of the Act, and to allow the payment of a man's rates was to sanction bribery, and he should therefore oppose the Amendment.

asked what was to constitute the "corrupt" payment of rates? If a man's rate came to 2s. and a third party gave him 2s. 6d. to pay it with, would that be a corrupt payment? It would be a very easy thing to evade the operation of the clause. Was it intended that nothing should be given by way of gratuity to any ratepayer a certain time before the registration? He suggested the propriety of referring this particular clause to the consideration of the Committee on Bribery at Elections, instead of attempting to introduce into this Bill a single clause dealing with a single kind of bribery.

said, that as the clause stood, instead of making the law relating to bribery clearer, it only made it more puzzling and obscure. If the payment of rates were corrupt, it was bribery under the existing law; and if it were not corrupt, it was not made so by this clause. If the clause were agreed to as proposed, it would follow that there might be payments made under certain circumstances on behalf of voters for the purpose of keeping their names on the register, that would not be corrupt. It would be much better to strike out the clause altogether. As to the Amendment, he was astonished that the hon. Baronet should make such a proposal.

said, he had given notice of an Amendment to omit this clause, on two grounds — first that it was objectionable to multiply penal enactments when the law was sufficient as it stood; and, secondly, that there was a Committee now sitting on the subject of bribery, There would be very great difficulty in knowing the effect of the first three lines of the clause—

"That any candidate or other person corruptly paying any rates for the purpose of endeavouring to have any person placed on the register as a voter."

According to the decision of the Courts of Law in a similar case, the word "corruptly" here would mean nothing at all, being quite otiose. Any act of the kind described, done wilfully, being contrary to the law, would, he believed, be held to be done "corruptly." As the effect would be very perplexing, it would be better to omit the clause, and he would therefore support the Amendment.

said, he had no doubt that the clause would be valuable, because it would enable a candidate to refuse wholesale applications which might be made to him for the payment of rates.

I may remind the Committee that we have some experience from the action of the law telling us what we should do in this case. The custom in the borough with which I am acquainted is, that when the time for making out the lists for the new registration approaches, about the end of July, any active politician who may have reasons for taking an interest in the matter, goes to the overseer's office and looks over the list, where he sees the names of the persons who have a right to be put on the register, and whether any of them have omitted to pay their rates. Perhaps he finds a dozen whose rates have not been paid. He will pay the rates and clear the account, and he then goes to his friends and obtains the money from them. In such cases as those to which I refer, it is never done for bribery or any corrupt purpose, but to see whether anyone has been left out through inadvertence or neglect to pay the rate, and in the majority of cases the money is re-paid by the voter. [Ironical cheers fromthe Ministerial side.] Well, I am sorry to find that hon. Gentlemen do not appear to live in towns so respectable. There will no doubt be many more cases in which this will happen with the poorer class of voters; and I think it quite possible that in their case, too, a similar practice may take place, and that the rates may be paid to avoid the deprivation of the franchise, without anything being corruptly meant The clause will not be of much avail, and I think may be applicable to cases where no corrupt practice is intended. I should be inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, that it would be better to have the matter considered in connection with a general Bill referring to bribery. In large towns there will be much less temptation to bribe for the purpose of getting hold of a few votes, as a few votes will be of much less value with the increased constituencies, and therefore the evil maybe of less dimensions than some apprehend.

said, that for the purpose of getting on the register it was necessary that a man should pay his rates; and the question was, whether a candidate who paid the rates for a number of voters for the purpose of getting them on the register was paying corruptly. But if it were fair that a man should be punished for giving a small sum of money to a voter to induce him to poll, it could hardly be proper that he should be allowed to pay money for the purpose of putting a number of persons on the register.

It would be great presumption in me to question the interpretation of the clause by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am not able, as at present advised, to read it in the sense in which he has described it. The hon. and learned Gentleman says the effect of this clause is to provide that no candidate who pays the rate on behalf of a number of voters shall be understood to have corruptly paid that rate. If that be so, it is quite clear that the word "corruptly" should be struck out from its present position, and inserted in a later part of the clause. We say that any candidate corruptly paying on behalf of a voter shall be guilty of bribery, implying directly, by the very same argument that the Attorney General used, that a man may pay the rate without paying it corruptly. I think some change in the wording of the clause is necessary, and should be very glad to know the precise addition which may be requisite to give force to the provision in cases where bribery is intended.

said, he thought that the clause was necessary, and that it was also necessary that the word "corruptly" should be in it. The clause was necessary, because a person might pay the rates for the purpose of getting an occupier on the register without any intention of being repaid. They would all agree that such a payment would be corrupt. On the other hand, a person might pay a friend's rate in his absence, well knowing that his omission to do it himself was a pure inadvertence, and well knowing also that the money would be repaid him. It would be absurd to call that a corrupt payment, and yet if the clause or the word were omitted, it might be seriously called in question.

said, that if they were agreed in their object, it should be expressed plainly and without ambiguity. They wanted to say that if any candidate came forward and paid rates for the purpose of securing the registration of a voter, the act should be considered corrupt. The clause as it stood did not express that by putting the word "corruptly" at the commencement, the clause encumbered the proof of the indictment with the proof of all that the word "corruptly" implied. The clause not only did not say what it meant, but said the very opposite of what it meant. He would, therefore, suggest the insertion of words providing that any candidate directly or indirectly paying any rate for the purpose of influencing the voter should be deemed guilty of corruption.

said, there were many things argued which, nevertheless, were perfectly clear, and this, he thought, was a case of that kind. The words suggested by the right hon. Gentle man could not be adopted, because a person might pay a rate for another as a friendly act, and in perfect good faith, knowing that he would be repaid. A judge or jury would have no difficulty in finding whether an act had been corruptly done or not, and although the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) had asked for a definition of the term "corruptly," to introduce any such definition would only obscure what was otherwise perfectly clear. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Brett) had stated the reasons why such a clause was necessary, and he hoped the Committee would retain the clause in its present shape.

said, he thought that the discussion which had taken place was proof sufficient that the meaning of the clause was not plain, and he thought it needed alteration. His hon. and learned Friend appeared to think that if the money were repaid it would not be corrupt, but that if it were not repaid it would be corrupt; but this seemed a singular distinction, as it would be absurd to hold that a person was guilty of bribery because he had given a poor neighbour half-a-crown to enable him to avoid a distress. He could not, however, vote for the Amendment, which would, he thought, open a wide door to corruption.

said, he could see no difficulty in the registration. The question of corrupt intention was in every case of bribery a matter of evidence, and for that reason it was absolutely necessary to insert the word "corruptly" in the present clause. There was no harm in the father or brother of a voter paying the rates for him; but there was the greatest possible harm in the case of a man paying a voter's rates under the pretence of lending him money, and in order to enable him to be put on the register. There was no Committee and no jury who would not say that such a proceeding was corrupt. Such a case, however, was one for a jury, and not for that House.

said, that the clause required a greater amount of consideration than in Committee of the whole House could be given to it. He thought that they should be careful that innocent payments were not brought within the operation of the clause; and that the clause, indeed, had better be withdrawn for the present and re-considered.

wanted to know what mischief would happen if they left out the word "corruptly," and made it an offence for any person to pay the rates for another person in order that he might be put on the register. If the word "corruptly" were left out no one would be enabled to pay the rates of another.

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the decision of the Judges in the case of "Cooper v. Slade," which showed that the word "corruptly" had no legal force.

said, that the case referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman had no application to the present matter. The word "corruptly" was not otiose, for there were cases where the rate might be legitimately paid for the purpose of enabling a voter to be on the register, such as cases where a man knowing that his friend had inadvertently omitted to pay, paid for him. This would surely not be corruption.

said, he hoped the Government would adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey).

said, he thought the first part of the clause would be evaded by persons lending voters small sums to pay their rates with, while professing ignorance of what the money was wanted for. If the object of the Committee were to make it an offence to assist a man in getting on the register, they must adopt distinct words to that effect. The second part of the clause, declaring that to pay a rate for a voter to induce him to vote was bribery, was quite unnecessary, that being bribery already. He thought the best course was to strike the clause out.

said, he must also concur in the opinion that the mere word "corruptly" was not sufficiently explicit.

said, he hoped that the Government would adhere to the clause, and not allow it to get into the hands of the Committee, as it was designed to insure the personal payment of rates, and also to protect candidates from being called on to pay rates. He thought also that it was advisable that the word "corruptly" should be retained.

said, he did not suppose that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield intended to prohibit the payment of rates by a landlord where there was an agreement between him and his tenant to that effect.

I would prohibit that, if it were for the purpose of putting the tenant on the Parliamentary register.

said, that while he thought it was a fit and proper thing to prohibit the payment of a man's rates by a stranger, for the purpose of enabling him to be put upon the register, he could see no objection to an arrangement on the part of a landlord to pay his tenant's rates, even although it was contemplated that by such payment the tenant would be put upon the list of voters. He would therefore suggest the omission of the word "corruptly," and the adding of a proviso, that

"Nothing herein contained shall be held to prohibit the payment of rates by the landlord on behalf of his tenant pursuant to any agreement between them for that purpose."

said, he thought that the clause should provide that the rates should not be paid by any person but the actual voter. In his opinion it would be difficult to say what was meant by the word "stranger."

said, he did not wish to take any division on the word "corruptly," although it appeared to him to be the only valuable word in the clause. He should request the Chairman to put his Amendment, but he would not give the House the trouble of dividing.

said, he agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be undesirable to take the issue on the word "corruptly." He wished to know what was the meaning of the words "directly or indirectly?" If a man gave another money to pay his rate, it seemed to him that was directly paying the rate. To prevent the possibility of such a thing altogether was an absolute prohibition of every kind of charity.

said, the clause should run "for the purpose of putting him on the register."

Were they going to limit the clause to those cases where it could be absolutely proved that money was paid for the express purpose of putting the man on the register? They knew that such a clause would be mere nonsense, and they had better strike it out of the Bill altogether. Candidates and electioneering agents were not born fools. If they intended to do a corrupt act, they would take care to do it in such a way as to evade the clause. He did not wish to make an Act of Parliament a laughingstock, and after the explanation of his hon. Friend opposite he was still more inclined to object to his Amendment.

said, he should regret if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Rainald Knightley) were withdrawn, as in that case the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield could not be put to the House.

I do not know, Sir, but that I may be a born fool—nevertheless, I have known cases in which people have been found out who have thought they have crept through Acts of Parliament. It seems to me that my proposition would make it clearly a matter of evidence whether a man's rates were paid for the purpose of putting him on the register, or whether it was merely for his own convenience. If a landlord in paying a tenant's rates tells him he does it to put the tenant on the register, it is quite clear what he does it for. I think the matter is quite clear, and that no one but a born fool could see any difficulty in it.

said, he was sorry that in consequence of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire, the Committee was precluded from voting for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, because he (Mr. Gladstone) believed that that Amendment, coupled with such a proviso as had been suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, would bring the clause into a useful and practicable shape. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said the object of the clause was perfectly clear; but it was not at all clear to Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side. He had previously put, and now repeated, this question:—What was the object of the Government in proposing that clause, and what was the Act that the present laws respecting bribery and corruption did not reach which was not now an offence, and which it was intended to constitute an offence by that Bill?

said, that that question had already been distinctly answered by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Helston. The introduction of the word "corruptly" into the clause was perfectly intelligible and capable of a definite application; but if it was desired to make the payment of a man's rates by a stranger, whether an election was or was not imminent at the time, for the purpose of getting his name on the electoral register, a punishable act, the word "corruptly" might as well in that case be omitted.

said, he thought that if the clause passed in its present shape it would include within it a good deal that was not intended. If it was meant by the word "corruptly" that certain persons paid a man's rates not only to get his name put upon the register, but that he might thereby vote for those persons or according to their wishes, he could understand the corruption in that; but he confessed he could not clearly make out what was meant by the word "corruptly" if the rates were paid merely to get the man's name on the register, without any reference to what he was to do with his vote. All sorts of expenses were now undertaken to be paid by persons in order to get people upon the register; but he did not know that any charge of corruption had hitherto been alleged against that simple Act.

said, he would give an illustration in order to put the case clearly to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It was said that payment of the man's rates had nothing to do with how he was to vote, but was only intended to get him put on the register. Now, suppose he wanted to blow up a man, and gave another man a shilling to buy gunpowder for the purpose of doing it; there were two steps to one end, and that was exactly a parallel case to the one they were considering.

said, it appeared that the hon. Baronet (Sir Rainald Knightley) would not withdraw his Amendment in order that he might prevent that of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield from being put. He would ask whether that was a usual or a Parliamentary course to take?

said, that the whole gist of the matter turned upon the word "corruptly," and he would ask the Government why they so persistently stood by the word? Was the law inadequate to deal with corrupt practices, and was there any difficulty in finding them out? After the remarks of the Solicitor General he had come to the conclusion, that it was the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to do a good turn to solicitors in general, by leaving the word "corruptly" in the clause. Unless there was some private political reason for its retention he (Viscount Milton) did not see why it should not be struck out.

proposed, at page 12, line 19, to omit the word "or," and insert "and any candidate or other person either directly or indirectly paying any rate on behalf of any voter." He said his object was to prevent such payments, or in case they were made, to render the parties making them liable to punishment.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment. The Clause would stand thus: "By a candidate or other person directly or indirectly paying any rate for the purpose of inducing him to vote."

said, he thought that, after the discussion which had taken place, he ought to press the Amendment of which he had given nptice—namely, "that the Clause do not stand part of the Bill." Every line of the clause raised a doubt as to what its effect would be, and no satisfactory answers had been given to the questions put by hon. Members as to its meaning. He therefore begged to move that the clause be struck out.

said, he rose to move a series of Amendments, verbal and otherwise, of which he had given notice—namely, in line 26 to leave out "thereafter duly elected as," and insert "being." In line 28, to leave out "any other," and insert "such," and also to leave out "of profit under the Crown." In line 30, to leave out "appointed to any office of profit under the Crown, and thereafter duly returned as," and insert "being;" and in lines 33 and 35, to leave out the word "other." The object of those Amendments was to abolish the practice of requiring the re-election of Members of that House, when they accepted office under the Crown.

said, he had never heard a more mischievous proposition than that now proposed by the noble Lord, and he was sure the Committee would not assent to it. The ancient law was one of a most wholesome character, and was an admirable check on those Members of the House who accepted office by making them responsible to their constituencies. It prevented Gentlemen when they found themselves face to face with the Treasury bench from forgetting the conditions under which they came into the House. It was but right that when a Gentleman became a Member of the Government that he should go to his constituency and in the face of the country have his conduct ratified. The clause proposed by the Government was of a totally different character. It was immaterial after a man had joined a Government what office he held, and he (Mr. Ayrton) thought he might be able to change from one office to another without the trouble and inconvenience to the discharge of public business of his having to go down for re-election. If the words of the clause were limited to the object of relieving a Minister from this liability, it was not open to objection; but a proposal to free Members from vacating their seats on first taking office was a very different thing.

said, he hoped some Member of the Government would state what course they intended to take with reference to the Amendments?

said, that it was not through want of respect to the noble Lord that he had remained silent; but he thought some other Member was going to address the Committee. He regretted to be obliged to say that he was totally opposed to the proposition of the noble Lord. Even the limited proposal contained in the clause was not one to be adopted without hesitation. But, after consideration, the Committee would probably think that, upon the whole, those who were already in office, after receiving the favour of their Sovereign and the sanction of their constituents, should be allowed to exchange from one post to the other without interrupting the course of public business. That relaxation of the ancient rule had for some time been under the consideration of Parliament. There was a provision to that effect in the Bill of 1859; he rather thought it was also contained in the Bill of 1854, which had been brought in by an eminent relative of the noble Lord's, and after being long canvassed and considered it was now finally adopted, he believed, by public opinion. But he could not support any further extension of the principle.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken on this subject in terms which were very considerate, and which at the same time expressed the true view of the case. The necessity of vacating a seat upon any interchange of offices was often inconvenient, and conferred no corresponding public advantage. As far as any check upon the Administration by the public was concerned, these changes were for the most part purely casual and accidental. The case, however, was entirely different at the time when an Administration first entered office. At such a time it was highly desirable that the public, through the medium of the constituencies, should have something to say as to the formation of that Government. But at other times these appeals to the constituencies were matter of accident, and were not governed by any principle. He knew that considerable difference of opinion prevailed upon the subject. In the first Session of the Reformed Parliament, he believed an effort was made by an hon. Gentleman much respected by the Whig party to give effect to the proposition of his noble Friend (Viscount Amberley), which was not viewed altogether with disfavour by the Administration of the day. Undoubtedly, however, the manifestation of Parliamentary feeling against the proposal was strong, and he agreed with those who thought that the check was a constitutional and a valuable check—one which, without vitally impeding the action of the executive, allowed the voice of the people to be heard at a time when it was eminently important that it should be heard. He trusted that his noble Friend would not think it necessary to invite the formal judgment of the Committee on his Amendment.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he must express his surprise, that a clause embodying a principle of such vast importance should be consented to without discussion or question. The clause of the Bill of 1859 was not reached, and consequently not discussed; but when the proposition had been brought forward as a specific measure it had always been rejected by the House.

said, the clause required some Amendments, As it was then drawn it might be construed that a defeated Government could again take office without re-election, It should be clearly limited to changes in the existing Government after the Members had been once re-elected.

said, he concurred in the view that the clause required alteration, and he would therefore propose the postponement of the clause with the view of introducing a new one.

said, there were several Amendments intended to be moved on this clause, and, therefore, he should now move that the Chairman report progress.

said, it might be useful with respect to the labours of the Committee when they resumed, if he pointed out to the Government that this clause as it stood, and especially the latter part of it which applied to the preservation of all existing laws, customs, and enactments, merely applied to the new constituencies, which were now for the first time to receive Members under this Act, and that if they were intended to apply to new voters generally, the words were wholly inefficient for that purpose. He also observed in the Bill a singular omission, which it was probably thought would be covered by this clause, but that certainly would not be the case. The Bill did not repeat the provision contained in the first Reform Bill, that persons in the receipt of Poor Law relief should not be entitled to vote.

said, he also noticed an omission which he had pointed out to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and which he believed it was intended to remedy. Clause 78 of the Reform Act provided that nothing contained in it should extend to or affect Members for the Universities, or should entitle any one to vote for the City of Oxford or the town of Cambridge in respect of a qualification connected with the Universities. He supposed it was intended to extend that provision to the new voters, but it was not so as the Bill now stood.

The labours of the Commission, to which I wish to call attention this evening, have been watched with very great interest in Scotland; a fact which need not surprise us, if we remember that that country has owed to the comparatively wide diffusion of education amongst its people, very much of the prosperity which it has enjoyed. Many Scotchmen believe—and I confess to be one of the number—that if our educational system, higher, secondary, and elementary, could be put on a thoroughly satisfactory footing, it would do more to increase that prosperity than any other change which is in the power of Parliament. Hon. Members cannot too constantly bear in mind that the whole feeling about education is quite different in Scotland from what it is in England. Here, the strong movement in favour of the education of the whole people dates, certainly, not further back than the earlier part of this century. In Scotland it is, at least, as old as the Reformation. Here, the education of the people is chiefly looked after by benevolent persons and societies. In Scotland it is a matter of legal right and legal obligation. Here, the idea of an education rate is new and strange. With us, it is as familiar as any other form of tax, infinitely more familiar than the poor's rate, which is in the north quite of recent introduction. Denominational education on a large scale is in Scotland hardly thirty years old, and since 1861 we have no tests in our parochial schools any more than in our Universities. There is another thing which should be borne in mind, and that is that this question of Scotch education is to the last degree urgent. Ever since the introduction of the Revised Code in England, and its partial introduction in Scotland, so great an expectation of change has been excited, that everything has been in confusion, and this state of things will continue until Parliament gives us to understand, once for all, how far the ardent aspirations of the country for a national system of education are to be gratified. As it is, the Revised Code will, as a temporary measure, have immediately to be suspended in Scotland for another year, and if we have not legislation next Session it will be a great disappointment and misfortune. This Commission was appointed in 1864, and its instructions empowered it to inquire into the whole field of education below the universities. It covered, accordingly, the same ground as the English Commissions which reported in 1861 and 1864, as well as that presided over by Lord Taunton, the report of which, surely too long delayed, so many are awaiting with impatience. Inasmuch, however, as the number of schools which correspond to the middle class schools of England is, on the other side of the Tweed, not very numerous, and a class of schools corresponding to the nine public schools which were investigated by Lord Clarendon'a Commission does not exist, the greatest amount of public interest gathers round the Report of the Commission on the elementary schools; and all that they have to say upon this subject is already in our hands. The Commission was very numerous, consisting of no less than eighteen persons, selected by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh with much judgment, including a distinguished Member of the present Government, two Conservative ex-Lord-Advocates, and a well-known Conservative peer. The Commissioners got to work in November 1864, and their first proceeding was to examine a large number of witnesses, so as to collect the general views prevailing in the Scotch public mind as to the state of the schools, and the best means of increasing their efficiency. They also obtained answers to written questions. The report of the oral evidence was laid before us in March 1865; the answers to the written questions were put on the table this Session. This preliminary examination satisfied the Commission that there was in Scotland a very general feeling in favour of a National system, but much difference of opinion, and, indeed, much absence of accurate information with respect to the actual state of the schools. They accordingly directed that schedules should be prepared and addressed to the registrars of births, deaths, and marriages, throughout Scotland, who were directed to call with their schedules filled up upon the ministers of the denominations most nearly connected with the various schools, and to request them to sign the schedules if they agreed with the statements made. Copies of the schedules were also sent to the ministers of the various leading denominations to be returned by them filled up according to their own views in case they did not agree with the registrars. In this way, most accurate statistics have been obtained with regard to the number of children attending school in the rural parishes and the smaller towns; for the registrars of the large towns, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, declined to undertake the task of having the schedules filled up. This omission was supplied by a special inquiry as to Glasgow. All the statistics collected are now before Parliament, and I will, with the permission of the House, read a portion of the passage in which the Commissioners sum up the results—

"According to the Census of 1861, the population of Scotland was 3,062,294. The returns which we obtained from the registrars, in the manner just described, embrace a population of 2,050,024, which may be taken to comprehend the whole of the rural population; while the remaining 1,012,270 comprehend the whole of the burghal population. Provision, however, was afterwards made for a complete investigation of the schools in Glasgow, with a population of 395,503; so that the only part of the population from which no returns were received is 616,767. The result is that, either through the registrars or the Glasgow Assistant Commissioners, information has been obtained as to the educational condition of four-fifths of the people of Scotland."

The returns thus obtained by the registrars will be found full of the most important and interesting information. The general result of the state of education in Scotland is that a proportion of 1 in 6·5 of the whole; population is upon the roll of scholars, and 1 in 7·9 in attendance, a ratio which, if; taken by itself, is not unsatisfactory. But when we come to the detail of the different counties, which will be found in the appendix, it will be seen that the ratio in individual parishes is much more unsatisfactory, varying from 1 in 4 to 1 in 15, 20, 25, and even 30. In short, it does not appear that the percentage overhead gives anything like a satisfactory indication of the real state of education in particular localities. In regard to the religious, or rather the denominational question, the returns present a remarkable and very satisfactory result. They show that the distinction of denominations in Scotland has a very limited effect indeed in determining the attendance of children upon particular schools. Thus, out of 87,000 scholars in the parochial or national schools, which are of course connected with the Established Church of Scotland, only 53,000 belong to that Church; out of 33,000 scholars in denominational schools in connection with the Established Church, the so called General Assembly schools, only 18,000 belong to that Church; out of 48,000 scholars in Free Church schools, only 28,000 are Free Church children; out of 6,200 scholars in Episcopalian schools, only 1,929 are Episcoplian, The vast majority are Presbyterians. It is a remarkable fact that out of 12,000 Roman Catholic children at school in the rural districts of Scotland, a majority are in Presbyterian schools, and I am proud to say that their conscientious scruples are protected by the direct and positive injunctions of the Presbyterian Churches. Details as to this, on which a Scotchman has a right, I think, to claim some credit for his country, will be found by Roman Catholic Members of this House at page 30 of the Report. At this stage of their inquiry, the Commissioners seem to have thought themselves justified in coming to the conclusion that things were, as we say in the north, "nae that ill," more especially as they had now sufficient information before them to be persuaded that the situation of the school and the merits of the teacher weigh much more with parents in Scotland than mere religious differences. Much, however, had to be done before they could make a satisfactory report. They knew all about the number of the schools and the scholars, little about the character of either. They had full information about quantities, they had now to ascertain qualities. They appointed accordingly five assistant Commissioners to examine into the education actually given in the three great divisions of the population, which had to be dealt with as entirely distinct, and they seem in the choice of these gentlemen to have been almost as fortunate as in their secretary. They sent Mr. Sellar and Colonel Maxwell to examine the Lowland parishes; Mr. Harvey and Mr. Greig to analyze the educational state of Glasgow; and Mr. Nicolson to examine the Highlands and Islands. Further, they obtained the assistance of Mr. Fraser, who was directed to report upon the state of education in the United States and Canada, as well to their as to Lord Taunton's Commission. All the reports of these assistant Commissioners can now be had on application by Members. They are all characterized by great ability, and there is none of them from which those who are interested in education can possibly fail to learn a great deal. I suppose that, to Englishmen, the most directly interesting will be the one on Glasgow, and Mr. Fraser's American report, bearing, as they do, so much upon problems which are of such vast importance in the most populous part of the island. The report of Mr. Sellar and his Colleague will be most widely read in Scotland, because it applies to so wide a portion of the surface of the country; and the report of Mr. Nicolson, although it describes a state of society and conditions of life widely different from those with which persons who study educational questions have generally to deal, brings to light so much that is curious, and is so racy, that it cannot fail to obtain many readers. Some hon. Members might even do worse than to take it with them when the 12th of August summons them from discussing Reform to more agreeable occupations. The general result of the qualitative analysis, so to speak, made by the assistant Commissioners is much less satisfactory than the quantitative analysis of the registrar's returns. The number of children attending some schools is about as large as we could wish; the number of children attending efficient schools is quite another thing. We have in Scotland, as in most other countries, a class of persons who are very fond of beating the patriotic big drum, and who believe that all is as it ought to be in that portion of the earth's surface which happens to have been blessed by their nativity. Some of such have, I see, been rejoicing greatly over the number who attend our schools. It would be better to postpone that kind of thing, which is foolishness at the best, till we have found efficient schooling for the children who are not yet provided for as they ought to be. There are 92,000 children of the school age who are not on the roll of any school. There are very many more who are not on attendance on any efficient school. As to the wonderful dens that are reckoned as schools side by side with first-rate institutions, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Nicolson give abundant, and often very amusing, illustrations. Now then, Sir, for the general result of the qualitative analysis of the three great divisions I have mentioned. Mr. Sellar and his Colleague sum up their interesting and elaborate report in the following words:—

"The defects in the present system are, want of organization, want of supervision by some competent central authority powerful enough to make its influence felt by every Individual connected with it, and want of thoroughness in the matter of teaching. Those defects can only be cured by wide, vigorous, and careful legislation. The re-organization of the schools in Scotland, and the erection of new schools wherever they are wanted, is not a task to be undertaken unadvisedly. But the task must be undertaken and carried through, if the machinery is ever to be effective.

"At present, there is no competent authority to initiate, to administer, or to superintend. Schools spring up where they are not required, and there are no schools where they are required. The school apparatus may be adequate, or there may not be a bench to write at, or a black board, or map, throughout the length and breadth of a whole district. The teachers may be good, or they may be utterly incompetent; they may be wealthy men, or they may be starving. They may be under official supervision, or the entire management of the schools may devolve upon themselves, and they may be responsible to no one. The children may attend school or they may not attend, but grow up in absolute ignorance. All these evils are due to want of organization, and suggest the necessity of some central authority to regulate the education of the country.

"Centralization implies a national system, and when a central board, with the supreme control of education, is established, there is an end of all denominational and miscellaneous systems. And is there any reason why the education of a great country should be kept in an unsatisfactory state, because the clergy and the people are split up into religious sects, who, though they differ in some respects, are at one upon the necessity of education? The country, so far as we could learn from the counties and parishes visited, is all but unanimous in answering that there is no reason. People of every class, and of every religious de nomination, are agreed that Scotland is fully ripe for a national system. Parents of all denominations send their children indiscriminately to schools belonging to different denominations than their own, knowing well that, in doctrine and system, the religious instruction in schools of one denomination does not differ from that given in schools of another, the Roman Catholic schools alone excepted. There is no reason, on religious grounds, why there should not be a national system, and there can be no reason upon any other ground. The small minority who might oppose it consists of a fraction of the present local managers of some of the schools. But the interest of those attending school is of more importance than the wishes or tears of the managers, and nothing thorough can be accomplished except upon some universal plan, which must go beyond the present state of things."

Quite similar is the result of the Glasgow investigation: much is being done. Great sacrifices are made, but the outcome of the whole is unsatisfactory. The want of organization is everywhere visible. There is no directing hand, no means of wielding educational appliances for the best interests of education. There is also urgent need for greatly increased school accommodation. At page 130 of Mr. Harvey's report, we read—

"In a sentence, while the accommodation exceeds by a trifling surplusage the number of children at school, yet were the number of children attending school who ought to be there, the supply would fall short of the demand by 61,973 sittings, or about two-thirds of the whole."

Just the same complaints come from the Hebrides—want of organization and uniformity, want of control and supervision, complicated of course by all the evils of extreme poverty, a rude climate, vast distances, stormy seas, and a foreign language. Mr. Sellar's report contains a succinct but extremely clear account of the Scotch Parochial Schools, which, as being unlike anything in England, have often excited the attention of educational reformers in this country, and which, before the Privy Council system was started, gave the poorer classes in Scotland so great an advantage in the race of life over their equals in other parts of the United Kingdom. It will be in the recollection of the House that these schools are supported by an assessment on the land, which is paid by the landlord, who has the right of being relieved by his tenant to the extent of one-half, and are quite independent of voluntary contributions. Their action is supplemented by side schools, as they are called, which are schools of an inferior kind, maintained by the landowners in extensive parishes, where more than one school is required, under an Act of 1803. The Parliamentary Schools, as they are named, which form the third portion of our old national system, as I may call it by distinction from the denominational system which has grown up beside it, were established under an Act of the 1st and 2d of the Queen, c. 87, and are found in the Highlands and Islands. There are only seven-and-twenty in all, so they are not very important. Mr. Sellar found the Parochial Schools in the Lowlands good on the whole, especially in those districts which enjoy the advantages of the Dick Bequest, one of the most happily imagined and best administered charities which could be mentioned. The goodness, however, was rather unequally distributed over the country; and, above all, the number of; their Parochial Schools is altogether too small for the wants of the country. The chief supplemental agencies in the Lowlands are the General Assembly's schools in connection with the Established Church, educating fairly some 33,000 children, and the Free Church schools, educating nearly 49,000 children about as well as the Parochial Schools — in some reports a little better, in some a little worse—but doing this at the cost of a very serious dram on the resources of its adherents, whose pecuniary sacrifices in other ways have been, as all men know, so remarkable. A third supplementary agency is found in the schools of the Christian Knowledge Society, which are connected with the Established Church, but are fewer and less important. The Episcopalian and Roman Catholic schools are few, comparatively, in number—seventy-four of the first in the rural districts throughout Scotland, and sixty-one of the latter. There are also certain not very numerous subscription schools, amongst which the ironwork and colliery schools would seem to be good, as also the schools supported by the ministers and proprietors in different districts. The adventure schools are usually good for nothing, and would seem, as a rule, to do more harm than good. In the large towns we have no parochial schools. Sessional schools, as they are called, supply their place, and it is generally in the towns that the various denominations put forth their strength. It is in the towns that they do most good, and it is in the towns that the spectator is most struck with the frightful waste of power which the denominational system involves. I will not go into a description of the various educational agencies, either in Glasgow and the other towns or in the Hebrides, because, although there are wide differences between them and the educational agencies in the rural parishes of the Lowlands, yet there is a sufficient amount of parallelism between the three to make what I am about to say intelligible, without going into details, and the mass of information put before us by this Commission is so great, that any one who attempts to give the House anything like a sketch of it ought to retrench, as I shall try to do, every superfluous word. The general outcome of a survey of Scotch elementary education is then this:—We have a system which was meant by its founders to be a national one, but which, partly the changes of a religious opinion in Scotland, but above all, the growth of the population, have rubbed off its national character. This system works pretty well so far as it extends, but it does not nearly suffice for the wants of the country. Side by side with it has grown up a denominational system, which does much to supplement its action, but does not do anything like all that is wanted, and, from the very fact of being denominational, cannot do what it does in the best way. How, then, are we to make these two systems co-extensive with the wants of the country? Are we to let things remain as they are? Public opinion would not permit us to do so, even if we would. The necessity to act is great and pressing. We must have a national system before very long. Now, what is a national system? I answer in the words of the Commission—

"1. A national system implies that there shall be some recognised body invested with legal power to establish as many national schools as may be required, and to prevent the establishment of more.

"2. A national system implies that the law should enable the inhabitants of a district to raise by taxation such funds as may be necessary to erect and maintain schools, instead of leaving them to be erected and maintained by voluntary efforts.

"3. A national system implies that the schools shall be public and national; or, in other words, that every parent shall be entitled to claim admittance for his child into any such school, but that, if he objects on religious grounds to any part of the instruction, his objection shall be respected."

Are we, then, by Act of Parliament forthwith to introduce a perfect national system? Are we to buy up the denominational schools, and put them, the Parliamentary and side schools, with all the rest, upon the rates, have them managed by local Committees under the direction of a central board, and take for our motto, 'United secular, separate religious education?' I confess that my own mind very much inclines to the energetic simplicity of that plan. In theory, I hold with the system of the American common schools, or with the nearly related system of Holland, as laid down in the School Law of 1857, the work of great men whose small reputation beyond the limits of their own country shows how much more important in attracting the attention of mankind the pedestal often is, than the statue which stands upon it. It is not, however, a question of decreeing, by the waving of a magic wand, the best imaginable system. The question before us is, what is to be done in the present state of the public mind? I look, however, to the last page of the Report of this Scotch Commission, and there I find attached to proposals, which are far indeed from meeting my views as to what would be abstractedly best, but which would, if carried into effect, produce, not, I think, so great, but still a very great, nay, an enormous improvement upon the present state of things, the names of no less than eighteen persons, all more or less representative men, and belonging to the most diverse sections of opinion. Their agreement leads one to hope that they have really hit upon a plan which will be generally accepted, at all events, by the vast majority of the laity, by large sections of the clergy, and, above all, by those who, having children of the school age, are most directly interested in the matter. What a reasonable man should fight for is to get the people educated somehow—not to obtain a triumph for his own pet theory. The plan of the Commissioners is, not to create a national system out of hand, but to set on foot a process of change which, in not very many years, will give us a national system, and this is the way in which they mean to set about it. First, they propose to leave the parochial, Parliamentary, and side schools pretty much as they are, changing their name, however, and calling them "Old National Schools." Next, they propose to create a Board of Education, which is to have the power of establishing new schools in all localities where they are wanted, to be called "New National Schools," and to be managed by local school Committees; and thirdly, they propose that all the existing denominational schools, not found to be superfluous for their district, which wish to continue to have a share in the Privy Council grants, shall be obliged, within a certain time, to connect themselves with the Board of Education, which will have the power to see that the master is efficient, and that the school buildings are kept in proper repair, retaining their old denominational management for other purposes, as long as the denomination with which they are connected chooses to supply all the funds necessary, except those which are supplied by the Privy Council grant. These will be called "Adopted National Schools." The House will see that the type to which it is proposed to assimilate all the Scotch elementary schools is that of the "New National Schools," and a machinery is provided by which the first and the third, the "Old National Schools" and the "Adopted National Schools" can be turned into "New National Schools," if the heritors in the one case, and the managers in the other, think it expedient. The proposed Board of Education, it should be carefully observed, is to have purely local powers. Its duties will be confined to seeing that every district is properly sup plied with schools, that these schools are maintained as they ought to be, and that the teacher does his duty. The Committee of Council will continue to administer the Parliamentary grant, and to inspect the schools. The privilege of adoption is not to be given to any denominational school which shall not be in existence within two years after the passing of the Act, by which, it is hoped, the new scheme may be carried out, so that it may well be hoped that, within a decade or two, the number of denominational schools may bear quite an insignificant proportion to the national ones. From the very first, these features will be found in every "Old National School," "New National School," or "Adopted National School"—that is, in all schools aided by the Parliamentary grant administered by the Privy Council:—1. They will be visited by an inspector once every year. 2. The inspector may enter and inspect any school to which he may be sent, whatever may be his religious denomination, but he may not examine in religious knowledge unless requested to do so by a majority of the managers. That will be a very great saving of expense to the public, a matter with regard to which some most curious evidence was given by Mr. Lingen. 3. Every National school shall be open to scholars of all denominations, but it shall be declared by statute that any scholars may be withdrawn from any instruction to which his parents may, on religious grounds, object. That will consecrate a great principle, more familiar to the clergy of Scotland, to their honour be it spoken, than to some of those of England. To us in Scotland the idea of there being anything to stumble at in a conscience clause is simply incomprehensible. 4. All National schools will be subject to the Revised Code modified in the manner to which I shall presently refer. That will secure efficiency in the teaching of those humbler departments of knowledge which the State is first of all bound to see to, and, when these are secured, I am sure that means will be found to keep up the honourable ambition of teaching the higher branches which has long distinguished some of the Scotch country schools, I see some of the critics of the report say that this plan of theirs is a compromise which will satisfy nobody. Well, I ask, when did a compromise on any great subject ever satisfy anybody who really cared much about the matters in dispute? Such a compromise, Sir, never satisfies anybody except the great unconcerned careless mass. But in politics that great unconcerned careless mass is simply omnipotent. It lazily inclines to one side or the other, and so, as has been truly said, finally settles all questions. The one reason that makes in favour of adopting the denominational schools which we require, instead of buying them out and out, is the great expense that we should be involved in by this latter operation. There are nearly 1,500 of these schools which derive aid from the Parliamentary grant, and the sum annually contributed towards their maintenance by voluntary subscribers is £42,000. These 1,500 schools form, be it observed, merely a portion of the whole mass of denominational schools. There are 2,408 schools in the rural districts alone, supported by denominational or individual effort, so that the public, if it is first to acquire these schools, and then to keep them up, is entering upon a very large operation indeed. If the country is prepared for this, by nil means let us do it—it would be a far simpler and better plan than the one which the Commissioners propose; but is the country prepared for it? To elicit a reply to that question is one of my motives for bringing forward this subject to-night. The question now arises, would the amount of rate required to supply elementary education to all that portion of the population which needs it be anything very enormous? The Commissioners, after entering into a very careful calculation of the existing educational resources, and of what would be wanted, come to the conclusion that, even if the voluntary subscriptions were quite to cease, which they will not do, the required number of efficient schools and teachers may be provided by levying a maximum rate of 2d. in the pound in rural districts and in most of the towns, and of 2½d. in Glasgow, the Western Isles, and some of the largest towns. That is, of course, in addition to the sum now raised by assessment on the heritors, which amount at present to nearly £48,000 a year. For a nation which owes so much to education as Scotland, the additional effort required to bear a rate of 2d. or 2½d. in the pound would not appear to be one of a very deadly character. The Commissioners, it must be remembered, have not merely drawn up resolutions, but have proposed a draft bill, which seems to me quite sufficient for its purpose, and which I and, I think, other Scotch Members, whose views, be it observed, are not by any means fully carried out by the Bill, would, nevertheless, most cordially support, if brought in as it stands. Amendments in detail could easily be made. I have now, Sir, tried to make as clear as I could to the House the broad general results of the Commissioners' investigations, and the outlines of the plan by which they propose to remedy the existing evils and imperfections. There are, however, certain other matters which create great interest in Scotland, as to which they have made recommendations, and of them I wish to say something, chiefly with a view to call out the opinions of other Members, for which I know the Government is very anxious. First, there is the tenure by which the parochial schoolmasters now hold their offices—ad vitam aut culpam. The effect of this tenure is that it is the most difficult thing in the world to get rid of an inefficient schoolmaster. The Commissioners propose that this tenure should be abolished in all future appointments, and that, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, facilities should be afforded for getting rid of inefficient schoolmasters now in office, great care of course being taken to do nothing harsh or capricious. This proposal will naturally cause some dissatisfaction amongst the persons likely to be affected by it, but no good schoolmaster can possibly be injured, and there is no reason why the advantage of the rising generation should be sacrificed to the comfort of bad schoolmasters. Care and central authority are the necessary safeguards. Secondly, there is the question of the Revised Code. All Members connected with Scotland, and some who are not, must be aware of the fact that the Revised Code has been only partially introduced into Scotland. The Commissioners had to consider whether it was to be introduced in its entirety, and if not, how it should be modified. Into these questions they go at great length, and arrive at the conclusion that the leading principle of the Revised Code, payment by results, as ascertained by individual examination, has, so far as it has been tried, worked well in Scotland, and ought to be finally adopted, with certain modifications. The chief of these is the omission of Article 4, which excludes children who belong to a class above that which supports itself by manual labour, from earning any of the Parliamentary grant for their school. I think all who are acquainted with Scotland will agree that here the Commissioners are right. In that country, as in America, the idea of a common school struck deep root generations ago, and it must not be forgotten that, for now nearly 200 years, the proprietors in Scotland, in the rural districts, have been taxed for the support of the elementary schools. No peculiar privilege is claimed for Scotland; it is only the essential difference between the system of the South and the North which is recognised. Here, the Privy Council aids voluntary efforts; beyond the border it aids a compulsory local taxation, which the Commissioners propose largely to increase. One of the complaints commonly made against the Revised Code is that its tendency is to discourage the teaching of the higher branches. I am happy to say that we have in this Report some important evidence the other way. "Of the higher branches, as they are styled, of middle class education," says Mr. Scougall, "it may be stated as a general rule that they are found in the best condition in those schools that, all circumstances considered, pass the individual examination most creditably." Mr. Sellar's 6th chapter is full of intelligent observation on the effect of the Revised Code on the higher studies, and he mentions a suggestion which seems to me extremely worthy of being followed up—namely, to re-organize the schools in such a manner that, in every district, there should be one school of a superior kind established, which should be intermediate between the National schools and the Universities. I would add that deserving teachers might be promoted to be teachers in these schools, and a system of exhibitions might be created, which might help the more deserving children to continue at these schools till they could compete for bursaries at the Universities, I hope the Commons will consider this subject when they are dealing, as they must immediately deal, with the middle or secondary schools, which are, as I have said, also included in their Commission. Of course the higher you can make the education in your elementary schools, consistently with securing its universality, so much the better; but it is obvious that the necessity of the parochial schools giving a high education is, in these days of easy communication, far smaller than it was. Thirdly, there is the retention of the whole management of the parochial or "Old National Schools" in the hands of the minister and heritors. I confess that a somewhat more popular system of election, say Mr. A. Black's, or something of that sort, letting in the tenants and small proprietors, would seem to me better; but, if this is an essential part of the compromise, I would not wish to interfere with it. Fourthly, there is the change in the law which is proposed to enable the Board to make heritors maintain school buildings in proper repair. That is reasonable, and the largely representative character of the Board will prevent the power being abused. Fifthly, there is the constitution of the central Board. Is it to be, as proposed, largely representative, or is it to be entirely nominated? I incline decidedly to the former opinion; but the matter is, of course, worth discussion. Sixthly, should the schoolmasters be examined as the parochial schoolmasters now are, by the University examiners, after appointment; or, as the Commissioners recommend, before appointment? I have received from a very distinguished Scotch professor a letter pointing out some objections to the latter plan, and should like to Lear it discussed. It seems to me the change proposed would lead eventually to the system which, I think, prevails in Holland — the appointment of teachers by competitive examinations. I do not see any harm in that; but probably it was not intended. Much valuable evidence has been collected as to the period at which children should begin to attend school, and as to the earliest age at which they can with propriety leave it. The importance of this subject is, as the Commissioners observe, very great, because any attempt at school legislation must fail, if legislators do not take into account the period of life which can be spared for educational purposes without requiring too great sacrifices. It is found that education begins later in Scotland than in England, although somewhat earlier than it used to do, and the tendency to begin betimes is increasing. It is found, likewise, that, as children go sooner to school, so also they leave it sooner; and the more the schools are improved — the quicker, that is, that the children acquire the rudiments of knowledge — the sooner are they taken away. If our system is to be universal, we must not aim at too much, and it will be well, perhaps, to contemplate the removal of the children of the labouring class from school between ten and twelve years of age. It seems to be pretty well ascertained that, at ten years old, an ordinary child will be able to spell common words correctly, be able to write an intelligible letter, to read the newspapers, and to make out or test a shop bill. In connection with this subject the Commissioners express their opinion that we ought to have more infant schools in Scotland, where such institutions are rarer than in England. They think also that night schools should be encouraged, and that the rule of the Committee of Council which obliges night schools, if they would be assisted, to be in connection with day schools, ought to be relaxed. Supposing, however, additional facilities for educating the poorest class are given, will parents avail themselves of them? The Commissioners say "Yes;" and they point out that there is not now sufficient accommodation in efficient schools for all the children who are in attendance at establishments, all of which are called by courtesy, schools. Mr. Mitchell, a very experienced inspector, observed some years ago with reference to the complaint of the indifference of parents to the education of their children—

"When I look at the actual instruction too frequently offered in the schools for the working classes, I can only rejoice that parents are so sensible, for more complete waste of time than one too frequently grieves over in these schools it is hardly possible to imagine."

It is very gratifying to observe that the more efficient a school is, the more do the parents at least generally show themselves inclined to avail themselves of it. Of course, however, there is a large residuum, with which it is very difficult to deal, and this leads the Commissioners to discuss the question of compulsory education. They do not, nevertheless, make any definite recommendation upon that subject, thinking that it would be premature to do so until a sufficient number of efficient schools is in operation. They collect, however, a good deal of information with regard to the necessity of extending the application of the educational clauses of the Factory Acts, and show, amongst other things, the scandalous manner in which the Printworks Act and the Mines' Inspection Act are evaded. It would be well if the attention of the Lord Advocate were directed to the last few pages of the fifth chapter of this Report, and means taken to bring to justice some of the fraudulent persons therein alluded to. It is evident from many passages in Mr. Harvey's report on Glasgow, that the application of a very stringent educational test to children seeking employment would be warmly supported in many quarters. It would be felt as a severe provision only by a class on which the Legislature need not look too leniently—the class which habitually neglects its own children. The Privy Council system fails, it is often remarked, in reaching the most destitute districts. Of course, in a country whose wealth is so unequally distributed over the soil, as in Scotland, this comes out very prominently. Thus in the rural districts of Edinburgh, where the valuation is about £8 per head, nearly half the children at school are in schools aided by the Privy Council, while in Shetland, where the valuation is about £1 per head, the number of children in aided schools is only 10 per cent. Again, in Glasgow, and the other great towns, this discrepancy is very striking comparatively. Out of 300,000 population on the north side of Glasgow, 25 per cent are on the roll of aided schools; while out of 82,000 on the poorer south side, there are only 10 per cent in aided schools. The notion of extending the Privy Council system so as to make it commensurate with the wants of the country, was abandoned by the Commissioners as utterly hopeless and impracticable; and it must be remembered that in the destitute districts of Scotland, especially in the Hebrides, the subscriptions are very exceptionably large and liberal. If, Sir, we can arrive at some agreement about a national system for Scotland, either by adopting the plan of the Commissioners, or any more liberal modification of it, this Parliament will deserve long to be remembered in the northern part of this kingdom. Next year, I presume, our burgh schools, and, perhaps, the great endowments like Heriot's and Donaldson's Hospitals, will be reported on, and I trust some plan may be arrived at, which, while it will have no tendency to raise mere average ability out of the sphere in which it is born, may give every boy of really superior ability, even if born in the depths of poverty, in every National school in Scotland, an opportunity of pushing his way from one grade of education to another, aided by the State, so that the country may not lose the chance of the services, in some form or other, of whatever talent is produced within her borders. Depend upon it, that, in the increasingly close competition between civilized nations, we shall need it all. In connection with our burgh schools, very important questions will arise as to modifications of the system of studies pursued in them. I venture to prophesy that many of these schools will be found doing the work which they profess to do very effectively indeed; but I venture also to express an opinion, which I have often expressed before, that the whole scope of our secondary teaching, both Scotch and English, requires to be re-considered. When Parliament has put our elementary and our burgh schools on a proper footing, it will be time to call its attention to the position of our Universities, which was recently laid before the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, by the Duke of Buccleuch, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, and a very large number of persons of all shades of politics, who, while they pointed out to him that much was being done for our Universities by private efforts, and much more was likely to be done in the same way, also showed very clearly that justice and policy alike required that a further contribution should be made by the State to the endowments of our professorships. At present, however, Sir, we are asking for no assistance, except assistance in the task of enabling us largely to tax our selves. I trust that, before this discussion closes, hon. Members from Scotland will show that they are perfectly prepared to do this, and I will only say, in conclusion, that I hope Her Majesty's Government will tell us that it fully recognizes the great importance, and, above all, the urgency of this matter. I beg to ask the noble Lord opposite the question of which I have given him notice.

was sorry he was unable to give a very precise answer to that question. The Report of the Scotch Education Commissioners had not been upon the table of the House a month; it consisted of eight octavo volumes, besides a volume of statistics. Considering the extreme importance of the question, involving, as it did, not only the destinies of Scotland, but probably those of England also (for the Report of the Commissioners was intimately connected with the Education Bill for England, now before the House);—considering the voluminous nature of the Report, the numerous subjects engaging the attention of the Government during the turmoil of the Session, and the difficulties of the Reform Bill—it was too much to expect that the Government could in one month maturely weigh that important and intricate question of Scotch Education. It would be treating the momentous subject too lightly, it would be villipending the talent shown in the Report, and esteeming too little the character and weight of the Commissioners who made it if the Government presumed to form an opinion upon the matter as early as this. It would be better if the hon. Member would let the matter rest at present instead of pressing for immediate legislation, and remain content with the promise that during the comparative quiet of the winter months the Government would most earnestly consider the whole subject, and endeavour as far as possible to meet the views of the Scotch Members and Scotch people. The Government, however, was naturally anxious to ascertain the opinion of Scotch Members upon the subject, which they could learn only by discussion in the House; and by that means also the opinion of the country would be ascertained. People did not study blue books; but they read the debates in Parliament, and a debate on the subject might lead to discussion and the formation of a definite opinion out of doors. He prefaced his consideration of the observations of the hon. Member by saying that it was in no captious spirit that he endeavoured to expose the weak points of the scheme; he did not desire to carp at the Report, although he would mention a few primâ facie objections which a cursory perusal of it had raised in his mind. He did so in order that the friends of the hon. Member might seek to remove the objections and correct any misapprehensions which might exist; thus would the Government be assisted and guided in arriving at sound conclusions on the subject. The scheme of the Commissioners was doubtless very captivating on account of its beautiful symmetry and rigid uniformity. "Organization" and "Energetic simplicity" seemed to have a charm for the hon. Member's mind. Education in Scotland on the other hand was most heterogeneous; elementary and advanced teaching were carried on in the same school; primary and secondary schools were jumbled together; spelling and pothooks were being studied at the same desk with the poets Horace and Homer. It was no wonder if the Commissioners, carried away by a desire for symmetry, should have been led to sacrifice at the shrine of that sentiment some real and substantial good which now existed. There was, he confessed, a difference between the circumstances of England and Scotland. In England education generally proceeded from the clergy; in Scotland the initiative was taken by the people. The clergy were the high pressure steam in the former; in the latter, education depended more upon the desire of the people. The scheme supported by the hon. Member would increase the differences which existed. It would do so, first, from its antagonism to the principle of the Revised Code, The principle of the Revised Code was that voluntary action should precede State aid. It was local desire now which evoked the assistance of the Government. The locality had to initiate: the people must first appreciate the value of education before the State would extend the hand to give the proffered boon. But according to the Commissioners' scheme a Central Board was to take the initiative, to issue its decrees for the building of schools, and for levying a rate to pay for the maintenance of them. Secondly, the difference between the two countries would be made far wider, in that in Scotland, rating was to be substituted for the funds which now supported education in that country. The hon. Member might perhaps answer that, in the rural districts, the schools had for 200 years been supported by a rate. That was not the case. Let not the House be misled by a word; let them rather consider the reality. Every kind of impost was pro ratô. Taxes were pro ratô; rates were pro ratô; and tithes and dues were pro ratô. Wherein lay the differences between these species of impost? Let the hon. Member consider that question, and then he could point out the one which supplied the funds for the support of the schools he had mentioned. Taxes were imposed year by year, and the imposition of them always caused much discussion and dispute; they varied in quantity year by year, as circumstances might require; they were imposed by the representatives of the people who paid them, and were administered by a power foreign to the people—namely, the Crown or Executive. Rates were also levied year by year, caused much wrangling and bitterness when imposed, and were of variable amount as circumstances required; they were imposed by the representatives of those who paid, and were also administered by the representatives of the people who paid them. This "popular management," as it was called, constituted the essential difference between rates and taxes (for both had originally been locally imposed). Tithes and dues, on the other, were imposed once for all, either by Act of Parliament or by the Crown, or by gift and immemorial custom. Consequently, there was no wrangling and bickering and dispute concerning them every year, and the amount of them was constant. They were not imposed by the persons who paid them; and they were administered by those who received them. Now, let the hon. Member say by which of these species of imposts education in Scotland has hitherto been supported? By dues. Till this time education in Scotland has been established just as the Church is established; and it has been maintained as the Church is maintained. But the Commissioners would substitute rates for dues, the second species for the third, with all the yearly wrangling and disputing, with the variations and diminutions in amount, with the popular management or mismanagement which is inherent to rates. Education in Scotland has been supported by a sort of tithes which were imposed by an Order in Council of Charles I., in 1616; and the system then established had continued ever since. [Mr. GRANT DUFF: NO, no!] The Act of 1861 had left the system essentially the same, and he contended that education in Scotland was supported by funds raised in exactly the same way as the funds which maintained the Established Church. The third point of difference which would be created was the following:—Up to this time the schools of Scotland had always been connected with a religious body, and were purely denominational; but it was proposed to sweep away the denominational system altogether. The hon. Member had said that the "denominational character was accidental, and of late date." But what did he find at p. 108 of the Report?

"It is notorious that in most cases the management rests practically with the minister of the parish. If so, no system could be more denominational."

Yet the Commissioners openly and avowedly laboured to put an end to the denominational character. As he had already said, the system was established by King Charles I., in 1616. By that Order in Council it became incumbent on the heritors to maintain one school and one schoolmaster in every parish. After the dynasty of the Stuarts had been subverted, in 1696, the Order in Council was embodied in an Act of Parliament, and thus placed on a firmer basis. But from that day the schools had virtually remained under the superintendence of the Established Church and the management of the clergy of the parish, and they were visited by the local presbytery. When the Free Church schism took place the members of the Free Church built their own schools, and these schools were placed under the superintendence of the Free Church, and were managed by the Free Church clergy and visited by the Free Church presbytery. No similar enactment, however, was properly extended to Glasgow and the large towns. Now, what was the result of that system? In Glasgow the number of children of the school age was 98,767, and the daily attendance was 35,565, leaving 63,202 who did not attend school. In Glasgow 1 in 9·6 of the population were on the school books. The difference between Glasgow and the rural districts was very marked, for in the latter 1 in 6·5 were on the books and the attendance was 1 in 7·9—a higher state of education than in any other part of the habitable globe. In the insular districts, while 1 in 7·5 was on the books, the attendance was 1 in 9·7. In Selkirkshire the proportion was wonderfully high—1 in 5·4; while in Shetland it was correspondingly low—1 in 14·2. According to the Report of the Duke of Newcastle's Commission it was considered the perfection of education if 1 in 6 of the population were undergoing education. Yet Selkirkshire went far beyond even this; while the average of all the rural districts in Scotland was very near to perfection. The Commissioners asserted that Scotland was separated into three divisions which were so entirely distinct in their character that they must be dealt with quite differently. It followed that a scheme which might suit one of them would not be adapted to the remaining two. But if, as they themselves assert, we must be careful to provide for the peculiarities of each district, how can any plan be invented which would be suitable for all? The first of those divisions included the large towns, the second the Lowlands, and the third the Highlands and islands. With the difference between these divisions fully acknowledged, the Commissioners were so led away by their love of symmetry as to force a uniform system on the whole of the country. This infinite variety which must, in the nature of things, exist throughout every country, was the reason why, in accordance with the Revised Code, we always waited upon the manifestation of local effort, in order that we might adapt our gift to the local character. Not only, however, did this variety exist in the country as a whole, but the same was to be remarked in the case of the towns themselves. Each town and each portion of a town had its peculiarities and different requirements. Blythswood was a district of Glasgow, which was described by the Commissioners as "the richest and most fashionable quarter" of Glasgow. "Only on the outskirts does it come in contact with comparative poverty." In that district every school was classed as good. There was efficient school accommodation for 6,243 scholars, which exceeds the total number of children between three and fifteen in the district. And 1 in 6·6 of the population were on the roll of some school—

"It follows, of course (the Commissioners continue) that the state of education in this district of the city is perfectly satisfactory, and requires no improvement."

In the remaining districts of the town, however, where the population was poorer, out of a population of 366,806, there was sufficient school accommodation for only 30,551, no less than 61,973 children being without any educational provision. Blythswood was rich in value, and scant in poor population. Those districts which suffer educational destitution were poor in value, with a numerous population. It was impossible by Act of Parliament to redress the inequalities of nature and civilization. The same thing might be observed in the counties. Where the value was high and the population somewhat concentrated the education was good. But where the locality was poor it could not afford to build many schools, And if the poor lived far apart, they could not all reach the school, and therefore the education was necessarily deficient. Nor was the case altered where the poor were congregated together in large masses, as was the fact in the manufacturing districts, unless the locality could afford to build and maintain many schools. Thus we see that in Shetland, where the population was scattered, and which was poor in value, the state of education was very low. In Sutherlandshire there were large sheep walks, while the people were gathered in fishing villages. There the education was good. In the rich agricultural counties of Selkirkshire and Peebles it was excellent. It appeared that the number and attendance of scholars varied conjointly with the value per head, and the moderate concentration of the population. Now, with regard to the parochial system, the Commissioners themselves allowed that it had succeeded in the rural districts. The Commissioners said—

"It appears that the mass of the Scottish population in the rural districts have received the elements of education. This is precisely the result which ought to be obtained by any efficient system of national education; and it is the result which has been obtained in Scotland where the parochial system has been tested."—[p. cvii.]

And they made the following "recommendation:"—

"The most desirable and, in point of principle, the simplest course would be the extension of the parochial system, on its original model, and on a scale proportioned to the whole population."

Where the system had not been extended, the hon. Member himself confessed, and the Commissioners confessed, that its defects had been supplied by the voluntary or the denominational system. With that system the Commissioners hesitated to recommend any interference, because the result would be to impose taxation for a new school upon a district which was already adequately supplied with efficient school accommodation. It would be interfering with a property which persons had created, and which Parliament had endowed. And as the avowed object of every denominational school was to spread the religious views of the promoters, it would be most intolerant to forbid the denominational system, and forcibly to prevent any sect from attempting to spread their own opinions. The Commissioners, however, proposed that no school which was under the denominational or voluntary system should be competent to receive money from the rates, nor even from Parliamentary grants, unless it became adopted into their scheme; while the parochial schools were, by the Act, to be forced under the regulations of the Central Board, which might at any moment compel the inhabitants to discharge their schoolmaster, or even to pull down their school and erect another in its stead; and then the parochial schools might continue to receive the Privy Council grants, but no aid from the rates, until they were starved into an adherence with the scheme. The complaint urged against the Scottish system was that it was unequal and unevenly distributed and wanting in symmetry and uniformity. The hon. Member evidently desired the establishment of an "energetic simplicity" and arbitrary "centralization," such as that referred to in the following extract from the Report (p. xciv.):—

"1. A national system implies that there shall be some recognized body invested with legal power to establish as many national schools as may be required, and to prevent the establishment of more. 2. A national system implies that the law shall enable the inhabitants of a district to raise by taxation such funds as may be necessary to erect and maintain schools, instead of leaving them to be erected and maintained by voluntary efforts."

He was willing to admit that the complaint held good in the towns; he allowed that the parochial system had failed in towns. There, it was true, more schools were wanting. Why was that? Precisely because the parochial system had not been extended to the towns. And why had it not? Because the towns and the country were essentially distinct, and that which suited the one would not be adapted to the other. No symmetrical and uniform plan would suit the whole of any country. Yet even in the towns the fault did not lie in want of accommodation for the children; but in the non-attendance of the children at the schools. Thus, in Glasgow, which was taken as the sample of all Scotch towns, the Commissioners said—

"The schools of all descriptions supply accommodation for less than one-half the children of school age, but for more than the number who attend school."—[p. lv.]

With regard to the Lowlands, also, they said, "The accommodation is greater than the demand."—[p. xxv.] There is—

"An average accommodation provided in each school for seventy-four; there are sixty-nine children on the roll, and fifty-six in attendance."

It must, however, be recollected that the fact of there being so large an average of non-attendance on the part of the children on the school-roll did not mean that certain children on the roll never attended, but merely that every day a fluctuating number were absent. If the daily average were four-fifths; this would mean that, of every 100, twenty children were absent today, and twenty absent to-morrow; yet the same twenty need not be absent every day. What, then, was the cause of the non-attendance of children? In the first place, there were certain children for whom no system could be answerable; and therefore for whom no system could be blamed. The young "Arabs" of our streets could not be caught and kept in school unless they were fed there and clothed, because they had to pick up their living by selling lucifer matches, running errands, or doing other odd jobs. If such children were compelled to attend school they must be fed as well as taught. Another cause was called "the claims of labour," or "the selfishness of parents." In rural districts, as soon as a child could scream loud enough to frighten the crows, he could earn 6d. a day. This would suffice to relieve his parents from the biting rigour of poverty, and the sharp tooth of hunger. It was especially the case in the poor districts which suffered educational destitution. It was as true of the towns as of the rural districts. The Report said—

"Another cause [of the deficient school attendance] is the great demand in Glasgow for the labour of children within the school age, combined with the undue eagerness of parents to use the labour of their children as a means of gain, and their indifference and apathy as regards education."—[p. lix.]

With regard to the rural districts, this ability of the children to earn wages was designated as—

"Unquestionably the most powerful motive which induces parents to withdraw their children from school."

This was assigned as the cause of deficient attendance. Was that cause removable by any system whatever?—

"It seems vain to contend against the demands of labour and the necessities of existence."—[p. cxix.]

"The real causes which produce this effect may be thus explained:—Considering that the children earn from 1s. 6d. to 2s. a week, it is evident that this must be so great a relief to the parents as to render it almost hopeless that they can with stand it, &c."—[p. clx.]

The greatest cause, however, of the non-attendance was to be found in the apathy and indifference of the parents. We gave the machine; but we expected the poor to find the power to work it. This apathy arose from a want of education in the parents, which caused them not to appreciate the value of it; they did not see the necessity for the education of their children, And how could this evil be removed? only by patiently educating as far as we are able; until in the lapse of years a new generation shall have become parents, the majority of whom will be educated. The Commissioners state that—

"The apathy and carelessness of the less educated parents is a cause of deficient attendance."—[p. xxv.]

And—

"The demand for the education of their children corresponds to the state of the education of the parents."—[p. xxiv.]

"The fact seems to be that parents really desirous of having their children educated will send them to any school rather than to none. Parents, on the other hand, of the class described in the extract from the Report on the Clyde district, will send their children to no school; and it is with the children of parents of this latter description that the great difficulty lies."—[p. lx.]

In rural parishes we find the same cause at work. There also we have to contend against the apathy and selfishness of parents. This evil is universal. It is independent of system or place; it is to be found everywhere, under every system; for it is inherent in human nature. Let it be concluded, therefore, that educational destitution arises from causes which the Commissioners do not and cannot touch; because they are beyond the reach of any system of education. Now let us consider the remedies which they have proposed. Let it be borne in mind that the accommodation is greater than the demand; and that all which is required is that the children should attend school. The remedy which the Commissioners propose, is to supply a greater accommodation. By what means would they effect this purpose? First, by compulsion end a powerful central authority which should crush all opposition. They say—

"The defects in the present system are want of organization, want of supervision by some competent central authority, powerful enough to make its influence felt by every individual connected with it. … At present there is no competent authority to initiate, to administer, or to superintend. … The children may attend school or they may not attend, but grow up in absolute ignorance. All these evils are due to want of organization, and suggest the necessity of some central authority to regulate the education of the country. Centralization implies a national system, and when a Central Board with the supreme control of education is established, there is an end of all denominational and miscellaneous systems."—[p. xliv.]

"Authority should be deposited somewhere, by which the inhabitants of a district shall be compelled to build and maintain efficient schools."—[p. exxxviii.]

"It is proposed to constitute a Board, with power to establish as many schools as may be required. These schools are to be supported by taxes levied upon the property of the districts."—[p. cviii.]

Until the present time we had been taught to rely on voluntary efforts and not upon compulsion. Even the Commissioners themselves pointed out the real want and the proper remedy. They said—

"After all, the real point to be arrived at is, that each parent should co-operate with the philanthropist in sending his child regularly to school; in other words, the ignorant parent, who knows not the value of education, must be instructed; the apathetic parent, who may know his duty in this respect but neglects to perform it, must be awakened. The only agents who can accomplish this work are the schoolmasters, the clergy, the landlords, and the great employers of labour."—[p. cxxxviii.]

Again—

"The clergy are the only class of persons who take a systematic and practical interest in the schools."

The second means which the Commissioners propose is the rating system. Let the House bear in mind the distinction between school dues and school rates. It is by the former that education in Scotland has as yet been supported. Let the House also remember that the chief cause of educational destitution is apathy or indifference. Will this be removed by a rating system? or by the common school system of America, which seems to be the idol of the hon. Member? As Lord Brougham once remarked, it would render education hateful to the people. As the schoolmaster walked up and down, he would be marked as the man who had brought into the parish the yearly imposition of a rate, with all its attendant wrangling, bitterness, and animosity. In England we had but a slight taste of it in the acrimony of church rate contests. In America (according to Mr. Fraser) the Northern portion of a district hated the South, while the middle differed from both; so that the schoolmaster had to struggle on in poverty, until the misery of his life drove him away from the place. This naturally produced indifference towards education. The same effect followed on the rating system in Germany. Mr. Pattison reported—

"It must also be stated that the attitude of large parts of the population towards the school is one of apathy and indifference."—[Report, p. 201.]

In Ohio the school law enacts that the Board of Education for each township shall impose a rate to maintain the schools, yet "in several townships no local tax whatever is assessed for tuition purposes." (Ohio, 11th Report, 1865.) The number of such delinquent districts is 2,040, or 20 per cent of the whole. Again—

"The great want of the schools is interest on the part of the community, particularly the more influential part. … The teachers struggle on alone, cut off from external aid and sympathy."—[Connecticut Report, 1865.]

The Pennsylvania Report speaks of "the withdrawal of children from the public schools," consequent on their general indifference. The following was an extract from Mr. Eraser's report relating to Upper Canada, where the rating system had also been tried:—

"Were trustees, in general, men who took an interest in schools, and men who were really competent to discharge their duties, there would be no room for complaint. As it is, however, (and more especially in rural districts) we not unfrequently find men holding the office who do not enter the school more than once a year, and whose limited education unfits them for taking any part in its public examinations, and consequently for forming any correct opinion either as to the competence of the teacher or the progress of the school."—[Report p. 220, Canada School Report for 1863.]

The hon. Member had said, that voluntary efforts would not cease when rating commenced; and the Commissioners themselves said they would cease as soon as any general system were introduced. It was natural that this should be so. For if rates were levied, the man who subscribed would be paying twice over. Thus rating would be very deleterious. For voluntary effort was far more valuable than the money obtained by rates; because voluntary effort created a local interest in the schools. In Scotland voluntary effort had raised denominational schools, and supplied the defects due to local causes. If you have a general system and the dead weight of a rating law, you will have a dull uniformity, unfitted to local variety and wanting in local interest. The rate hitherto had been paid half by the heritor and half by the occupier. This it was proposed to continue; but the whole rate would now, ultimately, come out of the pocket of the landowner; for it would go in diminution of the rent. Do you suppose that the rate goes to increase the price of the produce, so that it comes eventually out of the pocket of the consumer? Until lately this might have been so. But now a severe competition with foreign markets prevents prices from rising, and therefore it must take effect at the other end, and go in diminution of rent. Thus for the sake of a national advantage you propose to tax one class. And yet the management was to be enjoyed equally by the landowner and the occupier. Then, again, it must be remembered that more than half our supplies were the produce of other countries. If therefore you tax only real property and not personal property, you let all the richest persons escape. Mr. Nassau Senior saw this, and said that rating must be imposed not on real property alone, but on personal property also. So also said Sir J. Kay-Shuttleworth. The Scotch Commissioners themselves allowed as much, for they said—

"But if every local ratepayer is bound to contribute towards the erection and maintenance of schools which shall be open to all, is there any reason why the general taxpayer should not contribute upon the same principle."—[p. cviii.]

Mr. Fraser in his Report said, that the school rate or tax was imposed on real as well as on personal property; and in Canada the rate was levied off all property, real and personal, and not on any one or more kinds of property in any different proportion from the rest. The hon. Member, however, had urged that large towns and places which were poor and populous were ill supplied with schools. In those places the poor rate was very heavy. What was the remedy proposed? Why to put on another rate, and thereby to increase the poverty. He now came to one of the modern notions connected with ratepaying; he meant that of popular management. It was supposed to be a necessity that those who paid should also have the administration of the funds or management of the expenditure. The maxim was thus stated—"He who pays the piper may choose the tune." For the present he would not stop to inquire whether popular management were a good thing. The hon. Member would reply, that according to modern notions of legislation, this was a necessity. Was it so? Take the Navy Vote. Did the Mayor and Corporation of Portsmouth administer the vote? Did even the representatives of the people who paid the money administer that vote? "No," he would say "but the people elect representatives who determine what the amount of the expenditure shall be." Precisely. But the Commissioners in this case proposed the very contrary; the ratepayers were not to elect the Board which was to determine how many schools should be built and maintained, and how great the expenditure was to be; yet the ratepayers were to administer the funds which were obtained. Therefore this scheme was directly opposed to the maxims of modern legislation. Until now, the ministry of the parishes had virtually had the whole management of the schools. They were to be ousted from the management for no fault of their own, but merely in order to square with an inordinate love of symmetry. What did the Commissioners say upon the point of popular management?—

"If it be granted that local supervision of some sort is necessary, it cannot be in better hands than those of the minister. … He is superior in position to the teacher, and in education to the parents; and is likely to be above the reach of local prejudices—a very important point in country communities — and is likely to deal equitably and impartially with all parties."—[p. xxxii.]

In whom did local prejudices exist, then, except in the ratepayers? Local prejudices were assumed to prevail; for the Commissioners spoke so deprecatingly concerning them. What were those local prejudices, but the opinions of the ratepayers? Then again—

"The heritors for the most part desire honestly to get the best man they can [as a teacher] for their own school; and by their position and education they are removed above the influence of local prejudices and village politics and animosities."—[p. xxxi.]

Those local prejudices were spoken of as so baneful to the cause of education. Let us therefore consider for a moment some of the evils which arise where local prejudices have sway. Mr. Fraser, after speaking of the extreme lowness of teachers' salaries in America, so that the best of them with draw, and the schools are crippled, quoted the Connecticut Report of 1865, as follows:—

"The employment of new, and especially inexperienced, teachers, and of constantly changing them from term to term, which is caused in part by a desire to get teachers that are cheap, is operating very much to the disadvantage of our schools. … Not a single district has retained its teachers for two successive terms."

In German schools it was found that the salaries of teachers were cut down beyond measure; hence the Rescript of March 6, 1852, which caused a minimum salary to be fixed for each commune. And afterwards, by the regulations of October 15, 1858, the powers of the local Boards were virtually superseded altogether. From these Rescripts we might gather the judgment of Prussia on the effects of local management of the school rates. Then as to the building of schools under this system: one would suppose that by parity of reasoning those who paid the rates should determine the number of schools to be built. The Commissioners even asserted (p. cviii.) that the ratepayers must be the best judges of what schools would be required. Yet they proposed that the Central Board should decide what schools were to be built if one-third of the ratepayers did not dissent. If more than two-thirds did dissent, yet the Board might renew its decree the following year, and the building of those schools would then be taken altogether out of the hands of the ratepayers, who would have no further to do in the matter than to pay the expenses. Surely this was not local government; this was not self-government, but a central despotism and arbitrary confiscation of property. Then as to the maintenance of schools when built, the object of the ratepayers would be to cut down expense. The teacher therefore would suffer, in that his salary would be exposed to frequent reductions. According to the New York Report for 1865, teachers were paid wages as low as 7s. a week during the session of the school, which was only twenty-four weeks in the year. By such a system, therefore, we should be substituting an inferior article under the same name of "Education." Ratepayers used to manage the highways; they did it so badly that Lord Palmerston's Government took the matter out of their hands. "Bumbledom" managed the poor so badly, that last year there was a loud outcry against vestries. Why should we hand over education to "Bumbledom" to be destroyed? "But (you say), if we trust to subscriptions, the burden falls so unequally." Well, but rates will not equalize the burden. In a place which is poor but populous, that is where the value per head is small, and the educational destitution great, there the rate must be large. In a place which is rich in value and sparse in population, the rate would be small. So that the poor place would be heavily rated, while the rich place would not feel the burden. The incidence, therefore, would be very unfair. Again, rating is but a step to compulsory education. If a school were built by all, it must be large enough for all. The next thing would be, that all must be forced to go to it, or else there would be a needless waste. A person without any children might have to pay the education rate. He would ask why he should have to do so? "Because it was necessary for the welfare of the State and the interests of society that all should be educated, and that none should run wild in the streets." Then he would say—"I demand that, in the name of those same interests of society and welfare of the State, all should be educated, and that none should run wild in the streets." That which justified the tax, justified compulsion. Schools were a means to an end. Each person paid for the end, and therefore that end must be secured to him. The State had no right to take A's money to educate B's children, unless the end were guaranteed to him. Compulsory support was compulsory attendance. What were the consequences of this theory? Compulsory education was either right or wrong in principle. If right, it must be compulsory on all, the rich as well as the poor; and therefore the Commissioners very logically said that a rate must be raised for the education, not only of the poor, but of the rich also. Did it not seem monstrous that money should be raised by a local rate to pay for the education of the rich who could pay for themselves? The other necessary consequence was the establishment of a Central Board. If Government had to force schools to be built, then it must see that they were efficiently maintained; and thus we were at once plunged into centralization. To that point the Commissioners had arrived. In the United States the same theory had brought them to the same goal. Mr. Fraser quoted from the New York Report of 1865, as follows:—

"Would it not be better for the State to take the matter of educating its children in hand, district the territory, build the school houses, employ and pay the teachers, and then compel the attendance of the children as they do in Germany? Would it not be economy? Could not the monies now received … be more judiciously expended, and furnish much better teachers and schools than we now have? I am inclined to believe that with the same expenditure, in the hands of a competent educational bureau, our common schools could be improved 100 per cent."—[Fraser's Report, p. 29.]

And yet be it remembered that the compulsory education law of America had signally failed. Mr. Fraser said—"The Compulsory Law stands almost as a dead letter on the statute book." The people will not stand it, unless they fully appreciate the value of education, and if they do appreciate the value of education, such a law can never be required. The object was to remove educational destitution. Rates would never effect this purpose. A priori you might expect that they would do so; experience had shown that they would not. Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum. Happy he whom another's blunders renders wise. On this point he would refer to a statement of Mr. Fraser in reference to New York. Mr. Fraser, quoting the New York Report of 1865, said—

"The whole number of children, between the ages of five and twenty-one, residing in the city is estimated at 250,000. This estimate is believed to be much under the number. The average number of such children in regular attendance upon our public schools, including the free academy, evening schools, and corporate charitable institutions of the city participating in the school fund, does not exceed, upon the most liberal estimate, 90,000. We cannot, therefore, escape the conviction that there are not far from 10,000 children within the city who either attend no school, or whose means of instructions are restricted to the very briefest period."

Similar statements were made in the Reports of Ohio and of Connecticut. The percentage of attendance on enrolment was in England, 76 per cent; in six States of America, 70; in eight cities of America, 58; in Ohio, 57; in New York City, 40; and in Canada, 38 per cent. Therefore, it was evident that England was far above those places in respect to the attendance. Moreover, in England, one-fourth of the children who attended, attended for 150 to 200 days; while in New York State only 7 per cent did so, and in New York City only 11 per cent attended for 150 days in the year. The next point to consider was whether more funds would be obtained for the support of schools than were obtained at present. Mr. Fraser stated that in America the sums locally raised by the rate on real and personal property—

"Are not more, nor in many cases so much, as many a clergyman among ourselves has to pay out of his income for the support of his village school."

In Massachusetts, in 1864, they raised only 23·4 cents, or less than 1s. per child of the ages between five and fifteen; and, as might be expected, the schools were "little better than our dame schools." In the United States they found that they could no longer depend upon the rates. From the beginning of the century whenever a new State was formed, one-sixteenth of the land was set apart for the support of education. This was called "the school section," and was a species of endowment. Again, in every State there was the "United States Deposit Fund," which was expended partly in the support of education; in New York this produced 260,000 dollars annually. Besides this there was "the State School Fund;" and it was mentioned by Mr. Fraser that in Massachusetts—

"The establishment of the school fund was the most important educational measure ever adopted by the Government of this Commonwealth. In 1832, when an effort was made to obtain trustworthy returns from the different townships, it appeared that the ninety-nine townships which responded were expending only 1·98 dollars each for the education of their children. … The faith of the people in a system of public schools was seriously undermined. The public schools were fast becoming pauper establishments, into which only the poor and neglected went. …. The Act establishing the fund passed in 1834. … The progress that had been made since 1834 is unquestionably due to the establishment, of the school fund."

Mr. Fraser added—

"I have found that a rate-supported system of schools, whatever may be its apparent superficial uniformity, really exhibits all the inequalities of a voluntary system, and labours besides under certain special difficulties of its own. … If people suppose that every American rate-supported school is in a condition of efficiency, they are simply labouring under an entire misconception."

In conclusion, he would observe that the great cause of the deficiency of the attendance of children at schools was the apathy of the parents in reference to education. The effects of apathy were deplored in every country and under all systems. It was impossible to make men angels by Act of Parliament. Indifference was caused by a want of education, by a deficiency of an appreciation of the great value of education; and that cause could only be removed by patient labour, and not by any sudden action of an Act of Parliament. It was idle to endeavour to remove an effect by Act of Parliament, while the cause still remained. It would be as wise to pass an Act that fire should not burn. During the last three years (the Commissioners reported) the state of education had improved greatly in Scotland. In the rate-supported schools of the United States, on the other hand, there were continual complaints of "a great mass of apathy and unconcern, of truancy and absenteeism." He trusted that Parliament would not give up the system under which that improvement had taken place in Scotland, for the system under which education in the United States had gone back. It was not his desire, however, to criticize the Report of the Commissioners in any carping spirit, but he had stated certain objections which appeared to lie on the surface, with the view of eliciting the views of other hon. Members and of the people for the future guidance of the Government.

said, that he had listened with astonishment and pain to the speech of the noble Lord. Though the noble Lord disclaimed being actuated by any carping spirit in reference to the Report of the Commissioners, he must say that during the twelve years he had been in Parliament he had never before heard any Report of Commissioners appointed by the Crown, and possessing the entire confidence of the country, criticized in such a way by a Member sitting on the Treasury bench. He had visited the common schools in America, and he could give the House some information on that subject; but he came down to the House, not to discuss the scholastic institutions of the United States or of Prussia, but to suggest that the Government should bring in a Bill to settle this long pending question in Scotland. The noble Lord had spoken for an hour and a quarter, and had scarcely uttered a dozen sentences having reference to the educational system of Scotland. He trusted that the noble Lord had not expressed the sentiments of the Government, whom he entreated to consider the question in a fair and impartial spirit. He desired to express his deep sense of the diligence, prudence, and ability displayed by the Commissioners, who had been so much maligned by the noble Lord. When it was the fact that the Commissioners had arrived at a conclusion in favour of a national system of education, it did not become the noble Lord to use the expressions he had done to-night. The fact, that such a Report had been made by a Commission so composed, proved that a national system would be welcomed with the liveliest satisfaction throughout Scotland; and scarcely a single witness doubted that such a system might be established. The differences of opinion that prevailed were in regard to the quality, quantity, and distribution of the education at present given. One would suppose from the language of the noble Lord that the Royal Commissioners had propounded some great theories; but their Report was a matter-of-fact and business-like document. They took the prudent and sensible course of instituting a full and searching investigation. The result was to show, that, while the proportion of scholars to the population was tolerably satisfactory, the quality and the nature of the instruction given, especially in private and venture schools, the unequal distribution of educational advantages, and the character of the school buildings, imperatively called for an alteration of the present system. The noble Lord had contrasted the statistics of Prussia with those, not of Scotland, but of Selkirkshire, and, omitting the large and the manufacturing towns, he thought to hoodwink the House. He rejoiced to find, from the Report of the Commissioners, that while a few clergymen in Scotland holding extreme opinions attached great importance to these religious denominational schools, which had been eulogized by the noble Lord, the great body of the people, the parents of the children, cared not one straw about these religious distinctions; all they looked to was the merit of the schools. The statistics were as unanswerable as they were remarkable, and they completely dispelled any delusion with regard to religious differences in Scotland standing in the way of a system of enlightened national education. The Royal Commissioners brought out these remarkable facts—Free Church parents sent their children to Established Church Schools, Catholic parents sent their children to Free Church schools, and Episcopalian parents sent their children to United Presbyterian schools; and, indeed, it appeared that parents seldom asked with what denomination a school was connected. The Report clearly demonstrated that the Privy Council system in Scotland had proved totally inadequate and inefficient. It laboured under a defect which was not only inevitable, but incurable. Where the denominational system failed, was not in the inefficiency of the schools established, but in its uncertainty. It offered no security for an equally diffused education. There was too much in one place and too little in another. He believed that you could not have a system which should be at once voluntary, efficient, and universal. The noble Lord spoke of Scotland as having been under the parochial system until now, and he was evidently unacquainted with the religious and educational institutions of Scotland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, however much they were attached to the English Church schools, would admit that the parochial system had not kept pace with the wants and requirements of the people. It was not in the nature of things it should be so. The voluntary system had failed; the Privy Council system, from its nature, not from any defect in management, had failed in the islands, the Highlands, and the large towns of Scotland. What were the Commissioners to do? They found no sectarian or denominational differences impeding education. They found that efficient schools and teachers could be provided for an average rate of 2½d. in the pound on the annual value of property. As sensible men they were driven to the conclusion to recommend an entire change of system; and they had done so with singular unanimity. They had come to the conclusion that a national system was possible and practicable. The keystone of their recommendation was the declaration that the denominational system in Scotland was unnecessary, and that, although it may not be possible to throw aside existing denominational schools, still it is essential that no denominational schools shall for the future be erected by the aid of the Treasury, or, after a fixed time, adopted into the national system. Like the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs, he was prepared to advocate changes more sweeping than those recommended by the Government, Perhaps he knew more of the schools of America and of Prussia than did the noble Lord; but he did not advocate the adoption of the American system, for, as sensible men they must consider what was practicable under existing circumstances. Looking at the recommendations of the Report as a whole, believing that the effect of their adoption would be to arrest, and finally to abolish the denominational system, and to transfer the management of schools from the denominations to the ratepayers, he for one was prepared to pass the Bill appended to the Report without the alteration of a single line. He must express his great disappointment that the noble Lord, instead of listening in a becoming spirit to the opinions of Scotch Members and of other Gentlemen interested in the question on both sides of the House, and giving them an opportunity to express their sentiments, should have arisen immediately after his hon. Friend, not to express natural hesitation to legislate this Session, for that might be difficult, but to denounce, in the most unmeasured terms, the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty. He, himself, had come down to the House intending to express an earnest hope that the Government would be prepared to introduce the very Bill of the Royal Commissioners, and he should have been glad if the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Moncreiff), and the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop), three of the Royal Commissioners so attacked by the noble Lord, had introduced the Bill this Session. He had the fervent conviction that it would have been passed by the House sub silentio, with the view of amending any defects that might be found in it in a subsequent Session. After the tremendous speech to which they had just listened, they need not expect such a consummation now, but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet would give their earnest attention to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, which were extremely impartial and liberal, and showed a thorough acquaintance with the subject, and that, at the earliest opportunity, they would bring in a Bill to settle the question of education in Scotland, and at the same time give a great impetus to the settlement of the educational question in England and Wales.

said, he too had been astonished at the long rambling speech of the noble Lord, from which the one idea to be gathered was that he was a most determined opponent of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissioners. If that speech really represented the opinions of the Government, there was little use in his addressing the House; but he hoped that some member of the Government would yet rise and promise to give their attention to a subject to which at this moment the public mind in Scotland was earnestly directed. Although he agreed generally with the opinions of the Commissioners, he was not prepared to adopt all those opinions, nor to swallow in its entirety the Bill which had been submitted for the consideration of the Government and the country. Scotland was said to be ripe for a national system of education, but it already had one which was capable of a large extension, and ought not, he thought, to be altogether superseded. The Commissioners had hardly done bare justice to the important advantages which Scotland had derived from the grants of the Privy Council. He fully admitted the defects of the system, but these grants had largely contributed to raise the standard of education, and had called forth a large amount of voluntary exertion which it would be unwise to check, particularly the inducements which had thus been given to large proprietors of works for the establishment of schools. The defects pointed out in Glasgow and elsewhere did not prove the failure of denominational efforts, in connection with which the greatest zeal and energy had been displayed in meeting existing wants, as well as could be done in rapidly growing communities. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs in his desire that Her Majesty's Government should take this question into their serious consideration, with a view to carry out in the main the recommendations of the Commissioners, but it would be well to consider the scheme maturely before committing themselves to every part of it. For example, he doubted whether the establishment of a Central Board in Edinburgh would be desirable. He had far rather trust to the Executive Government, and the inspection which they carried out than to a local Board; nor would such a Board command the same confidence in the country.

I shall not go at any length into this most important question at this hour of the night; but, having been a member of the Royal Commission, whose report is now under consideration, and having for several years taken an interest in this subject, I feel that I ought to say a few words before the debate is brought to a close. In the first place, then, let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for the Elgin burghs for the clear and very able manner in which he presented this question to the House, and it must be gratifying to us to know that the result of this Report has produced on the part of the Scotch Members so general an interest, and such a large amount of approbation. I listened to the speech of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council—as, I believe, every Scotch Member did, indeed, I think I may say almost every Member of the House—with feelings of great astonishment and surprise. Sir, this question of education in Scotland is as large a question, and is as imperial a question, as even that which has consumed so many days and nights of this Session. In fact it contemplates one of those ends which Parliamentary Reform itself is intended to attain, and at last we have a Report which has been prepared after considerable trouble and care, which embraces a variety of things; and we find Gentlemen of various political opinions agreeing in that Report, some of those Gentlemen having sat upon the same Treasury Bench—three of them at least—as the noble Lord now does. Why, the noble Lord himself confessed that he had not had time to master his Report, and he said he could express no opinion on the subject. [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU expressed dissent.] At all events, the noble Lord professed not to be ready to pronounce an opinion on the subject, and that he should require the leisure of the winter in order to come to a conclusion upon it. Yet, after a confession of this character, he made a speech in which every sentence he used pledged the Government and himself, as far as he could pledge them, to a view directly the reverse of that recommended by the Commissioners. [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: I beg to say that I never said anything of the kind.] Well, the noble Lord may not have said so in so many words, but there was not one single sentence of his speech which did not bear out this interpretation; and unless the noble Lord and the Government come, as I hope they will come, to a very different result, I am afraid the chances of Scotch education, as far as they lie with the Government, are not so bright as we had confidently hoped they had been. I looked for better things, and I do not think that the opinions of the noble Lord are the result of deliberation. When he comes to give this question more consideration, and comes to look into it more closely, I think we shall have conclusions different to those which have been presented to our notice to-night. I will now say a few words with regard to education in Scotland. The Commissioners have been able to present a statistical picture of education in Scotland as complete as was ever presented in any country. As regards education in that country, whatever are the remedies to be applied, we see the evils without the slightest doubt, and we see where they have been exaggerated and where they were overlooked, and I do not think there will be any difficulty in the future, either with respect to figures or numbers, for we must now come to the question of principle. There are some encouraging figures in the statistics of the Commission, one of which is that we find the general ratio of education in Scotland has not degenerated. Why is it that we find comparatively a high rate of education in Scotland? I should say that it is because we have a national system. Do we find it adequate to the existing wants of the country? The population has outgrown it, and the moss and rust of years have encumbered it, but the fact remains that in that country, where there is a national system, we have the highest rate of education. You may say that is cause and effect. But still it is the fact, and anyone that looks into the circumstances of the case will find that the effect has been produced by the cause to which I refer. It is said that the national system is likely to cramp voluntary efforts; but, granting that it does, voluntary effort is not the object we have in view. Our object is the education of the people. People speak and argue about the voluntary system as if there were some great merit it. If the voluntary effort promotes education it does great good, and Scotland is to some extent an example of that, for I believe there is no country in which there is so large a voluntary effort. Although in Scotland there are 4,000 and odd schools, every one of which is required for the education of the people, not above 1,300 belong to the national system. All the rest are denominational—the result of voluntary effort. Then the national system has not checked the voluntary effort, but, on the contrary, the voluntary effort has come to the aid of the national system. The noble Lord has pointed to the high average of attendance in some districts, as if that would compensate for the low average in others. What good is there in an average in such a matter as this? What if we have of all the people in certain districts in Glasgow an average of one in thirteen? What good is it to say that we have in Selkirkshire an average of one in four? What does that average take from the scandal of such a state of things? As a justification for the backwardness of education such an argument is entirely worthless. On the contrary, if good for anything, it is good for this—if you can make the rate one in four in certain districts, you can make it this in all. It is all a delusion to say that the poverty of the people is the thing which prevents education. In Scotland, at all events, it is not found so. Where the parents have schools, they send their children to them; and the real deficiency is not on the part of the parents, but is the want of schools. These statistics prove that there are not schools enough; and when there are schools enough, then you may blame the parents if they do not send their children to them. These statistics teach some important lessons, and show there is a large and primary deficiency. I hope one result of the labours of this Session will be to bring, this great question of education out of the mist and dust with which it is surrounded—to bring it to its real standard — the good of the people—and that we shall no longer have it made the shuttlecock for contending parties. The fact is, we must now address ourselves to the task of education — of raising its standard, and bring it within the reach of all. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire greatly misapprehended, as I think, the Report of the Commissioners. They intended to keep things as they are as regards existing schools, because it was found they are all wanted. All that is proposed in the first instance is, that the superintending body shall see the schools efficiently conducted and open to inspection. The management is not to be altered, nor are the Privy Council Grants to be withdrawn; quite the reverse: the Commissioners proposed that they shall continue to be paid on the footing of the Revised Code, with the exception that the 4th clause shall not apply, and the superintending body is to have the control of the schools. The noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) thought there was something shocking in the idea that the parishes should be made to supply funds for the schools. But that is the point at which we want to arrive. We see that the voluntary efforts have not accomplished what we could wish, and we want to see whether the compulsory system will do it. With regard to the 4th clause of the Revised Code, the noble Lord said the Scotch system was a heterogeneous system; but there is no reason why it should be so. Now, it is an old tradition in Scotland that all ranks came to the same school, sat on the same stools, and learned the same lessons; and although that system is, to a considerable extent, done away with of late years, I believe Scotland has derived great advantage from the system; therefore it would cramp the beneficial operation of the system if the 4th clause were applied. As to the superintendence, some objection has been taken to the Board fitting in Edinburgh. That is a matter of detail. It is really immaterial whether the Board sits in Edinburgh or in London. It is immaterial whether there is a separate branch in Scotland or a superintending body at the Privy Council. It is a matter perfectly open for consideration. Then, lastly, the Commissioners proposed that when the managers of the denominational schools choose to throw their schools upon the national system, they may apply to the board or governing body, and then, if it be a proper school, it may be put upon the rates; so that gradually these denominational schools will be absorbed in the national system, and after some years will arrive at the point at which it is desirable they should arrive—namely, the parochial system, which it was designed by the Commissioners should embrace the schools of the whole community. I do hope Her Majesty's Government will treat this matter with the anxiety and attention it deserves. I might have had some misgivings on this matter, and might have wished that it was reserved for a Liberal Government to deal with this question; but it is too large a question for considerations of that nature. If Her Majesty's Government will treat the question fairly and considerately, I can promise them they will have all the support of this Bench.

said, he was well aware that he was incompetent to speak with authority upon the subject of education in Scotland, and he felt considerable diffidence in addressing the House upon that occasion. His attention had been directed hitherto to the system of education in England, and he had not hesitated to express his opinions on that subject. His noble Friend commenced his speech by stating the opinions and intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and had said that the Report had not been long enough in their hands to enable them to form a judgment upon it. For himself, he could say that he had not had time to do more than look at the recommendations of the Commissioners, and he should feel entirely disqualified for the discussion of a question of such magnitude by merely taking the statistics without reading the other parts of the Report. It had been shown even by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose, to pass the Bill recommended by the Commissioners, nemine dissentiente, could not be adopted. He was not prepared to take what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had called the Imperial view of the subject, for the circumstances of Scotland were totally different from those of either England or Ireland. There existed in Scotland a system of parochial education, the schools being practically supported by rates derived from the land, which had never been the case in the sister countries. Now, it was only reasonable, in considering how to legislate for Scotland, to see whether the existing system might be modified and adapted to the requirements of the present time. He was, prepared, therefore, being better acquainted with education in England, to deal with the two countries on their separate merits. His right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Bruce) would, no doubt, wish to put education both in England and Scotland on the same footing, and the hon. Members for Elgin and Montrose appeared to desire the adoption of the American system of common schools. He confessed that the effect of the argument used by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, with respect to adopting the denominational system in a national system for Scotland, must inevitably be to destroy the voluntary system in that part of the kingdom. Indeed, the object of the Commissioners was by degrees to bring education under one system, subject to some central supervision, and supported by rates throughout the country, and they regarded the present system of payment by the heritors as tantamount to a ratepaying system. He would not enter into the large question embraced in the Report, but would only repeat what had been said, that the Government, out of respect to the eminent and remarkable men who had composed the Commission, would do their best to investigate the question. They would approach it in no hostile spirit, but with the single desire to deal with it fairly and candidly. At the same time however they themselves must have the opinions they had expressed respected. For himself he would not recant the opinions he had given with respect to English education; but the fact of Scotland being placed under a different system would enable him to approach the question in a different manner than he had done in dealing with the one affecting England.

said, he was sure the House must have heard with great satisfaction the reassuring speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He had feared that the policy of education in Scotland might be prejudiced by the Bill relative to English education, which he laid on the table a few weeks ago; and the speech of the noble Lord seemed intended to kill two birds with one stone, and to extinguish all hope of extending education by means of rating alike in Scotland and England. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that such a system might be adopted in Scotland with less deviation from ancient practice than in England, and he hoped that no fear of creating an awkward precedent with regard to England would deter the Government from adopting it in the case of Scotland. The needs of both countries, however, were the same, the circumstances of the large towns in the two countries being very similar. It had been supposed, indeed, that the existing system in England had failed most signally in the rural districts, where 11,000 parishes received no grants; but he was prepared to show that the failure in the large towns was still more conspicuous. This was seen especially in that portion of Glasgow which the Government proposed to erect into a borough. Unless the principle of State assistance were changed the masses in the large towns would not be reached. He rejoiced to think that this discussion, notwithstanding its unfortunate beginning, had terminated so favourably, and, after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, he was satisfied that the Government would give the question a candid consideration, and that there was every prospect of its resulting in the adoption of the recommendations of the Commissioners.

said, in calling attention to the Order in Council of the 28th of May, he wished to remark that, whereas a previous order allowed cattle to be driven from the wharf to the market, and thence taken to the usual slaughter-houses, it was now required that they should remain for twelve hours at the place where they were landed, and should then be conveyed by rail only to the Islington Cattle Market. They might afterwards be driven about the metropolis or back to Blackwall, so that the effect of insisting on their conveyance by rail to the market was simply to bring a certain amount of toll to the railways, and not provide any security against inspection. This was simply a preposterous order, and whether its object was to subsidize the railway, he did not know. The slaughter-houses at Whitechapel were within a short distance of the wharves where the cattle were landed, but in order to be brought there they should be taken by rail to North London, and driven from Islington to Whitechapel. He hoped some explanation would be given for the reason and motive for issuing the Order, and in order to allow the noble Lord an opportunity of addressing the House a second time he would move "that the Order in Council of the 28th of May relating to the cattle plague is inexpedient."

said, that the subject introduced by his hon. Friend was one which deserved the consideration of the Government. He was informed that what the railway companies required was time to enable them to complete the necessary sidings and pens.

said, that the Order in Council was issued at a time when the cattle plague was increasing in London. It was represented to the Committee of Privy Council by the veterinary surgeons that when the cattle arrived at the port of landing it was impossible to say whether they had the cattle plague or not, but, that if they were allowed to remain at rest for twelve hours, the disease could be easily detected. An Order was therefore passed to retain the animals for twelve hours at the port of landing; but, as the inspection could only commence after the lapse of twelve hours, the practical effect was that they would be kept considerably more. The animals usually arrived on Saturday evening for the Islington Cattle Market of Monday. They would therefore not be removed until Monday morning, having thus been kept in quarantine for thirty-six hours. By such an arrangement when they got to the cattle market there could remain very little doubt as to whether they were infected or not. If on inspection they proved to be infected they would be slaughtered at once, but if not there was very little harm in letting them walk for a certain distance to the slaughter-house. The object of the Order was to prevent the spread of the cattle plague in London. If this Order were rescinded the animals would be landed and taken straight from the wharves across the metropolis, infecting the lairs and every place through which they might pass. By the present arrangement moreover it would be known where every animal went, as they could be traced by means of the market passes; but if the Order were rescinded it would be impossible to follow the animals to their destination, and the cattle plague would soon become beyond control. The object was good, and by no other means could it be carried out. The Order that had been passed had been brought under the notice of the railway companies, and the persons at the various wharves. The Committee of Council had given the railways until the 18th of June to prepare the necessary sidings, &c., but the only body which had done anything had been the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had erected slaughter-houses. The railway companies did nothing, and then when it was too late they rose en masse against the Order in Council, If any inconvenience had occurred it was their own fault, in not having made due preparation.

said, he considered the Order was one of the most absurd ever issued by any Government. Could the time spent by the beasts in the cattle market be any test of their having the disease or not?