said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure to extend the Municipal Franchise in cities and towns in Ireland to the same classes who by the Act of last year are entitled to claim the Parliamentary Franchise?

said, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the municipal franchise in Ireland was in an unsatisfactory condition and required consideration, which it would receive at the hands of the Government. He was not able however to undertake to legislate on the subject at present.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, When the Report of the Commission on the Bank of Bombay is likely to be made public?

, in reply, said, that the Bombay Bank Commission was issued by and had reported to the Government of India. The Report had not yet been received from India, and he could not therefore give a categorical answer to the Question, but his hon. Friend might be assured that there would be no unnecessary delay.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether a Contract with Mr. Inman for a Service from Queenstown to New York, on Friday instead of Thursday, on terms in other respects identical with those of the Contract now before the House, has been sanctioned by the present Board of Treasury; and, whether Mr. Inman, in agreeing to the change of day which was proposed to him by the Government, did not stipulate that all the other conditions of his Contract made with Her Majesty's Government should be maintained?

said, that to the first part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman he must reply in the negative. The matter stood thus—On the 9th of December last a Treasury Minute was made by the late Government, sanctioning the contract with Mr. Inman for carrying the mails from Liverpool to New York for a certain sum. That contract had been executed by the Postmaster General of the late Government, the Duke of Montrose, on the 11th of December. That contract, so far as the present Government were concerned, was still in force, and remained uncancelled, awaiting the pleasure of the House of Commons whether it was to become valid or not. A negotiation had been entered into between the Government and Mr. Inman that, in case it should be the pleasure of Parliament the contract should stand, Mr. Inman should convey the mails on a different day, the contract in other respects remaining the same. But that contract had not been entered into by the present Government. The only contract entered into therefore was the contract between the Duke of Montrose and Mr. Inman, and that, as he had said, still waited the pleasure of Parliament. It was quite true that Mr. Inman, in agreeing to a change of day, had stipulated that the terms of the contract should in other respects remain the same, and if it should be the pleasure of the House that the terms of the contract between Mr. Inman and the late Government should be accepted, then the present Government would be ready to execute the contract on the same terms in all other respects.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Government to fill up the office of Queen's Remembrancer in Scotland, vacant by the death of Mr. Henderson?

said, in reply, that the office of Queen's Remembrancer in Scotland was of very considerable importance, as in him was vested the power of auditing accounts and controlling expenditure. He could not, therefore, give his hon. Friend to understand that no provision would be made for the performance of these duties. It was only yesterday that the account of Mr. Henderson's death had been received, and there had been no time for considering what alterations might be made in the present arrangements.

said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether it be his intention to bring in any measure during the present Session to repeal the 37th section of the Scotch Poor Law Act, 8 & 9 Vic. c. 83, and to provide that all assessments in Scotland shall be made on the gross rental; and, if so, how soon he will introduce the Bill?

said, in reply, that it was his intention to propose a measure of the description alluded to by his hon. and learned Friend, and he would probably be ready to introduce it shortly after the Easter Recess.

said, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, Whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill for authorizing the grant of Assurances on Life as low as five pounds?

said, in reply, that a Bill was prepared, and would be shortly brought in either by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or himself, which would, if passed, enable the Post Office to grant assurances on life for five pounds.

said, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, Whether he will be prepared at the commencement of the financial year to reduce the postage on newspapers, so as materially to facilitate their circulation in the rural districts?

in reply, said, he had not the power, even with the consent of the Treasury, under the present Act of Parliament, to authorize the transmission of anything by post unless charged 1d. The subject, however, had been under consideration, and when the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) should bring forward his Motion, he believed next week, he should be in a position to state whether the Government would be prepared to bring in a Bill to enable the Post Office to transmit newspapers, and, perhaps, under certain circumstances, other printed matter for a less charge than 1d.

:^* I rise, Sir, to call the attention of the House to the numbers of young children in our large towns who are growing up without any education, unaffected either by the educational clauses of the Factories Act, or by voluntary efforts, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into, and, if possible, suggest a remedy for, this serious state of matters. The great courtesy I received at the hands of the House last Session, on the two or three occasions on which I ventured to address the House on matters nearly touching the welfare of the industrial classes, has emboldened me to ask its attention to this subject, in which, both as a Liverpool magistrate and as a representative of one of our most populous industrial communities, I feel a very deep interest. I am well aware that, as this debate will show, many hon. Members would more ably have commenced this discussion, but I gather courage from the knowledge that this is no party Motion. Every hon. Member in this House has equally at heart the education of every child in this kingdom, and the time has not yet arrived at which any section of this House, pinning its faith to some particular measure, will assert that, by that means alone, can this desirable end be attained. I am met by an Amendment, which will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), declaring that it is inexpedient to grant the proposed Committee, because the information necessary for the framing of a comprehensive measure of national education is already in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government will support the hon. Member for Brighton in that statement; but the information in question is certainly not upon the table of the House, nor do I know where it can be obtained. There have been countless blue books, and two principal inquiries into the state of primary education in this country. The Royal Commission of 1861 inquired into the general state of primary education; and the Select Committee, presided over by Sir Stafford Northcote, which reported in July, 1861, dealt with the condition of destitute and neglected children. But, out of the fourteen largest provincial towns, the educational state of Bradford, Stoke-upon-Trent, and Merthyr Tydvil are the only ones reported upon by the Royal Commission of 1861, and in its Report there are no figures and no information whatever as regards the three great provincial cities to which I propose to call the attention of the House. Again, the Select Committee on Destitute and Neglected Children reported only on the ragged and industrial schools of London and Bristol, and gave no information whatever on the points I desire to raise. The Committee said in their Report—

"There still remains a residue to be dealt with, though of its numbers the Committee have no evidence."

And it is on this question of their numbers I wish for information. Again the Committee reported—

"For children who have acquired criminal or vagrant habits provision is made by the Industrial Schools Bill. Until that measure has been tried, no other provision, at the expense of the State, should be made for this class."

Eight years having passed away since that decision was arrived at, information on that point is now required. What has been the result of the extension of the Factories and Workshops Acts? How has the Industrial Schools Act answered? At what cost are these schools carried on? We have been told that Her Majesty's Government are unable this year to deal with the great question of primary education, and that they will confine themselves to the passing, if it be possible, of the Endowed Schools Bill. That being so, inquiry might be very wisely and legitimately made by this House into the number of children at school in the great provincial cities, the cost of their education, and the kind of education they are receiving, also as to the action of the Industrial Schools Act, the effect of the extension of the educational clauses of the Factory Act to those large towns, and more especially the operation of the new legislation called the Workshops Act. These are matters on which it would be well that information should be laid on the table of the House. Some years ago, in a speech delivered at Halifax, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Bruce), whose views we can have no reason to believe have been modified by the high position he now holds, said—

"Any system worthy of being called national must be one capable, if not immediately, yet sooner or later, of grappling with the whole difficulties of national education—there must be no class un-provided for."

I hold—and I am supported by many hon. Members in holding—that, if you will insist upon having—as you must insist upon having—a scheme of national education capable of grappling with every class of children, you will have to adopt a system of compulsory attendance and free municipal schools; but neither the Government nor the House, much less the country, will be prepared to adopt a measure of so drastic and novel a character, unless they are thoroughly convinced that the facts and figures will justify so extreme a course. We may have, in the first instance, to adopt an experimental plan, and we may have to deal in this novel manner with four or six or eight of the largest cities, before such a measure of education for the whole country can be proposed with any prospect of success. I may be asked, "Why have you not included the rural districts in your Motion; because the state of education in the rural districts is as deplorable as it is in the large cities?" It may be so, and it may not be so; but the ignorance in rural districts, serious as it may be, does not bring with it the drunkenness, the pauperism, the misery, the crime, and the excessive rates of which it is at once the cause and the effect in our large cities. I will not take up the time of the House by describing how, in our great cities, 300,000 or 500,000 persons are brought together, within an area of from five to eight square miles, subject to conditions for which our modern legislation has not provided. The parochial system has broken down; ministers of all religious denominations are completely overwhelmed with work and outnum- bered by the destitution, misery, and irreligion of the thousands which surround them. The relations between employer and employed have become impersonal; we hardly know the numbers of the people we employ, and we deal with them not as units but in hundreds—as hands not men. The ever-widening gulf between rich and poor, who have ceased even to live near one another, so that whole districts exist in each of our great cities in which, if not the most respectable, the wealthiest, ratepayers are the pawnbroker at one corner, who takes the drunkard's clothes in pledge, and the gin-palace keeper at the other, who sells half-penny worths of gin to little children whose heads can hardly reach to his counter—the existence of organized and recognized professors of crime, and the professional mendicancy which is so largely encouraged by the many stupid people who give money indiscriminately in the streets—all these conditions of life in great cities constitute the almost insoluble problem with which we have to deal. In support of the Motion I shall confine myself to large cities, and in speaking of the educational destitution of large towns I shall select the three principal cities of the Empire—Liverpool, our first seaport—Manchester, the metropolis of the cotton manufacture—and Birmingham, the centre of the hardware trade, which contain an aggregate population of 1,219,807. This is no invidious selection. There are no three cities which by voluntary effort, by sanitary legislation, by municipal action, and by private charity, have so distinguished themselves. The municipality of Liverpool has subscribed no less than £7,500 during the last seven years to the reformatory movement, and gives 1s. a week to the support of each inmate of the local industrial schools. By the liberality of private individuals, Liverpool maintained 626 children in her five reformatories, 950 in her nine certificated industrial schools, and 2,672 in her orphanages. Manchester has ever taken the lead in all educational, as in all political matters; her Education Aid Society has sent thousands of children to school during the last five years, and, had it been left to Manchester by a wise legislature to deal with the educational condition of her people, she would long ago have solved the problem for herself. The municipality of Bir- mingham stands alone in having established and maintained an industrial school; and her Education Aid Society, presided over by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), who will second this Motion, has sent many hundreds of children to school during the last three or four years. If the condition of things I am about to show, exists in these cities which have done so much, what must be the condition of those other large towns which are behind-hand in the race of private benevolence, public action, and voluntary effort? It has been humourously said that there is nothing so delusive as statistics, except facts; but, until the statistics asked for are placed on the table of the House, we must take the most reliable figures we can obtain: this at least I can say, I have selected them honestly from the best sources, and I will use them fairly. One word to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: I hope that when the Census of 1871 is taken we may at last obtain correct educational statistics. They were only partially given by the Registrar General in 1851; they were entirely omitted in 1861; may we not hope that in 1871 an end may be put to the discussions which take place about the correctness of educational statistics, by provision being made for a complete educational survey of the country? I deal with Liverpool first. Some time ago a few gentlemen, of both parties and of different religious denominations, met together with a view of taking measures to inquire into the educational state of the borough. They made a fair selection of three streets in each of the sixteen wards; they visited every house in those forty-eight streets, and they found, excluding infants, 5,890 children at school, and 6,443 not at school and not at work. From the Returns of the Registrar General there are 98,256 children of school age, that is between the age of three and thirteen, in Liverpool. The proportions arrived at by visiting three streets in each ward would, if extended to the whole borough, give 46,925 children at school, and 51,331 not at school. They not only visited the streets, but they visited every school, down to schools containing twenty or thirty children, and they found 45,677 children at school; a result amply confirming the conclusion drawn from their previous calculation. Public spirit in Liverpool is strong enough. There is no want of school accommodation; the disease lies deeper than this, and some more efficacious remedy must be devised. There are 15,991 vacant places in our existing schools, of which no fewer than 10,000 are in the schools intended for the working classes. Religious differences cannot be pleaded, for there is room for 6,000 in Protestant schools, and for 3,000 young Roman Catholics. Poverty cannot be urged; for without reckoning ragged day and evening schools there are 1,500 vacancies in the free schools. There is no juvenile labour, no employment for children under thirteen, in the town of Liverpool; the Factory Act, therefore, can have no operation; yet there are from 40,000 to 50,000 children of school age who are not at school. As a Liverpool magistrate, I assert that there are from 25,000 to 30,000 children in the streets of Liverpool who are learning nothing, if they be not learning habits of vagrancy, mendicancy, and crime. The chief constable of Liverpool has courteously undertaken to look into the subject a little closely. On a certain day, when the schools of Liverpool were open, and between half-past ten and half-past eleven in the forenoon, police officers were specially told off to count the number of children apparently under fifteen years of age who were "at large" in twelve streets and at twelve junctions, omitting all boys who had the appearance of going about their business, and all girls who had children in their charge. The police counted no fewer than 1,906 little girls and 2,692 little boys. On another day the police counted the children who were—the House will observe the bitter irony of the term—"at large" around the warehouses where sugar and fruit were being taken in, and along the line of docks where ships were being discharged—parts of the town in which such children had no business to be—and the number counted was 713–514 boys and 172 girls. Again the police counted the number of little children who were selling fusees in the streets at night, and there were 288 at six o'clock, and at eleven o'clock 127, of whom forty were little girls. I now come to the case of Manchester. The Manchester Education Aid Society has not confined itself to sending children to school, but it has collected some statistics to which reference may perhaps be made by the hon. Members for Manchester. The results, arrived at, however, are these—there are in Manchester, as appears from the Returns of the Registrar General, 75,667 children of school age, of whom less than half are at school and less than a quarter at work, and there cannot be less than from 20,000 to 25,000 who are living the life of the streets. In Birmingham a canvass has been made of 52,573 children, of whom 37,112 were found to be of school age. There appeared to be fewer at work in Birmingham than there are in Manchester; and, of the 77,687 children the Registrar General reports existing in Birmingham of school age, no fewer than 18,000 or 20,000 are unaccounted for, and are no doubt receiving their education in the streets. To sum up, then, in the three towns 94,502 children have been visited; 25,002 were found at school, 29,128 were neither at school nor at work, and 12,661 were at work, making 66,791 of the school age accounted for. If calculations be based on these figures, the experience of this actual canvass gives this general result. The Registrar General puts the number of children of school age in these three towns at 251,710. Of these only 56,261 are receiving education in schools recognized by the House of Commons and to which grants are made; not more than 125,000 can be put down as attending any school whatever; not more than 55,000 are at work; and there are no fewer than from 65,000 to 75,000 children in these three towns—and we have no reason to believe that they are, in proportion to their population, any worse than all other large towns—who are growing up unaffected either by the educational clauses of the Factories Act, the Industrial Schools Act, or by voluntary effort. This is the result we have arrived at by our laissez faire policy of leaving everything to be done by voluntary effort, and our want of courage in dealing with the sectarian differences which have so long retarded educational progress. The time has come to put out the strong hand of the law to teach and, thus to, save this vast number of children. There is nothing exceptional in this state of things if we compare it with what exists in other parts of the world. The State of New York subscribes £1,000,000 sterling, or one-fifth of its entire taxation, to educational purposes, to a complete system of State free schools; and yet two years ago the su- perintendent of the State declared that there were 75,000 children within the city of New York who either attended no school or whose means of instruction were limited to the briefest possible period. Granting their system of enrolment to be perfect, we find that last year 222,526 children enrolled gave an average attendance of only 91,984. The superintendent sums up his Report in these words—"I will not ask, looking to these vast numbers, What shall we do with them? But I will ask, What will they do with us?" I am sorry to take up the time of the House with so many statistics; but I must attempt to answer this question—What are they doing with us? I turn to a table showing the increase of crime and the decrease of education in the three towns I have named. As we have sown so we are reaping. There is no question which is being so much pressed on our attention as that of the excessive increase of local rates. It is pauperism, the child of drunkenness, which again is the child of ignorance, which is causing this vast cry against our heavy local taxation. The Home Secretary, the other day, in answer to a Deputation on the question of the increase of crime, said he did not believe there was any great increase of the blacker descriptions and the darker sorts of crime; but the Home Secretary did not and could not say that there is no increase in the large centres of population of petty larceny, drunkenness, and of those smaller descriptions of crime which bring so many persons for the first time under the supervision of the police. In the year 1861 the apprehensions in the three towns of Liverpool, Birmingham, and Manchester, were 31,193, and in 1868 they were 52,098, and, whereas in 1861 the number of children apprehended was 1,749, in 1868 it was 3,720. A noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), for whom we all entertain the highest respect, and whose words, when he sat in this House, were listened to with deep attention, stated the other evening that he did not believe there was so close connection as was believed between the increase of crime and the diminution of education; but the figures which I am about to read by no means confirm the theory of the noble Marquess. In 1861, in the three towns, there were apprehended 1,244 persons who could read and write well, and 11,626 who could not read and write at all; and in 1868 the number who could read and write was diminished to 1,022, and the number who could not was increased to 20,032. The vast increase in the amount of local rates is thus easily accounted for. The total cost of the police force and gaols of Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, has reached the frightful sum of £215,680, or 1s. 3d. in the pound on the rateable value of the property in the three cities. In the streets of those cities there are 75,000 children—were they in free schools they would cost £70,000 per annum. If these cities spent £50,000 a year out of the rates, supplemented by the ordinary Privy Council Grant, the expenditure would require a rate of only 3½d. or 4d. in the pound. A sacred proverb reads thus: "There is that which scattereth and yet increaseth;" this would be the sort of expenditure which, even whilst it scattered, would first economize and then increase the wealth of the community. I have done what I promised in bringing under the notice of the House the number of children in our large cities who grow up in the streets, the anterooms of our gaols, and the nurseries which fill our reformatories and industrial schools. Now I come to the more difficult question—"How are we to deal with these children?" I maintain we cannot deal with them through the Factory Act, however widely we may extend its provisions, because they are not at work, and therefore do not come under its action. In Liverpool there are no children under the Factory Act, and but very few under the Workshops Act. In Birmingham, out of 37,000 children, only 6,237 were found at work; and, of the 18,380 children who can neither read nor write, only 2,981 would be affected by the Factory Act, even if it extended to every workshop or every errand-boy. Another visitation showed that, of 14,986 children who were visited, 1,542 were at work as errand-boys and nurse-girls, leaving 13,400 or 90 per cent untouched by the Factory or the Workshops Acts. But the Factory Act was never intended by this House to educate these children. It is a sanatory law, which the good sense and patriotism of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite forced upon us, not as a measure calculated to educate children, but to preserve their health and strength; to protect them from the grasping parents who might wish to sell their young lives by forcing them to work at an immature age. It was never intended to be the means, and it is quite a new idea to look to these labour Acts as educational agencies; no doubt it is very convenient to convert the great manufacturers and employers of labour into a school police; but it cuts both ways, as in large towns, whore juvenile labour is very plentiful, half-timers are being gradually dismissed from employment to avoid the restrictions and interference of these Acts. According to the latest Returns furnished to me there are only 87,000 at the outside in all England—there were only 67,000 in 1861—who come under the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Acts. Other Members will no doubt state that, under the Factory Act, children are receiving a very insufficient teaching, and that even these children are being neglected in on educational sense. The Factory Acts, looked upon as Acts to promote education, are defective in the extreme, and the House may rest assured it is not through their operation that we shall effect the object. Nor yet by the Industrial Schools Act. There are eighty certified industrial schools in Great Britain, and they contained on the 31st December last 5,465 children. They already cost the Treasury £68,000 a year. They are simply charity boarding schools at £18 a head per annum; and no community can afford by such agencies to educate 10 or 20,000 children. On financial grounds, and on grounds of political economy alike, I maintain that industrial schools must be looked upon simply as temporary and palliative measures, as excellent private charities, but to which a State contribution is hardly to be defended; and at the proper time I shall be ready to argue, that, in contributing such a sum as £68,000 per annum for the education, clothing, and maintenance of 5,465 pauper and neglected children, the State is overstepping the bounds of its duty to the honest and industrious taxpayer. These schools are utterly indefensible as a primary means of education. No town, no nation can afford to place in such schools every child whom they cannot educate by other means. Further, those institutions must have a most immoral effect on the honest and industrious poor, who see the children of the intemperate and improvident thus handsomely provided for. I have received letters on this point from the stipendiary magistrates of Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham—they are all to the same effect. They say that the Industrial Schools Acts, though absolutely necessary at present, are most extravagant in their operation, and that nominations to these schools are already sought for their children by the poor, as if they were the objects of honourable competition, and not a disgraceful sentence to a pauper prison of children whose parents had failed to do their duty. That is the condition to which we are reducing our people by blinking the great difficulty of dealing with the children in our large cities by legislation of an honest and fearless character. It is to the workhouse and not to the industrial schools that really neglected and destitute children and orphans should be sent. We ought not to have two such systems at work. Education should be kept entirely separate from lodging, maintenance, and clothing. The State can wisely and safely give the one; but to give the other, except through the legal action of the Poor Law, is to pauperize the community. It will be said the industrial schools are necessary because workhouse schools are inefficient, and their inmates imbibe a taint of pauperism from which they never get free. Then let us make our workhouse schools better; but, on any large scale, to extend this new system would be alike extravagant and impolitic. We cannot effect, then, our object by the extension of the Factory or Industrial School Acts, so neither can we attain it by the Bill of the Home Secretary and the Vice President of the Council, compelling the erection of rated schools. That is a great step in the right direction, and I hope that a Bill of that character, based upon those principles, but supplemented by the principle of compulsory attendance, will be introduced, and to such a Bill I will give my most energetic support. But we do not want any more schools. There are 13,182 vacant places in the public Government-supported schools of Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham—what we want is scholars, not schools. The Rev. F. Watkins, National School Inspector, Yorkshire, reports—

"In ray district, which in this respect is not behind others, school accommodation is much more, I will not say than is needed, but than is used. In the day schools not 58 per cent of the space provided for children is occupied by them. In other words, the schools are nearly half empty."

Mr. J. G. Fitch, British and Foreign School Inspector, Yorkshire, reports—

"The figures for the year just ended give 24,174 children in space for 30,391, or 79·5 per cent. The number of scholars in average attendance, however, amounts to less than half of the number for whom there is school-room accommodation; a fact well deserving the attention of those who think that the great problem of public education is to be solved by the simple process of providing good schools in sufficient numbers."

And I might indefinitely multiply this evidence. Neither can the problem be solved by simply establishing free schools. The experience of the Education Aid Societies of Manchester and Birmingham is conclusive on this point; they have tried the experiment of free schools by giving thousands of free tickets which were never used. The Manchester Society has issued 35,000 tickets for school, and every case has been carefully investigated. It shows the apathy and indifference of many parents to education, that in one year 9,000 of these school orders were not used, although the fees in some cases were partially and in others entirely paid. The first year 74 per cent of the school orders were used; the second year, 54 per cent; the third year, 45 per cent; the fourth year, 37 per cent; and the fifth year, when the operations of the society were restricted for want of funds, 60 per cent. At a cost of £7,500 the society has sent some 4,000 children to school during the last five years, but they have only raised the average attendance at the public schools of Manchester by 2,387, thus showing that in many cases they were paying for those who had previously paid for themselves. The experience of the Birmingham Society is similar. It has not limited its sphere of usefulness to the careful collection of such statistics as those I have placed before the House. Following the example of the Manchester Education Aid Society, the Birmingham Society issued in one year 4,729 free school orders, and of those only 3,097 were used, while 1,178 were never presented. This accounts for the increase in the school attendance in Birmingham of 2,987. What is the verdict at which the Birmingham Society has arrived after an experience of three years, and a large expenditure of money? The society says—"By paying the full amount of the school fees, and not calling on the parent to pay any part, we have fully tested this matter, and the general conclusion—the result of actual experiment—seems to be that the poor are divided on the matter of education into two classes—one class prevented by poverty from sending their children to school—these are making good use of the society's free school orders, and are sending their children with satisfactory regularity; the other class care nothing about education, and will take no pains to send their children to school, though the fees are paid for them. The Committee, without affirming the principle of compulsion, are therefore forced from these facts to conclude that this class of children can only be brought under instruction by a compulsory law; and that, in the absence of compulsion, they will grow up in ignorance and vice through the apathy resulting, in a great part, from the ignorance of the parents themselves." This appears to be borne out by the statistics. In this town there were found 9,044 children whose parents could not afford to send them to school, and 10,852 whose parents do not assign reasons for keeping them away. In the former class of cases the test of inability was the non-receipt by the parent of 3s. per head per week for each member of the family, exclusive of rent. The Manchester experience is to the same effect: in eighteen districts they found 7,604 children not at school, for whom the parents could have paid in 3,333 cases. By Factory and Industrial School Acts then, and even by free schools supported by local rates, we still fail to meet the difficulty. I believe that the only legislation by which we can deal conclusively with the question is that which will enforce the attendance at school of the children in our great cities. Earl Russell lately moved in the House of Lords a Resolution affirming that every child has a moral right to the blessings of education. Then, if their parents be so ignorant and degraded that they will not claim these blessings when placed within their reach, we, the House of Commons, are responsible to those children for securing to them, at any cost, the privileges of school teaching. It is by that means, and by that means alone, that we can stop drunkenness, and pauperism, and crime, and thus diminish the taxes of the great cities; and this proposition is made to a Parliament in which all classes are represented. In days gone by, it might have been asserted that the wealthier members of the community were legislating for their own benefit in matters affecting those not able to protect themselves. We, at all events, who represent the large towns have been elected exclusively by the ratepayers, we are responsible to them, and it is in the name of a large majority of those ratepayers we ask you to enforce compulsory attendance at school. The House has precedents enough to act upon in this matter. First, the Vaccination Act, by which you compel every child to be vaccinated, and fine the parent if he neglects to do so. Ignorance is more dangerous than disease, and disease is not more contagious than crime. I would rather see a child of mine with the disorder from which vaccination is supposed to protect it, than allow it to be in the streets, subject to the imminent risk of immorality, and the greater moral disfigurement of crime. In the Factory Acts you have again asserted the principle of compulsory attendance at school. You have already there laid down the rule that the child must go to school, but only if he goes to work. Can a greater anomaly be conceived? If the child is already learning the rules of decency, order, obedience, and industry in a manufactory, it shall be compelled to learn to read and write. But if the child is in the streets gaining habits of vagrancy, intemperance, and felony, then, and then only, shall it he free to learn no other lesson. In the Health of Towns Act you have far more largely invaded the sacred liberty of the subject. There is no measure in any country that is so severe in its provisions. I am told by the medical Officer of Health of the town of Liverpool, that, under the Health of Towns Act, he has, and exercises, the power of visiting, through his subordinates, 6,000 sub-let houses—not registered lodging-houses, but sub-let houses—in which two families of working men may happen to live together—at any hour of the day, or any hour of the night, to count the number of persons in each of the rooms, and to see whether the provisions of the Act are exceeded. A Legislature wise and strong enough to enforce, and a people sensible enough on sanitary grounds to submit to, such a measure as that, are a Legislature at whose hands we may ask, and a community that will gladly accept, a measure comparatively so mild and harmless as one to compel the attendance of children of school age at school. And, if we have the power, I take it we have also the right. The right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Goschen) knows that this question is intimately connected with the difficulties which arise from the vast increase of local rates, and he says that to make education compulsory would only be the natural consequence of the law which makes the maintenance of children compulsory on the community. Mr. Lingen, the highest official authority on the subject of education, compendiously exposed the inherent defects of the present system, when he said that a system of education could not be at the same time voluntary, efficient, and universal. There is a unanimous testimony on this point from almost every quarter. A large number of Members during their canvass and in their election speeches have proposed this measure or commended it, and more than one Member on this side of the House has had to promise to support it before he could obtain the honour of a seat in this House. One might suppose that inspectors of schools would be the last to advocate a measure supposed to be so greatly opposed to the system under which they work, yet, in the last Report of the Privy Council, no fewer than eleven out of the twenty-eight inspectors advocate compulsory attendance in one shape or another as a last resort. Mr. Moncrieff, National School Inspector for Kent, says—

"I have for years held the same language—that all our teaching was powerless for effective good so long as nothing was done to compel the attendance of children up to a reasonable age."

Mr. Oakley, British School Inspector of the northern counties, says—

"Without compulsion in some form or other, whether direct or indirect, a number of children will never be educated at all, and of those actually at school a considerable proportion (those who leave for permanent work before they have come up to the exceedingly moderate degree implied by the second standard) will continue to forget everything they have learnt by the time they are twenty years old."

Lastly, I will read the testimony of one whose name will be received with respect and honour in this House. Mr. Matthew Arnold, the Inspector for Middlesex, says—

"Throughout my district I find the idea of compulsory education becoming a familiar idea with those who are interested in schools. I imagine that with the newly-awakened sense of our shortcomings in popular education—a sense which is just; the statistics brought forward to dispel it being, as every one acquainted with the subject knows, entirely fallacious—the difficult thing would not be to pass a law making education compulsory; the difficult thing would be to work such a law after we had got it."

Then the question I have to answer is—How would you work it out? In the first place, I would build or buy free municipal schools, and plant them like Martello towers against the invading armies of pauperism and intemperance in the poorer districts of all our large towns. They should be supported, two-thirds by municipal rates, and one-third by grants from the Privy Council in case they came up to the Privy Council standard of efficiency; but no grant should be given them unless they came up, in every respect, to State requirements. I would give power to the schoolmaster of each school—whom I would pay by numerical results—by means of a school beadle, appointed by the master, or rather by the Municipal Council of Education, to summon and fine the parents of every child found, after fair notice, in the streets between the hours of nine and twelve in the morning and two and five in the afternoon; and I would do nothing more, because nothing more would be required. Speaking on the authority of the chief constable of Liverpool, and of other men who have studied the subject, I believe that, if you give such simple powers as these to the municipalities of our great cities—if you begin, not with any Permissive Act, but by compelling municipalities to rate themselves, and if you give the power of summoning the parent of any child not at school during school hours—you will soon sweep the streets of the thousands of children now found in them. If you place that power in our hands we shall carry it out and thus fill the schools you have compelled us to erect. With these three agencies, the certified industrial workhouse schools, the free schools, and the present denominational schools, we should approach to a solution of the problem. I may be asked, and I am bound to answer the question, "How would such a proposal touch the existing schools?" For, as the Duke of Argyll says, in his recent work on Law in Politics—

"Political error springs from the notion that we can arrive at that which ought to be without taking note of that which is."

We have a magnificent system of denominational schools, and by that system we are educating 1,500,000 of our children; and, as has been well said, there can be no doubt that the poorest class have a far better as well as a far cheaper education open to them than the poorer portion of the middle class. This is so; it is offered to them but they do not accept it; and the lower portion of the middle class and the upper section of the artizan class do accept it; and thus the existing schools are largely invaded by a class for whom neither the House of Commons nor private subscribers intended either grants or subscriptions. There is no question on which it would be more difficult to adduce statistics, still less to give names, but every one knows there are a large and increasing number of the well-to-do artizans and the smaller order of shopkeepers whose children attend these schools. As Eton, Harrow, and Rugby, built and endowed for the lower and middle classes, have been invaded by the rich, so the national primary schools have been invaded, and in some instances even monopolized, by classes for whom they were neither intended, nor are they now supported. And the Revised Code, to which I gave my hearty concurrence, has encouraged this state of things, and, by its inevitable working, has rather reduced the numbers of poor and neglected children who attend the national primary schools. The master, paid by results, prefers the well-dressed regularly attending children of a more respectable class, and the cold shoulder is not unfrequently given in the national schools to the very children for whom they are endowed and maintained. On this very ground I am not afraid that these schools will not hold their ground. In the next place the free municipal schools must necessarily be secular schools, because you cannot compel the ratepayers to subscribe for the teaching of a religious faith with which they do not agree. They must be secular, because you cannot compel the attendance of a child at a school where a creed is taught in which its parents do not believe. But this will be at once the very strength and safeguard of the present denominational schools. These schools, as Mr. Lingen says, are the proprietary schools of the religious denominations. They are in fifteen cases out of sixteen—the figures are as 15·49 to 1·25—connected with, often form a part of, the churches and the chapels of various religious denominations, and those who belong to these chapels and churches, and who are now the managers and committees of these schools, will continue to send their children to them, while others of the same class will do so even in greater numbers than now; for a stigma will naturally attach to the free municipal school, and there will be a disinclination on the part of such parents to allow their children to mix with the class of children attending them. There is no greater mistake than to suppose—no hon. Member does suppose—that the working people are all of one class. There are as many different sections, as many social castes, as many political and religious prejudices, among them as there are among those above them; and the well-to-do Conservative artizan, and the small Radical shopkeeper, will continue to send their children to their Church and Dissenting schools, and will send them even to a larger extent than at present. We have a confirmation of this in the evidence given before the Royal Commission—

"So far," says Mr. Norris, "from high fees emptying a school, I have found that of the schools in my district—Chester, Stafford, and Shropshire—the most expensive are the most popular."

And instances are given, both by Mr. Norris and by Mr. Cumin, in which the raising of the fees was decidedly popular with the parents, and was followed by an increased attendance of children. In a word, then, I believe that a system of free secular municipal schools and compulsory attendance, far from doing any damage to, would give a great impetus in our large towns to the system of denominational schools; I believe that parents who now send their children to paying schools would not only continue to do so, but would send them in larger numbers, and pay higher fees; and thus, without injuring the existing schools, you would have solved the difficulty of insuring the blessings of education to the whole population. In conclusion, I have endeavoured to show the necessity for inquiry; to prove that the community desires, and that the Legislature has the right, the power, and the authority of precedent, to compel the education of the children for whose welfare it is responsible. I have endeavoured briefly to allay the fears of those engaged in an excellent but inadequate work. I have now but to thank the House for the courtesy and attention with which they have listened to a dull and dry statement. 3,000 years ago it was written in the Talmud, that—"By the breath of the school-children shall the State be saved." I believe that the converse of the proposition holds good to-day. There is no cloud so dark and dangerous in our political horizon, no blot so foul upon our social system, no stain so deep upon the Christianity which we all profess, as the existence of the 75,000 children of whom I have spoken, and of perhaps 500,000 children of whom these 75,000 are the type, who are growing to man's estate to be a curse instead of a blessing to the community in which they live—to be a cause of poverty, instead of a source of wealth, to the nation that has given them birth. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that, after the very explicit declaration of the Government that legislation on this question was impossible this year, he felt most anxious that the House should, at any rate, do something towards preparing a basis on which legislation might take place next Session. The statistics which had been so profusely quoted by his hon. Friend (Mr. Melly), although they seemed to be based upon an authority which ought to be sufficient, were in many cases utterly denied. He (Mr. Dixon) proposed to confine his remarks almost exclusively to what had taken place in Birmingham under the auspices of the Education Aid Society, which was established there. Last Session the noble Lord the then Vice President of the Council (Lord Robert Montagu) made some disparaging remarks with reference to that society. He hoped that further reflection and information had induced the noble Lord to regret those aspersions, for the society was composed of all the leading men in the town—men of all sects and parties, who represented the activity and life of the town, and their statements had been before the public for twelve months, and had not, to his (Mr. Dixon's) knowledge, been in a single instance controverted. Indeed, an able and laborious school inspector, Mr. Capel, whose opinion he had asked in reference to the facts laid before the country by the society, had authorized him to say that, so far from having over-stated, they had understated the facts of the case. There were at present about 83,000 children in Birmingham, and, deducting one-third for those whose parents were able to pay entirely for their education—an ample deduction—there remained 55,000 children of the working classes—that was to say, of the class that might be supposed to frequent, or ought to frequent, the elementary schools of the country. The first effort of the Birmingham Education Aid Society was to ascertain the number of the children at the schools, and from a return furnished by the managers and masters to their visitor, they found that only 19,500 children were present there at one time. The Returns of the Committee of Council gave only 13,000 as the number in the inspected schools, and therefore they had 6,500 that were in schools of a more or less inferior description—some of them so inferior that it was doubtful if any education of value was given in them. If he added to the number he had mentioned the workhouse and charity school children, he should probably get a total of 21,000 in the schools out of 55,000, leaving 34,000 who were not at school at all—so that about 36 per cent, or little more than one-third of the children of the working classes in Birmingham, were ascertained to be in schools at the same time. Further investigation would show that the upper portion of the working class sent their children to school in a much larger proportion than that, but the other part, or the lower stratum of the population in the large towns, scarcely sent their children to schools at all. The houses of the parents of more than 45,000 children were visited, and the visitors of the society ascertained that only 42 per cent of these children between the ages of three and thirteen were acknowledged by their parents to be at school; and, as they had reason to believe that the parents had given a highly-coloured description of the state of things, he was inclined to believe that their statements might be taken as a full corroboration of the returns from the schools. He wished to ask the House whether there was any sort of good rea- son why boys in large towns between the ages of five and eight should not be at school? If they were not at school they were sure to be in the streets, and yet it was found that, according to the statements of the parents, only about one-half of the children between these ages were at school. He would defy anyone to put forward any excuse which could palliate the grievous wrong thus done to those young children. Not satisfied with those two modes of inquiry, the persons conducting the investigation ascertained from the families of the young people that, out of 7,000 young persons between the ages of fourteen and fifteen who had left school, only 50 per cent could honestly be declared able to read and write. Being desirous of gaining still further particulars respecting the real state of the education of young persons between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one, the Education Aid Society fixed upon Mr. Long, the second master of a training school near Birmingham, to procure the necessary information; and that gentleman went to the factories and selected for examination 529 males and 379 females, who in his opinion might be taken as fair samples of their class. He examined them, and reported that, of reading and writing, nearly one-half of the number knew nothing or next to nothing; that in arithmetic and general knowledge more than three-fourths failed, or nearly so; and only one-twentieth showed anything like a satisfactory degree of attainments. The Government should verify these facts, and give the stamp of official sanction to the society's declaration as to the state of education in Birmingham, and, he might add, in other large towns. The result of the examination of Mr. Long was this—that out of all these young persons examined there were only 4 per cent, or one in twenty-five, that attained the fourth standard and passed in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Was the education of the working class advancing, or was it retrograding? Recently he saw a statement made by a society in Manchester, that after thirty years' voluntary efforts, education in that city had actually gone back as regarded the proportion of children actually at school. He could not say whether that was the case, but he knew that in Birmingham, in 1857, 42 per cent of the children between the ages of seven and thirteen were at school; in 1867 the number did not exceed 44 per cent. That showed an advance of 2 per cent; but he was inclined to believe that the investigation in 1857 was more searching than the later inquiry, and that consequently the advance of 2 per cent was rather nominal than real. In all towns there appeared to be an increasing mass of children left untaught, and for whom the existing system did absolutely nothing. The principal visitor of the Birmingham Education Aid Society expressed his belief that 6,000 or 7,000 of the 34,000 children not at school in Birmingham belonged to families whose average earnings per week did not exceed 2s. per head. Now the cost per head per week in the workhouse for food only was 3s. per week. How did the families of these 6,000 or 7,000 children live? He had asked that question of a working man, and the answer was, "They don't live, Sir, they starve." It was this class which served to raise the fever-rate and the death-rate. He was told that there were 1,000 of these children unable to go to school for want of clothes. What were the educational agencies at work in these large towns to meet and overcome that horrible state of things? He admitted that the Industrial Schools Act was a beneficial measure, but under it only a small portion of the neglected children could be taught. There was another Act which ought to have effected much, but which had done nothing—he referred to the enactment known as Denison's Act. In 1866 he applied to the Board of Guardians to know the number of children belonging to out-door paupers between the ages of four and ten, who were not attending school; and he found that there were 1,521, the whole of whom ought to have been at school, if the provisions of the Denison Act had been properly carried out. The Birmingham Education Aid Society implored the guardians to put Denison's Act in force, and yet there were at that moment 1,893 such children as he had referred to, between the ages of four and ten, for whose absence from school there was no sort of excuse, and after all the efforts that had been made only 10 per cent of those children attended school. Great hopes had been based on the operation of the Factory Acts, but in many cases the result even of carrying them out most perfectly would be insufficient; and he thought that those who looked for much from them would be disappointed. It was said—though he did not endorse the calculation—that only 7 per cent of the children in Birmingham could come under the operation of the Acts, if fully carried out. Mr. Baker, one of the inspectors, estimated the number of childdren in factories in Birmingham employing upwards of fifty hands, before the Act came into operation, at 3,000, and there were only now 234 at school. The effect of the Act had been that the manufactories had been emptied of children, but the schools had not been filled. With respect to the work which had been done by Government, there were 13,000 children in the inspected schools—and although he was not satisfied with their education, it was certainly the best they could obtain under the present system. The number of children attending those schools was only progressing at the rate of 1,000 per annum, and the increase in the number attending inspected schools did not necessarily mean an increase in the total number of scholars, because many were merely transferred from uninspected schools; and it would be impossible that we could feel satisfied to wait until the whole of the 34,000 had been gathered in by the existing system. The Education Aid Society had tried to effect that laudable object, and by paying the whole of the school fees they brought in about 5,000. But the society was based on voluntaryism, which was a weak reed to rest upon, and now they sent but little over 2,000 to school. They had implored the town to come to their aid, but there was little hope of their being able to do more than just keep up the present number. He had been asked to beg of a Minister of State to visit Birmingham, and attend the society's annual meeting, in the hope of thereby attracting a large audience and drawing a considerable sum of money out of their pockets. What the society now got came from a hard working and over-taxed few, who were ready to make sacrifices for the benefit of these poor children, but who found their resources insufficient to meet the increasing demands made upon them. Were this Committee granted, he anticipated that the investigation of facts and figures would lead, even in the present Session, to legislative measures of practical and im- mediate value. The Industrial Schools Act, to which many said they might have recourse, had been carried out in some places, but in most others it remained a a dead letter. There were many who agreed with him in thinking that it, as well as Denison's Act, ought to be made compulsory. Why should they not say that with out-door relief should, go education to the children of the recipients? It would, no doubt, increase the cost and burden upon the ratepayers, but only for a time; and they would speedily obtain a full reward, not only in the blessings that would fall upon the children, but in the saving of charges on the rates. He agreed with the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Melly), that, if we were to have a real and effective effort made for the purpose of grappling with this great mass of ignorance in our large towns, we must no longer rest on the system of voluntaryism or its twin sister denominationalism. That system would not reach the masses in those great and populous districts. It had been proved over and over again in our large towns that it was unequal to the task. If they desired to make education a reality, and to diffuse its blessings generally throughout the country, they must remove its basis from the methods of voluntaryism to the taxation of the country, and he believed that what was required might be provided almost at once. It was not necessary that they should interfere directly with existing schools, but that they should direct their eyes to the destitution which existed, which had not been reached, and could not be reached by any other plan than that of State support. Could the new Parliament, elected largely by working-men, permit the continuance of a state of things dangerous to the prosperity of the nation, which working men regarded with the greatest apprehension, and for the removal of which they were willing and anxious to make any sacrifices which the House could call upon them to make? Of course it would be necessary that the schools to be provided by the ratepayers should be unsectarian, for the time was gone by when the money of the State could be applied, directly or indirectly, to religious education, and what was occurring with regard to Ireland showed that dogmatic and religious teaching was a matter which the State ought not to interfere with. He had never heard a dif- ficulty started by working men in opposition to compulsory education. During the four months of the great contest at the last election in Birmingham, he never attended any meeting when the question of education was referred to, at which the opinion was not loudly expressed that compulsory attendance at schools was required. As to the hardship of carrying it out, how should the working man feel it, when they submitted voluntarily to hardships that were far greater, obeying their trades union committees, and striving in thousands for weeks and months, upon half rations, to carry out the objects they deemed right? In doing this, they did what was incomparably more difficult than that which would be asked from them under such a plan as was proposed. Had they not submitted to the burdensome operation of the Factory Acts which, by one stroke of the pen, deprived thousands of families who were already on the brink of pauperism of the very means of keeping their heads above it? Could they want more illustrations of how much these men would bear, when they were told that, by the operation of one clause of the Reform Act of 1867, no less than 15,000 summonses and 5,000 distress warrants had been taken out in one town, indicating an amount of suffering which could hardly be conceived? Those who had before them a prospect of the education of thousands of children, now neglected, and growing up in the nurseries of pauperism and crime, would respond with unanimous enthusiasm to the call made upon them, and say—"Give us a measure which may be enforced by the arm of the law, against those who would oppose the rescue, through its salutary operation, of these poor innocents from a life of possible degradation and crime." He had no doubt himself that they would find it was the best and wisest course to make those schools for destitute children free schools. The difficulty would no doubt be great, but the result also must and would be great. All those children who were now in the denominational schools of the country—schools which undoubtedly had done great good—were in reality charity children, for were the assistance at present afforded by the rich withdrawn, the schools would vanish from the face of the land. He had often said himself that, if he were a working man, he should be ashamed to send his children to a charity school, though he would be glad to do so to an independent school maintained out of the taxation of the country, to which he contributed his fair share, and in the management of which he had some voice. He had been returned to that House to represent there more than one-third of a million of people, and in the course of his canvass he had found three sentiments uppermost in the minds of the working classes—a desire for justice to Ireland in the disestablishment of the Irish Church; justice for themselves in the abolition of the ratepaying clauses; and justice for their children in the extension and improvement of national education. He believed he owed his election to the feeling that, if returned, he would do what he could to place their claims before the House. With that responsibility, he appealed to Ministers to take up this great question without delay, to give it their full and serious consideration, and to let the country, know at as early a period as possible, what were the principles on which their measures would be based, in order that they might receive ample criticism, and, when necessary, modification. He would ask them to be courageous in their measures, and look to their effect upon those whose children would be benefited. When those who had now political power placed in their hands for the first time wished to use it in the greatest and noblest work in which they could be engaged, and when, on the other hand, dangers of the most formidable kind were to be apprehended from neglect of their demands, he hoped Ministers would see that their just and reasonable expectations should be fulfilled.

said, that, in asking the House not to grant this Committee, he hoped it was not necessary for him to assure the hon. Gentleman by whom it had been proposed, that he (Mr. Fawcett) made the objection in no spirit of hostility. He agreed in the main with the opinions expressed by his hon. Friends who had brought the subject forward; his object was the same as theirs, and the only difference between his hon. Friends and himself was that, they thought that granting the Select Committee would promote the education of the people, whilst he thought that, if it had any effect at all, it would most probably retard legislation on the subject. It had been his duty on more than one occasion to object to the growing frequency with which Committees were granted in that House. Great and often unnecessary expense was thereby incurred, and this was by no means the worst evil. His experience in that House had shown him that a Committee often enabled the Government to shift responsibility with regard to important questions from its own shoulders to those of the House. No Committee could ever do good, unless it took evidence on both sides; and the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen made it abundantly evident that it would be impossible for a Select Committee to investigate the enormous mass of materials which they had brought forward. He thought the Government had in their hands abundant matter to enable them to frame a comprehensive scheme of national education. They had the Report of the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, which made its inquiry in 1861; and he had no hesitation in saying that a more complete and exhaustive investigation than was made by that Commission had never been carried on by any Commission or any Committee. But, in addition to that Report, they had the annual Reports issued by the Privy Council, the Reports of the inspectors, and also the investigations of two or three Select Committees. He, therefore, hoped that the Government would not grant this Committee. He would ask his hon. Friends to consider for a moment what must be the result, if their Motion were agreed to. The Committee must take evidence in support of the various views put forward on national education; and it would scarcely be possible for them to close their inquiry and make their Report before the close of the present Session. If they did not, and the Government attempted to legislate at the beginning of next Session, it would be said to them—"You appointed a Committee which has not reported. It is unfair, therefore, of you to talk of legislating on the subject." He hoped, therefore, the Government would say, in reply to the Motion of his hon. Friends—"We have enough of information at hand to enable us to legislate next Session. If we find that any of the facts on which we intend to rely want verification, we shall send down competent officials to the particular locality respecting which inquiry is necessary, and there have an investigation on the spot." He agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that national education was one of the greatest of all questions that could be considered by Parliament. The Commission of 1861 reported that, under the system of grants from the Privy Council, we never could have an effective plan of national education. One of the great objections to that system was that under its operation the wealthiest parishes sometimes received the largest share of the grants, and that the poorest sometimes received no aid at all. According to the latest Returns, out of 14,800 parishes, 9,700 did not receive one farthing of assistance from the Government. That grave defect of the system arose, he believed, from the rule adopted, and perhaps necessarily adopted, by the Privy Council, that no parish should receive any assistance unless it was already provided with the comparatively expensive luxury of a certificated teacher. Another evil connected with those grants was that in rich parishes, where superior school buildings were erected, and where the schools themselves were munificently maintained, a class of children found their way into the schools for whom national schools were never intended. Since the Commission of 1861 reported the educational problem had become simplified. At that time a powerful party—the voluntary party, led in that House with so much ability by his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines)—had to be conciliated; but since then that party had found that, in politics, there was no general rule without an exception, and with admirable frankness they now admitted that, by voluntaryism, we could not educate the most neglected class of our children. It had been said that things were improving, and that if we only let our present educational agency go on for a few years longer, the coun- try would become sufficiently educated. He would only say that, in England, no inconsiderable portion of the population could neither read nor write, while in Prussia, Saxony, and the New England States, it was rare to find a child who had not the rudiments of knowledge. In London, he believed, something like one-half the children who ought to be at school were not at school; and the same thing was said of Manchester and other large towns. It would be said that, in 1867, the compulsory provisions of the Factory Acts were extended to every branch of labour except agriculture. He admitted that this was so; and he was willing to admit also that, after the Reports of the Commissioners, who had inquired into the condition of the children employed in gangs at agriculture, it was in the highest degree probable that those provisions would be extended to agriculture. There would be something in that argument if all the children of the school age, who were not at school, were at work; but on this point there had been some appalling discoveries within the last few years. He was yesterday reading a speech of his hon. Friend the senior Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley) who stated his belief that in that city more than one-half the children who ought to be at school were neither at school nor at work. That assertion was verified by a house-to-house visitation. Out of 11,000 such children, it was found that 5,200 were either at school or at work, while 5,800 were at neither. It would appear, therefore, that in Manchester—and, no doubt, it was the same in other places—the largest proportion of the children whose education was now neglected could not be got at by even the most rigid application of the Factory Acts. Again, though he was as much in favour of those Acts as anyone could be, they had this disadvantage, that undoubtedly they were an interference with the employer; and it was found in many cases that, rather than put up with this interference, employers tried to get rid of children's labour. Consequently it often happened that a number of children were dismissed from employment by reason of the Factory Acts, while the ignorance or poverty of the parents prevented their being sent to school. But if compulsory attendance at school were enforced in the case of all children, then those children who were now dismissed from labour would not be driven into the streets, but would be sent to school, and, at any rate, they would derive a great advantage from such a change in the law. Those who subscribed most generously in aid of the voluntary effort were the very men who were now coming forward to say that it was impossible to have a satisfactory system of national education founded on that plan. He had received a letter yesterday from the Secretary of the Manchester and Salford Educational Aid Society, informing him that in consequence of the falling off in the amount of the subscriptions which that Society had lately received, they could afford aid to only 4,000 children at the present time, whereas they formerly assisted 10,000; and that where they formerly gave 4d. they could now only give 3d. or 2d., and where they formerly gave 2d. they now only gave 1d. The letter further stated that the educational efforts of the society were to a great extent frustrated by the indifference of the parents, an assertion that was supported by the significant fact that during the past year they were compelled to dismiss 1,500 children who were receiving aid, in consequence of their irregular attendance at school. What was the remedy for this indifference on the part of the parents to the advantages which were offered to their children by means of education? The House would recollect that in 1867 the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Vice President of the Council introduced a Bill for permissive rating, but the lapse of twelve months showed them that they had not advanced far enough on the right road, and consequently their Bill of 1868 was a measure for compulsory rating. He earnestly hoped that still farther advances would be made, and that when the subject was again dealt with compulsory rating would be supplemented by compulsory attendance. He was certain that a Bill for compulsory rating alone would not meet the educational requirements of the people, and he believed that the country would never accept of a compulsory rating Bill which did not contain a provision for compulsory attendance. No one could say that the popular ignorance was attributable to a deficiency of schools, because the facts that had been brought forward that evening completely refuted that notion. He, however, by no means wished to be understood as saying that there were no districts where schools were not deficient, or that there were no places where the erection of more schools would not be a boon to the surrounding neighbourhood; but what he meant was that in every town and in every village in the country there was more school accommodation than was made use of by the children residing near it. He could point out village after village with which he was acquainted in which the schools were sufficiently good, but where the education given in them went for nothing, in consequence of the removal at an early age of the children who, when grown up, were unable to read or write with facility. Those children who remained and availed themselves fully of the educational advantages offered to them were the children of small farmers and tradesmen, whose parents could afford to pay for their education. It was the ignorance, the poverty, or the selfishness of parents which was the cause of their indifference to the education of their children. Some were too ignorant to appreciate the blessings of education, others were too poor to deprive themselves of the extra shilling or two that their children could earn for them; while others were so selfish that they would ruin their children and cast upon them the blight of ignorance sooner than surrender the earnings of their children, which they spent upon tobacco or gin. But then, it was asked, would compulsory attendance effect the object they had in view? He believed that no remedy would be found for the defects of the present system until the State recognized the great principle that it was as much the duty of a father to provide education for his children as to provide food and clothing for them. While deprecating as much as anyone Government interference with individual action, he thought that, when a clear and distinct duty which the parent owed the child was neglected, the State became the natural protector of the child, and was bound to interfere in its behalf. It had been objected that such an interference with the rights of the parent would be un-English; but that argument had been set aside twenty years since, when the compulsory education clauses in the Factory Acts were passed. A short time since the Vice-President of the Council said, at Manchester, that as we had not scrupled to force compulsory education upon children who were at work in the factories, we should still less scruple to force it upon those who were not at work. Those were words of happy omen for the future, because he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was of too robust a nature for his opinions upon the subject to be altered by official life. A few days ago the Sheffield Town Council passed a resolution in favour of compulsory education, and there was no sentiment which was received with half such enthusiasm throughout the country as a firm determination to support compulsory national education. It was then objected that compulsory attendance was all very well in theory, but that it would not do in practice. But who was it that raised that objection? Certainly not those who would be affected by the change; it did not proceed from the working men. Had the system of compulsory attendance been found impracticable in Prussia, in Saxony, or in the New England States? The proposal did not emanate from doctrinaires or from political dreamers, but from the practical hard-headed men of business of the north of England. It was further objected that the adoption of a compulsory system would destroy voluntary zeal, but had the Poor Laws destroyed voluntary zeal for the relief of the poor? On the contrary, it had been recently ascertained that no less a sum than £5,000,000 annually was contributed voluntarily for charitable purposes. One reason why he was anxious to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and upon the Vice President of the Council the necessity for combining compulsory attendance with compulsory rating was that the rating question in this country was every day assuming greater and a more serious importance, in consequence of the rates in many districts having attained the maximum amount to which they could be raised. Under these circumstances it would be impossible to induce people to assent to an increase in those rates for any purpose, unless it could be proved that such increase would lead almost immediately to their reduction. If a compulsory rate were sanctioned without compulsory attendance being enforced, what security was there that, when the rate had been levied and schools built and supported by it, neglected children would go into those schools? Judging from the experience of Government Grants to schools, was there not rather reason to suppose that the schools would be to a great extent used by those who ought to pay for their own education? But compulsory attendance once facilitating the education of children now neglected crime and pauperism would infallibly be diminished, in spite of what had been said by certain dignified persons in "another place;" for the country would never listen to the degrading doctrine that there was no connection between crime and ignorance. This argument would not fail to commend itself to the ratepayers, heavily burdened as they might be at this moment—"Bear the educational rate for a short time; it will eventually lead to a diminution of crime and pauperism, and, with the reduction of these, the burden of local taxation will also be sensibly diminished." Hon. Gentlemen opposite might probably contend that there ought to be no fresh additions to local taxation until the system itself, than which, he admitted, nothing could be worse, had been adjusted. If they would accept a suggestion from him, it would be that education and pauperism ought both to be regarded partly as a local and partly as a national charge. This he said, believing that localities were not separately responsible for the poverty and ignorance existing in them, the causes by which these were produced being partly local and partly Imperial in their nature. The religious difficulty he did not regard as insurmountable, for the people of this country were beginning to resolve that sectarian feelings should no longer stand in the way of education. He did not wish to introduce irreligious education, and there was no wish to do anything antagonistic to denominational i schools; but, as practical men, they knew; that schools which were supported by rates must be entirely undenominational. Those who preferred denominational schools would be free to establish and support them, and if any district liked to have denominational schools, it might altogether escape a rate if a Government inspector reported that it was sufficiently provided with schools. As to the advance of education generally, he would only remark that each year competition with foreign countries was becoming keener and closer, and English industry must succumb in the struggle if other nations had educated labour and we had not. Let the House reflect how ineffectual our vast material gains of late years had been to effect any marked improvement in the moral condition of the people. Free Trade had been established; the Corn Laws had been repealed, there had been an enormous development of our railway system, our exports and imports had trebled, and yet pauperism was ever coming upon us with giant strides. Pæans were sung over our growing trade, and yet, from a Return issued by the Poor Law Board not more than a month ago, he saw that during the last nine years the amount expended upon outdoor relief in the metropolis had increased by 130 per cent. Was not that a portentous fact? The more they spent in the relief of pauperism the more pauperism seemed to increase. Why not try to reverse our policy? Pauperism seemed now to feed upon the bounty of the State. Like unthrifty husbandmen, we permitted weeds to be sown and to grow up with the corn, instead of attempting to destroy the seeds of future evil. Compulsory education, if established, would only be required for a single generation. Let the nation once be really educated, and then they could do without a compulsory system. Mr. Mark Pattison, one of the Commissioners of 1861, who officially visited the Continent, said, speaking of Germany—

"Schooling there is compulsory only in name. The school has become so deeply rooted in the social habits of the German people that, if the law were repealed to-morrow, the schools would continue to be as full as they are now."

That extract was taken from the speech of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who yet declared soon afterwards—"You who wish for compulsory education are striving after that which is Quixotic and impracticable." He could only reply that the political events of the last few years ought not to frighten anyone from striving after that which was Quixotic and impracticable. Household suffrage was once a point of the Charter, but it became a triumphant political cry. Though young in political life, he could remember when the disestablishment of the Irish Church was regarded as a dream, and its disendowment as a mere piece of visionary enthusiasm. Twelve short months since the Ballot was never mentioned except to be treated with official ridicule. Now, the question had passed below the Gangway to the elevated region of the Treasury Bench. So it would be with education. If its advocates had truth and right on their side, all they need do was to persevere—and some were prepared to do this—to work hard in the House, and harder still out of it. They had everything to encourage them. The growth of public opinion on this question had been so rapid, so extraordinary, that he would venture to predict that before many years were past no Government, whether Radical, Whig, or Conservative, would be able to appeal to the sympathies of enfranchised artizans unless that Government was prepared to exert all its influence in support of compulsory national education. He would move, as an Amendment to the Motion—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient to grant the proposed Committee, because the Government has at its command the information necessary for the framing of a comprehensive measure of National Education; and this House is further of the opinion that it is most important that such a measure should be introduced with the least possible delay.

said, that amongst the educated classes of the country there was no dispute as to the fact that the present state of national education required to be improved. The only dispute was as to the best mode of effecting that object. He, for his part, could not quite agree either with the proposition contained in the Motion before the House, or in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He could not think that they wanted the Inquiry which was moved for by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Melly), nor was he so sanguine as to think with the hon. Member for Brighton that they were in the way of immediate legislation. Having had the great advantage of three able and useful speeches, the House might as well pass on to the other Orders of the day. He wished, however, to congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent on his earnest and eloquent speech, which showed that his heart was thoroughly in his work. He was glad to welcome such a recruit to the ranks of those who were devoting themselves to so important a cause. There could be no doubt as to the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, that large numbers of children were, in all our great cities and towns, running idle, and that meant really being trained for crime. The hon. Gentleman had admitted, however, that there were a great number of vacancies in the existing schools. This fact showed that many of the children who were idling about the streets were not unprovided for, but were absentees from the existing schools, and only wanted to be made to enter them. In asking for compulsory powers with regard to those children, as he had done, the hon. Gentleman was not asking for that which his Motion asked for, but merely for extended police powers; and his argument rather applied to the Habitual Criminals Bill of the Government than to an extended scheme of education. The police powers he really asked for would be no novelty, but had been granted in the Industrial Schools Act, and he seemed only to wish that children of the class he had described should be similarly compelled to attend the elementary schools of our large towns, just as the children of a very kindred class might now be compelled to attend the industrial schools. What sort of inquiry would the Committee, the hon. Member desired, have to pursue? To him (Mr. Adderley) it seemed that the House had already had an abundant, if not an excessive amount, of inquiry on that subject; and he thought it would be almost an abuse of the system of inquiry to go on year after year investigating the same subject, even precisely the same branch of the subject, and filling their Library with acres of folios containing evidence which had been repeated ten times over. There were several inquiries before the exhaustive inquiry made by the Duke of Newcastle's Commission. There had since been the inquiry by the Committee of his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), which sat for two years, and presented two folio volumes of evidence. Another Committee, moved for by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), had since sat. Besides inquiries by Committees, there had been a number of Bills introduced to deal with this particular subject. There was a volume of unpassed Bills in the Library. There was the Manchester Bill of 1850, which he had himself introduced as a hybrid Bill, and on which there was the longest debate that ever occurred on a local Bill—lasting from four o'clock until midnight. He had never ceased to regret that this Bill did not pass, for he thought then, as he thought now, that the question could not be more satisfactorily dealt with than by allowing large towns which were willing to try the experiment by taxing themselves, and give the country the benefit of the result of the experience thus gained. Next came the Bill of his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), the Borough Bill of Lord John Russell, and Mr. Cobden's Bill. Besides these Bills various Resolutions had been passed by the House. All this proved that if the House had not made up its mind how to act, it had, at least, before it the materials for so doing. The hon. Gentleman, moreover, was positively asking the Government and the Opposition to stultify themselves, because the present Home Secretary had introduced two Bills, and the Duke of Marlborough had, as President of the Council last year, introduced a measure in the House of Lords, including clauses expressly on the subject of these very children. The hon. Member asked these Ministers and ex-Ministers to affirm by his Motion that these Bills had been introduced without sufficient information or inquiry But while a Committee was inexpedient, some measure was doubtless required. He had himself wished to call the attention of the House to the subject this Session, and to move a Resolution, but the Secretary of State for the Home Department having announced that the Government had their hands full of other subjects, and, besides, were introducing Bills relating to education, had almost precluded themselves or any individual Member from introducing any general measure on the subject this Session with success. The Government had not only other public measures on hand, but they were about to propose two important measures which were distinctly preparatory to a general measure of education. The first was a very wide measure on school endowments, and the country would reasonably say, "Prove that you have made the best use of the funds you possess before you ask for more." The next was the Bill on the subject of Rating, and the House would not be able to debate the various proposals for aiding national education until they knew on what basis the incidence of the proposed taxation was to fall. For himself, he had come to the conclusion that soon after these preparatory Bills legislation on the general subject was not wanted. The existing system had not yet been carried out to the utmost extent. It would be far better, at least, to try to do so than to have a complication of two systems, one of which would be in the way of the other. The matter might, he thought, be dealt with by further Minutes of Council. He was glad to find that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent in his speech did not contemplate the constitution of anything like a new class of schools, because it was rather the tendency when a want was discovered to provide a new remedy instead of making the most of what existed. Nothing could be worse than the needless multiplication of different kinds of State-aided schools. The number of classes of such schools in this country was, in his opinion, already excessive. There were schools for the poor generally, aided by the State; there were reformatories, industrial schools, and pauper schools, besides art and science schools. He thought they had already made a needless distinction between the reformatory and the industrial schools, which were really intended for the same class of children—the idle and those who had committed a theft were only the bud and the fruit of the same tree. The evils of such a distinction were three-fold. In the first place, by treating the industrial schools as schools for honest children they treated the reformatory schools as penal schools. Now, a reformatory ought never to be considered as a penal institution at all. The child was punished in prison, and then the State undertook to make up for the neglect of the parents by giving the child the education they had neglected to give him. It was monstrous to treat a child penally for six years, or during all his childhood. Another evil of this needless multiplication of schools was that schools became divided among so many different Departments of the administration that the House could not obtain a comprehensive view of what they were voting in the way of education, and never knew what they were undertaking. They looked into the Estimates and saw so much charged for primary schools and so much for fine art schools; but that was only a small part of the public funds devoted to schools. There were pauper schools under the Poor Law Board; the reformatory schools were placed under the Home Secretary, as if they were an affair of police; while others were under the control of the Committee of Council on Education. He contended that all aided schools ought to be placed under the management of one central educational department. He had long advocated that view, and he was glad to find that the House was beginning to be of the same opinion It would be a most material improvement if all the educational institutions to which the State contributed were brought under that one Department over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, (Mr. W. E. Foster) presided. That was a very good reason against any new kind of schools. What, then, did the hon. Member for Stoke want?

explained that he had already said he wanted free municipal schools, supported out of rates and with no religious education given in them, as supplementary to the denominational schools now existing and supported by voluntary contributions.

said, he apprehended these were merely accidental features of the system. What he understood the hon. Gentleman really to want was a larger number of elementary day schools in towns. How they were to be supported, or how administered, was a different question. The subject had been dealt with in every Bill that had been introduced, by every Committee and every Commission, and was to be found in every Report. It might be dealt with by the House in the shape either of a Resolution or a Bill. The question was, should they supplement the present system by local rates? His opinion was, they should try to carry out the Treasury Grant system more efficiently. He was not ready till that had been fairly tried to propose any supplement from the local rates. It was another question—whether the denominational system had failed, and whether a purely secular system should be substituted for it. That question also might be dealt with in a Resolution or a Bill. He confessed he should wish to see the denominational system farther carried out. It had not been completely successful, but it had done wonders. Its success was increasing, and by the zeal exhibited in its support, he thought it might be carried out so as to complete its work. In his speech, made a few days ago, Earl Russell seemed to think the denominational system must be abandoned; that the voluntary support on which it was based had failed; that it had thrown the work too much on the clergy and the ministers of religion; and that the burden it imposed was a very unequal one. To make the system more efficient he said we must allow the State to take more power, and he referred to the example of Ireland, where the State gave, not as in England 60 per cent, but 93 per cent. The State being so large a contributor could deal more peremptorily with the question. But, after all, in Ireland the system had practically reduced itself to the denominational system. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants had each schools for themselves. Therefore he did not think the argument of the noble Earl was borne out by his illustration. He thought it would be well to try a little longer whether tue Treasury could not supplement the denominational system, at the same time stimulating the private effort which it encouraged throughout the country. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, he thought the hon. Member had made a wise distinction between town and country. He understood the hon. Member's Motion to refer to those large towns where numbers of children were left neglected in the streets. There the hon. Gentleman was right. The hon. Member had given them the statistics of four of the principal towns, and he (Mr. Adderley) thought these towns might advantageously be dealt with in the first instance. The reason why Scotland had gone so long without an Education Bill, or receiving its fair share of the Treasury Grants, was that the proposed Bills attempted too much by embracing the whole country. The old endowment of the heritors' tax provided for the counties, but the towns required a different provision. This was the difficulty, and if a Bill had been introduced for the larger towns, it would long ago have passed. He wished the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) would introduce a hybrid Bill— it was not yet too late in the Session—for the purpose of enabling those two great towns to show the way, and to rate themselves for elementary day schools. He believed those towns would be ready to avail themselves of such a power, and of the experiment thus made the rest of the country might take advantage. The rest of the proposition was to give the power to the police to take vagrant children from the streets and convey them before a magistrate, and, unless reason were shown to the contrary, to send them to school, charging the parents or guardians for their schooling. That proposition had nothing novel in it, and might be contained in a very short Bill. It would simply apply to elementary day schools a power already given to the police in the Industrial Schools Act. He did not think upon the whole that the House ought to consent to any further inquiry.

said, he certainly could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) that the country was ripe for the revolutionary change in our educational system which he advocated; but he was not sorry that his hon. Friend had brought before the House that broad question which was agitating the minds of all those who took an interest in the well-being of the people—the question whether they should retain the present educational machinery; whether they should preserve their voluntary system; or whether they should copy that system of the compulsory attendance of children combined with the compulsory maintenance of schools which prevailed elsewhere. Now, while he differed from those who advocated such a sweeping change, he heartily sympathized with them in their disappointment at the shortcomings of our present system. It certainly as yet was very far from accomplishing all that we might have hoped from it. It could not be denied that there were in all our great towns large masses of children who were neither at work nor at school, and that even of those who were nominally receiving education a very large proportion never got beyond the merest rudiments, and derived little if any lasting good from the schooling they received. With these deficiencies, some impatience would naturally be felt at the inadequacy of our educational machinery. The remedy proposed was two-fold. The leading proposal was to make the attendance of the children compulsory, as in Saxony and Prussia. No feeling of tenderness for the parents would deter him for one from adopting compulsion. Society was suffering grievously from their shameful apathy with regard to the education of their children; and the House had a perfect right to insist upon their doing their duty. The only question was, whether the thing could really be carried out. As the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council most justly said at the Manchester Conference, it was very wrong for Parliament to pass laws without carefully considering whether they could be enforced, because it inevitably weakened the respect of the people for law when they found it shuffled aside. There lay the gist of the question—whether, if such a law were passed, it could be carried out; and he could not see what machinery at present existed for enforcing it. One thing was clear—that the police must not be called into action for the purpose, nor yet the clergy; and it remained to be seen whether any other effective agency could be created. Again, some ridicule had been cast upon the phrase that had been occasionally used about this matter, the phrase that it would be un-English to apply such compulsion to the parents. He was not to be frightened by a phrase of that sort from doing what was necessary. But, after all, they would find themselves powerless if they went against the grain of the national mind; and certainly it was undeniable that our people have not been accustomed to the system of parental government—the meddling superintendence over their private concerns—to which the people in many parts of Europe had been broken in. And it was, in his opinion, a sound practical objection to say that the political habits of our people were out of keeping with the system it was proposed to introduce. At the same time, it was difficult to tell beforehand how far this would really be found a practical impediment. It was very possible that the working classes might hail this system as a real boon to them, or that, at any rate, they would very quickly learn to adapt themselves to it. This, then, was exactly the case in which it would be desirable to go on by way of experiment; and an admirable opportunity of doing so was offered. Why not permit Manchester, Liverpool, and a few other great towns which appeared to be very anxious to adopt the plan of compulsory attendance to do so? The experiment would furnish them with trustworthy facts by which to decide the question whether the system could be made to work well with the English people, and in what way efficiency could be best insured. The true object of the second proposal was to get rid of the present system of voluntary maintenance, and to establish a system copied from the Continent; by which the schools, instead of emanating from private sources, and trrusting for maintenance to private persons, assisted by the Government, should be public institutions maintained by the locality out of its rates, though, perhaps, still aided from national funds. Admitting that those who took the lead in advocating the change did so from an earnest desire to promote the education of the poor, he must remark that they were supported by others who were extremely jealous of what is called the supremacy of the Church over education. If there were any proof that the influence of the clergy had been used in a mischievous manner; if there were reason to think that it had tended to make the people bigoted, or narrow, or sectarian, or if the people had been imbued by the clergy with ultra-ecclesiastical nonsense, then this objection would be well-founded, and a powerful motive would exist, for taking the education of the working classes out of such hands. But he could not discover any indication of such a pernicious influence. On the contrary, there were a thousand proofs that the children left school without any apparent taint of the kind whatever; and, in his opinion, it would be most ungrateful if they did not allow that this country owed an enormous debt of gratitude to the clergy for their strenuous, self-sacrificing exertions on behalf of the education of the poor. It was not necessary, however, to consider the interest of the clergy in the matter, either on one side or the other. The sole question was how could they best educate their children? Probably, if the whole question of education were before them for the first time, with no system whatever in existence, they would not adopt the denominational voluntary system; but it must not be forgotten that already the country had a gigantic machinery at work, which obtained the full concurrence, the earnest co-operation of the country, and which, though it did not as yet bear all the fruit expected and desired, yet had already wrought effects of infinite value. Already by means of this agency they had 1 in 7·7 of the whole population on the school books, while the proportion in Prussia—the best educated country in the world—did not exceed 6·25. Nor was it from want of machinery that the proportion was not a great deal larger. Everyone practically familiar with the subject knew that the still existing and lamentable want of education among the working class was only in a very limited degree due to the want of school accomodation; it was almost altogether due to the deplorable apathy of the parents. A very striking proof of this was afforded in Manchester. The Education Aid Society at Manchester—which had been at work for many years, strenuously exerting itself to encourage the attendance of children as well as to provide school accomodation—used to issue tickets to the children of the really poor, which enabled those children to go to school gratis; and yet in December, 1866, out of just 21,000 children who had received such tickets, less than 10,000 were found to be attending school. More than half the number were at home, although there was school accomodation for them, and every difficulty, except that arising from the shameful apathy of the parents, had been removed. No change from a voluntary system to a compulsory rating system would have any marked effect in increasing the number of children under education. And would it not be rash to sweep away a great and solid system, the fruits of the conscientious benevolence of the people, simply because it had not yet reached perfection? No one denied that it had worked marvellously well; and no doubt it was becoming every day more and more efficient. It had been shown the other day by Earl de Grey and Ripon that last year the number of schools inspected had increased by just 1,000; the number of children present at inspection was more than 1,500,000, an increase of 136,000; the average annual number attending was 1,241,000, an increase of little less than 100,000, while the number of certificated teachers, of assistant-teachers, and of pupil-teachers, had all largely increased. The system, then, was neither decaying nor stationary; it was growing vigorously, and was really adapted to the feelings and wishes of the people, and to the circumstances of the country. Then, again, there was the matter-of-fact difficulty which they were bound to take fully into account—the pressure of the rates. Already they were producing very disastrous effects in many parts of the country. They caused very great suffering, especially to the lower portion of the middle class and to the working classes, and sunk many into pauperism who would else be able to keep themselves afloat. Perhaps the worst effect of the present high local rates was that they so greatly discouraged the building of houses for the poor. It was a serious thing to increase this mischievous burden, and it seemed rather rash to throw the support of our schools upon this precarious and painful source of income, when, in doing so, voluntary contributions amounting to fully £500,000 a year would perforce be extinguished. He would not touch upon the religious difficulties to which the proposal of his hon. Friend would give rise beyond observing that it would never do to stir up against them the conscientious feelings of the people. This religious difficulty did not arise, as many seemed to think, from mere sectarian bigotry; there might be a little of that in it, but the people of this country had a profound conviction that their children should be brought up in the fear of God, and with a knowledge of their Christian duty. That feeling did not deserve contempt, and no system could flourish that did not fully recognize and respect it. Upon the whole he thought they ought to go on feeling their way towards something better, but maintained that the country was not prepared for the radical change which the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) appeared to indicate.

said, as the representative of a large constituency, he begged to offer his warm thanks to the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Melly) for having brought this subject so ably before the House. No one knew better than he how fit the hon. Member was to advise the House on the matter; it had been the study of the hon. Gentleman's life. The right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) had apparently not fully apprehended the point of the hon. Member's Motion, which was the importance of inquiring into the actual number of a very special class of children in large towns; he did not desire a general educational inquiry, but very properly wished to sift to the bottom the many startling statements continually circulating of the large number of children in the manufacturing districts totally destitute of education. Hardly any of the Commissions that had sat had reported as to the actual number of children who, from the poverty of their parents, could not attend school. The Factory Acts would, no doubt, very shortly meet the wants of a very large class of children who went to work, and would also be extended to the agricultural population as well, which would be a great benefit, and likely to meet the wants of the great labouring class of the population—namely, of those who were willing to work. Then, there was another class with regard to whom they had statistics—namely, the children of outdoor paupers. With that class, the Duke of Newcastle's Commission very wisely proposed to deal at once by making it compulsory on the guardians to grant relief only on condition that the parents should give the children education—the charge for that education to be thrown on the rates. No less than 288,000 children were proved to be receiving out-door relief. There was also a destitute class of children who were not working, and who were not known as out-door paupers. The House would probably recollect the very startling returns sent from Manchester, the accuracy of which had been denied by the officials of the National Society. With respect to Liverpool, returns had been drawn up by the chief constable, but he did not think that entire reliance could be placed upon their accuracy. The chief constable had put down the number of children who passed through the streets at a particular hour as destitute of education. But many of those children had probably been at school some part of the week, and therefore he doubted very much the complete accuracy of the startling figures with regard to Liverpool. He could speak with some experience with respect to London, as he had long had to do with the East-end. The Board of Education started by the present Archbishop of Canterbury stated that there were from 180,000 to 200,000 children in the metropolis destitute of education, but those figures were torn to pieces. Then, the managers of the Bishop of London's Fund put the number at 100,000, while the Ragged Schools Union stated that 30,000 children were still as destitute of education as the 30,000 now under instruction in the ragged schools of London. His point was this—that the accounts were so diverse that, before we were led into any great change in our educational system, which it was said would be made next year, it would be well to have accurate Returns of the number and condition of the educationally destitute children in the larger towns. He would, therefore, venture to suggest whether, instead of a Committee of that House, it would not be very much better, if Her Majesty's Government saw their way, to send commissioners to the five great towns of this country to make inquiries as to the special condition of this great class. If the House would allow him, he would, before he sat down, enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) as to the great change for which the country was prepared with respect to education. He had had a great deal to do with the artizan class in London, Staffordshire, and Liverpool, and his opinion was that, ardently as they desired education for their children, they would not be satisfied unless it had stamped upon it some distinctive religious character. He did not say that it should be the religious opinion of the Church to which he belonged, but the point was this—that they were determined that their children should be taught a distinctive creed of some sort; and he should be sorry if those who were the warm advocates of education were to mar the progress of the great cause by a vain, futile, and, as he believed, hopeless pursuit of secular education.

said, he entirely agreed with the noble Viscount (Viscount Sandon) that the thanks of the House were due to his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Melly) for the manner in which he had brought forward this question. His hon. Friend had taken great pains with the subject, not merely with a view to that debate, but practically for years, and they must all see traces of that in the remarkably clear and able statement which he had made to the House. He also agreed with the noble Viscount that the class of children to which he had called attention was distinct in itself. No doubt the condition of large numbers of children in our large towns, and not least in the largest towns, was one which had serious claims upon their attention. He believed his hon. Friend was correct in the words which he used when he spoke of the

"numbers of young children in our large towns who were growing up without any education, unaffected either by the educational clauses of the Factory Acts, or by voluntary efforts."

That was a very strong—he must say a fearful statement, but he believed it was strictly true. It was said by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton) that the system might be worked by the co-operation of the people. But those children got no education, because there was no co-operation on the part of their parents. They escaped the action of the denominational system, because their parents were not of that class that could be attracted by any one religious system. They escaped our Factory Acts—which had done great good—because very many of them were the children of parents who could not find work, or did not care to find it. Consequently, we had this fearful state of things—a large portion of the nation growing up in our large towns without education, and ready to become members of the dangerous classes. It was said by a noble Marquess in "another place" that education did not diminish crime. That was one of those paradoxes which none but great men ventured upon. Probably the noble Marquess intended to say that education did not diminish vice. Was there anyone who had to do with crime in the country that doubted that education diminished crime? This was most certainly the case—that, as civilization increased and wealth accumulated, the temptation to crime also increased; but education, giving men more head-power to resist temptation, tended the reforeto diminish crime. It was because this class of persons destitute of education had been growing up to such an extent that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department felt the extreme difficulty of suppressing the criminal classes, and it was on that account that we found ourselves engaged in the consideration of measures which he believed were necessary, but which our ancestors would have felt repugnant to the principles of English society. He agreed with the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) that the time had gone by for Committees. The time for Committees had passed, and the time for measures had come, and he believed for comprehensive measures. It might be asked—"Why not bring forward measures, then?" But no one would wonder that the Government had not brought forward a comprehensive measure this year. With what they had to do, it was practically impossible. To attempt to solve this question would require a Session in which it would be, if not the principal work, one of the principal. His right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Adderley) had certainly a plan in his mind by which to meet the difficulty, and that was by altering the present Minutes of the Revised Code. Well, he wished he could agree with his right hon. Friend, because that would certainly be a very summary mode of settling the question; but he believed it to be impossible. He did not imagine for a moment that the House would attempt in that way to make the changes which would be necessary to turn the present system into a national system, which, to use the words of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), would bring education home to all the children in the kingdom. That was a hard work which was before the Government and the House. It was one of the hardest problems that any Government could have to grapple with. If there were no educational system at all it might be easier to make a national system; but the problem they had to solve was how to change the present partial denominational system into a national system with the least possible injury to that which existed at present. They wanted to touch those large numbers who were growing up out of the reach of voluntary efforts, without taking away from the education of those who were now reached. His noble Friend Earl de Grey, in "another place," the other night gave the statistics of what the present system was doing. The present system was doing a great work. There were last year 15,500 schools under inspection, with an average attendance of 1,240,000 children. But he had lost hope that this system could be expected to do much more than keep pace with the increase of population among the classes which frequented the schools. The hardworking artizan who cared about education took advantage of the present system, as did also the men who could be persuaded by religious bodies to entrust them with the care of their children. But those with whom it was now necessary to deal belonged to neither of those classes; and the danger arose from that cause. That was one of their greatest difficulties in that work—how they were to meet the wants of those who were uncared for without injuring those who were cared for? Another branch of the subject which had been touched upon that evening, and which must be touched upon whenever they attempted by any measure to solve that problem, was this—that while it was quite clear that neither the country nor the House would consent to one religious denomination being aided more than another, nor to the public money being given to religious teaching—although he believed they would consent to public money being given for secular teaching in schools which also imparted religious teaching—yet he believed that the feeling of the country would be quite as strong, on the other hand, against any check, discouragement, or interference being offered to religious teaching. It might be true, as was sometimes charged against them, that they felt more anxious about the religious instruction of those who were not so well off as themselves than they did about their own, and that remark would apply not merely to themselves but to some classes below them. But however that might be, they would be misleading themselves if they imagined that there was not a large portion of the working class who also cared about religious teaching, and he did not believe it would be popular—even if they were to condescend to consider only what was popular—to have such a system of national education as would really check and discourage religious teaching. Then there were other difficulties; for instance, that of rating, which appeared to be felt by many hon. Members, although he thought, if they looked at the mere pecuniary part of that matter, they would find that a 3d. education rate would soon be more than paid back by the diminished poor rate and prison rate which would result from it. There was also the difficulty as to upon what conditions they should give aid from the Consolidated Fund, and likewies the question of what security they should take that good teaching was imparted. It had been mooted that evening that some of the securities on which the State now insisted should be relinquished. He expressed no opinion now on that point, but it was a most difficult part of the subject. Then they came to two questions started by the hon. Member for Stoke. The one was whether the schools ought to be free or not, and the other was whether they should look forward to a compulsory attendance. The time had not really come yet for them to express an opinion on either of those points; but he was rather surprised to find that his hon. Friend (Mr. Melly), with all the study he had given to that question—a study scarcely exceeded by that devoted to it by any one among them—should seem to suppose, as he (Mr. W. E. Forster) gathered that he did, that they could establish free schools to any extent in a large town, and that those free schools should not swallow up all the other schools there and make it necessary that they should all be free. Much argument could, perhaps, be used in favour of free schools, even although they might have that consequence; but he was sure they must approach the question whether the schools were to be free or not—and especially if they were to be free schools supported by rates—with the belief that, if they introduced any large number of free schools, the free school system would entirely prevail in the districts which were provided with them. They would not find that the hard working artizan, who with difficulty paid his rate, would allow that the children of people not so hard working or more poor than himself should be admitted to a free education paid out of his pocket, and that his own children's education should not be free also. Then there was the question of compulsory attendance, with respect to which some words of his own spoken at Manchester had been quoted. He thought the argument that it was un-English to compel the father, who was bound and also able to do so, to perform the duty of educating his children was an absurd argument, and it was one from which they had taken all the force by compelling him, if he sent his child to work, to submit to his education. But, while still of that opinion, he was afraid that this much remained un-English; not the mere principle of compelling a father to pay for the education of his child, but here comes the un-English part of the matter—the difficulty, according to English plans of government and English modes of thought, in putting machinery in operation that would make that compulsion anything more than a mere brutum fulmen and waste of power. The experience of the Continent was often quoted. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) would tell them that they might go from one part of Germany to another and they would scarcely find a single child who was untaught or unable to read and write, and that the principle of compulsion, though universal, was not now necessary, because almost every parent would send his child without its enforcement. But let them not deduce more than they ought to do from that argument; because he doubted whether it was not correct to say that, if compulsion had not existed at one time in those districts, there would not now be no longer any need of compulsion. But such compulsion, interfering with the daily life of her citizens, England never had; and he much doubted whether the English people would assent to it. America was rather more of a case in point, and the experience of New England was really curious in that matter. The School Inquiry Commission (of whom he was one) sent over an Assistant Commissioner to examine into the education of the New England States of America. The gentleman chosen was the Rev. Mr. Fraser, whose writings were well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Mr. Fraser made a most able Report, in which he stated that there existed a law of compulsory attendance at school in New England. Mr. Elihu Burrit, a gentleman well-known and much respected in this country, at a meeting in the Midland Counties, quoted that statement, and entirely denied its correctness. He was accordingly requested by some of his Colleagues in the Commission to find out whether it was really correct or not, and he went to Mr. Adams, who, before he came to England as American Minister, had taken a most active part in the working of the system of education in New England. He asked Mr. Adams who was right—Mr. Fraser or Mr. Burrit? Mr. Adams said Mr. Fraser was wrong and Mr. Burrit right, and that he was perfectly sure there was no such Act. The Commissioners then asked Mr. Fraser how he came to mate that mistake, whereupon Mr. Eraser proved by the most unimpeachable evidence that the Act did exist. But what was the real fact of the matter? The Act existed, but it had been found to be so contrary to American feeling that it was not made use of for so long a time that its existence was entirely forgotten. Now, he had stated that once or twice before, and since he first did so, attempts had been made in New England—and he did not know with what amount of success—to put that Act in operation, arising, perhaps, from the necessity they laboured under, through the large number of emigrant children that went to them from the Old World. It would, he thought, be very instructive for them to see how far these efforts to put the Act in force in New England succeeded. Allusion had been made to the number of Bills which had been brought forward. It was quite true that he and the Secretary of State for the Home Department had tried their hands at a measure both last year and the year before; and their experience showed the difficulty of the question in a way hardly noticed that night. Their measure of the year before last was the result of the practical thought and labour of several gentlemen of different sects and different political views, but who agreed in a common desire to give the best system of education to the town of Manchester. That Bill, if it had been accepted by the House, would, he believed, have at that time met public opinion. Public opinion had progressed between the year before last and last year. He and his right hon. Friend made a change, and whereas their measure of the year before last was only for permissive rating, their measure of last year contained compulsory powers of rating in districts which could be proved beyond dispute to have no other mode of providing schools. He believed that their Bill of last year also would have met public opinion. But they had observed that the converts they obtained to their Bills were obtained a few months too late. Very powerful support was given to their Bill of 1867 when they found it necessary to bring forward their Bill of 1868; and now, when at this time it was quite impossible for them to try legislation again on that subject, he saw that a great organ of the daily Press, which gave them quite the cold shoulder last year, had come in this year to the principle of their last year's measure. That showed the great difficulties with which the Government had to deal. And then came the precise question which had been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent as to whether a Committee could help the Government in any way. Now, he confessed that when the hon. Gentleman's Motion was placed on the Paper he looked at it with an earnest desire to derive help from it if possible, for the work to be accomplished was so hard and difficult that assistance ought to be sought for in every quarter. But he agreed with the hon. Member for Brighton and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) that the proposed Committee was not very likely to be able to help the Government. Such a Committee could do two things. It could make suggestions and it could obtain information. Now, without wishing to undervalue suggestions which might be offered by a Select Committee, he must express his belief that the time for suggestions had gone by. It was, he might say, almost a fearful thing for the Government to deal with so difficult and important a question as that of education; but still it was the business of the Government to do so, and he could not see that any advantage would arise from seeking help from the suggestions of a Committee. Moreover, ho did not think that suggestions relating only to the state of education in three or four large towns would be of much use, as he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that, althongh in dealing comprehensively with the subject, regard ought to be had to the various conditions of different parts of the country, yet it must be handled in such a way as to embrace the whole of England. Then a Committee might examine witnesses and elicit information, but this would hardly be of any assistance to the Government. He had, however, been seriously considering in company with Earl de Grey and other Members of the Government whether there were any means by which, acting on the hint given by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, they could put themselves in a better position to deal with the subject. Thus he was led to the anticipation of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sandon). It would, in his judgment, be advantageous for the Government to obtain a statistical return of the actual amount of elementary education in three or four of our large towns. If, therefore, his hon. Friend should think fit to withdraw his Motion, he should be prepared to place upon the Paper, in the course of a few days, a Notice of Motion for a Return as to the number of schools and scholars in Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham. The Government would also endeavour to form an opinion as to what kind of schools they were. The Government would not ask the House to grant them compulsory powers to obtain that information; but he believed they would be able to set at rest the doubt which had been raised as to the authenticity of the statistics of education in those large towns. For his own part, however, he put great faith in the returns which had been obtained by the Manchester Society and the Birmingham Society. With regard to Manchester, he knew the gentlemen who had undertaken to prepare the returns, and he believed that the Birmingham returns had also been prepared with great care. Still, as their correctness had been disputed, it would be an advantage for the Government to endeavour to ascertain how far they were correct. His hon. Friend had not laboured in vain in bringing the matter before the House, and, in conclusion, he would express a hope that his hon. Friend would, under the circumstances, withdraw his Motion.

said, he had been induced by the reference made to him by the Vice President of the Council to make a few remarks on the subject before the House. Although Germany might be spoken of as a country which governed its people very much by means of centralization, yet the same could not be said of Switzerland. He was well acquainted with the latter country, and also with Saxony, Prussia, and Würtemberg. Having travelled in every part of Saxony, where he was an employer of labour, he could bear testimony to the fact that there was scarcely a child of ten or twelve years of age in that country, whether in the city, the field, or the mountains, who could not read and write correctly and with ease. When Lord Stanley was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he made inquiries of our legations abroad as to the state of education on the Continent. Accordingly, our Secretary of Legation at Berne (Mr. Rumbold), made a Report, in which he stated that the Swiss people, while proud of their free institutions, were wisely convinced that their only sound and lasting basis was to be sought in as comprehensive and as widely spread a scheme of public education as possible. The same gentleman went on to show that, after little more than thirty years, the spread of education had been such that the Swiss could now boast that there was hardly a child within the limits of the Confederation who was incapable of reading or writing, with the exception of those who were physically or mentally incapacitated. This result Mr. Rumbold attributed to the result of compulsory education. The Report further stated that in the Grand Duchy of Baden penalties for the non-attendance of boys at school were almost unknown, and that in the Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar no fine for non-attendance had been imposed during the last forty years. He (Mr. Mundella) had himself examined large schools in Saxony, and conversed with the heads of schools, and they had assured him over and over again that the idea we had that it would be necessary to call in the aid of the police was absurd. In Switzerland, in the canton of Zurich, there was an Educational Board; every house was registered; the children were all registered; and all children were required to attend school when six years of age, and continue to do so till twelve years old. Between twelve and fourteen they were allowed to work half time. Of course the schoolmaster looked after them, and not the policeman. If the parent did not send his child to school the master reported him to the Board, who fined him a franc or so. But, in point of fact, compulsion had become almost unnecessary, for it was considered as disgraceful there for a parent to deny his child education as to refuse him necessary food or clothing. In Saxony there were one in six of the population attending the schools, from the sixth to the fourteenth year, and of these 97 per cent were in constant attendance, and it was not only the extent but the quality of the education that was admirable. If poor Saxony and poor Switzerland accomplished this he could never realize to himself that it could not be accomplished in England, the richest country in the world. He believed that the feeling was growing stronger and stronger in the country in favour of a compulsory system of education. He had no desire to detract from: English institutions, but he wanted his: countrymen to have the same advantages as were possessed by foreigners in respect to education. Our rural districts were even behind the great towns, While acknowledging the great sacrifices which had been made by the clergy of the Church of England in promoting education, he must point out that some great districts were neglected because they did not happen to have clergymen who were awake to the importance of this question. Within four miles of Nottingham, for instance, there was a parish containing 3,880 inhabitants; and a personal visitation made a year and a half ago showed that the number of children between the ages of eight and four and five and twelve was 750. And yet there were less than fifty at school. In consequence, however, of the efforts made by the excellent rector, and the munificence of his Friend the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) and some of the landed gentry, schools would, in the course of a week or two, be opened in that place. At present there was only school accommodation for 100 children, No one was more ready than he to admit that the English people possessed splendid natural qualities, and if to those were added the blessings of education, he believed the cost of securing those blessings would be more than compensated for by the diminution of crime, pauperism, and that squalor which unhappily prevailed so extensively in our large towns. He had taken pains to inform himself as to the educational status of nearly 12,000 young persons engaged in work, and he found that while 20 per cent of them could not write a letter decently, there were 50 per cent who could not read or write at all. Such a state of things was, he maintained, disgraceful to a Christian country, and he hoped the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), who, on the opening night of the Session, spoke of a system of national education as being absolutely necessary, would find an echo in all parts of the House, and that we should soon have every child throughout the king- dom enjoying the advantage of receiving instruction, as was the case in those countries upon the Continent to which he had referred.

said, he wished only to state that the inhabitants of Manchester would not have shrunk from the operation of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, if it had been thought necessary to appoint one. They did not feel that they were in a very forward state on the subject of education; but on the other hand, they were not so bad as some places. On the whole, he believed that they were better than the other Lancashire towns. In Manchester thirty-three out of 100 persons could not sign their names on marriage. The worst town in it, in an educational point of view, was Preston, which was represented by two Gentlemen on the other side of the House. In that town there were forty-nine persons in every 100 who did not sign the marriage register. He held in his hand an official Paper, which showed that, in several counties of England, there were districts where more than fifty in 100 made a cross in signing their names, and it was noticeable that those districts had the fewest boroughs where the educational state was lowest. It was a conviction which was very generally entertained, and which he himself shared that, unless we could devise something more efficient than the present system of education, we should have a great amount of ignorance in this country to the end of time. It ought, therefore, in his opinion, to be as soon as possible replaced by some more comprehensive system. There was the theological difficulty which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). But in his intercourse with working men he (Mr. Jacob Bright) had always found that they cared very little for theological instruction at school. There was nothing he was more convinced of than this, that when a working man sent his children to school, and paid the school-pence, he paid for secular instruction and not theological, and would simply ask where he could obtain the best intellectual results. If he did not do so, he would show very little sense indeed, for he had abundant opportunities of giving his children religious instruction at home, and in the Sunday schools attached to the various churches and chapels which covered the face of the country. There was also the financial difficulty, and undoubtedly the results in Saxony described by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and those existing in New England, in Switzerland, and elsewhere, were not to be obtained without considerable expense. He was willing that the country should pay for such results, and he believed it was able to pay for them. He saw the difficulties connected with local taxation, the burden of which was so loudly complained of; but if they could get rid of some of the burdens of Imperial taxation, the local taxation would be more easily borne. Now, we were saving this year between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 and he believed that that saving ought to go on for four or five years to come in the same ratio. The constituencies of England had come to the determination that our expenses should be reduced, and if the reduction should continue in the same proportion, we should soon save a sum equal to one-half our whole local taxation, and we could then afford to be generous so far as the important matter of education was concerned. He had often remarked in that House the jealousy which existed in regard to the efficiency of the public services, and he sometimes thought it was made a cloak to cover great extravagance. He trusted the time would come when the House would be jealous about the efficiency of another service—one not less important than Army or Navy—he alluded to that service in which so many earnest and devoted men were engaged, who were endeavouring to carry instruction to the poor and helpless children of this country. He believed it was necessary to legislate on this subject, and he agreed with the Vice President of the Committee of Council that the Government alone could take it up effectually and successfully. He ventured to think that a Government which had shown so much ability in grappling with that great question of the Irish Church might, when that was removed out of the way, undertake a question so important and extensive as the present.

said, he thought it was not only natural but very desirable that the subject of education should once more be brought before the House at the opening of a new Parliament, and he for one felt very much indebted to the hon. Member for Stoke- upon-Trent (Mr. Melly) for the manner in which he had introduced it to their notice. He must, at the same time, express his satisfaction at finding the Vice-President of the Committee of Council was not prepared to accede to the hon. Gentleman's Motion. In his opinion we had had sufficient inquiry on the subject already—[Mr. BRUCE: Hear, hear!]—and he was happy to find that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department seemed to concur in that view, for, as a Member of the Committee of which he himself (Sir John Pakington) was Chairman, and which sat two Sessions, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that that Committee had exhausted the question. If he had to decide between the Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, he should feel inclined, he must confess, to vote rather in favour of the latter. The House was amply furnished with facts, and it now only remained for it to grapple with those facts, and to proceed, as soon as it could conveniently do so, to legislate on the subject. He had repeatedly said that we should never solve the great problem of national education until we had arrived at the fulfilment of two conditions—the one the existence of a strong Government, the other the existence of a Government which was not only strong but determined to settle the question. The first of those conditions was realized, and he was well aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as well as the Vice-President of the Committee of Council, had long had the subject sincerely at heart. Under these circumstances they had a right to expect that the question would be settled, and it was time that it should be settled. Further inquiry was not wanted. And on another point he was obliged, though reluctantly, to differ from the opinion expressed in a very sensible speech by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley). His right hon. Friend argued that inquiry was necessary, but then went on to urge that there should be a further trial of the present school system. Now he (Sir John Pakington) thought that the present system had been tried long enough, and what they wanted was a better one, which he hoped would be framed in a bold, statesmanlike measure by the present Government. It could not be expected this year. The manner in which the Government had arranged their business, and the late period at which the Session commenced, made it unreasonable to expect that the Government should grapple with the question this Session. But he must, in candour, state that, as they could not be expected to grapple with the question this year, they had taken the next best and most judicious step by bringing forward their Endowed Schools Bill. In saying this he did not mean to commit himself to the details of that measure, which in Committee would require a good deal of consideration, and, perhaps, of alteration. But the Bill dealt with one of the most important questions connected with education—namely, the painful and absurd extent to which a vast amount of endowed property throughout the country, devoted originally to purposes of education, had now become useless. The Government deserved credit for having, as a preliminary step, taken up that question. They were a strong Government; among their Members were men capable of dealing with the question as well as anxious to do so; and he trusted that next Session there would be no more inquiry, but a comprehensive measure upon this subject.

said, he rather regretted that the Government had refused to appoint this Committee, and he could not say that the reasons assigned by the Vice President of the Council appeared to be satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the subject was full of difficulties, and nobody who had paid attention to it would think of controverting that proposition. But, as nothing was about to be done just yet, he asked whether meanwhile we had as much information as it was possible and desirable to have. One or two things had been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) as to which he confessed he should like to have had more information than was forthcoming at present. The hon. Member stated that, in spite of all the changes which had occurred in the Government examinations of the assisted schools, the result of an inquiry to which he was privy showed that, if the children who passed through these schools ever learned anything, they certainly had not done so in such a way as to retain what they learnt. That statement certainly seemed to be one worthy of consideration, supposing it to be well-founded. The hon. Member also stated in a very emphatic manner, that which at all events, seemed to be his own belief—how far it had spread among others he did not inform the House—that people were likely to feel degraded by having their children educated at schools that were assisted by donations, and to feel that they were being educated at charity schools. Now it might be worth inquiry how far the parents of children educated out of the rates might not feel pauperized. At all events, that was a question raised by the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham. He (Mr. Henley) would express no opinion one way or the other. In these days it would not be right or decent to use "an ignorant impatience" which was employed fifty years ago in reference to taxation, but there certainly was a very intelligent impatience about local taxation; and this, again, was a point on which further information would have been desirable. There was another question on which Parliament might have profited by inquiry—a question which the Vice President of the Council seemed to put entirely aside when he said that any system which was adopted must be a comprehensive one. This was saying, in other words, that special cases in special districts must not be considered, but that there must be one Procrustean rule extending over the whole country. Now, the proposed inquiry was one into the special cases of the great towns, and it might not have been useless or unworthy the attention of the Government to ascertain, by reference to the circumstances of these; great towns, whether it was right to have but one rule applying to the whole country. All that he heard during the debate—and he could not hear very well now—made him regret that the Committee was not granted. If, as the Vice President of the Council had stated, the subject was full of difficulties, the more information they could get the better, even if sometimes they got the same facts twice over. The question was one in which every person in the land—high or low—was interested, and though Parliament, no doubt, had a great deal of information on the subject, that was no reason they should shut out more, and thus run the risk of coming to an unsound conclusion.

said, that the question which had been suggested—whether rate-supported schools might not pauperize the people, might be answered by another—how far did the higher classes feel pauperized by certain of the higher schools? He was glad that the Government had not acceded to the request of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Melly), because he looked upon the hon. Member's proposition as an attempt to make an invidious distinction between the large towns and the other districts of the country. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) in thinking that the large towns were, to a great extent, mere reservoirs for the ignorance of the country, and that a large proportion of the uneducated belonging to the agricultural and other districts, came to settle in the large towns. As an instance of this, he would cite a few statistics relating to the agricultural district of Stoke-upon-Trent, with which the hon. Gentleman, who had introduced the question, was connected; and these would show that the whole of the ignorance of the country was not concentrated in the large towns. By way of contrast, he would first give some figures with respect to Leeds. That town, in the year 1861, had a population of 207,000. One-sixth of that was 34,500. Now, at the present moment, there were 11,300 children in the Government-assisted Schools in Leeds, leaving 23,200 children to be accounted for. On the other hand, he found it stated in a Report recently issued by the Privy Council that, according to the testimony of the Rev. A. F. Bonar, there was in a certain; district immediately adjoining Stoke-upon-Trent, an agricultural population of 325,564, one-sixth of this number was 54,260; and there were at this moment 12,700 children in the Government-assisted schools in the district, leaving 41,500 children to be accounted for. Thus, in Leeds, one in seventeen attended the Government schools, while only one in twenty-five attended them in the district to which he referred. If, therefore, there was to be any inquiry how far education had progressed, they must not I merely take in the large towns but the agricultural districts, which were in a worse condition. In the same Report, it was stated that education in that dis- trict had actually deteriorated; that in a parallelogram of 450 square miles there were only three assisted schools; and that there were forty-four villages, each of more than 500 inhabitants, where there was no school whatever assisted by the Government. It stated that at Lockington—one of those villages—the managers intended to discourage the attendance of children after the age of infancy, because learning tended to make labourers dissatisfied with their condition, and less civil and obliging to their employers. In a village immediately adjoining, the inspector stated that the clergyman had used all his powers of persuasion to induce the farmers and respectable inhabitants to support the school, but without effect, and, out of an income of £100 a year, he had to give £20 a year to sustain the school. They had been told that legislation on this subject was unnecessary. Now, within the last six months, he had addressed as large assemblies of working men as any man; and he had no hesitation in saying that in the large towns the people were almost unanimously in favour of a compulsory system of education. We educate our paupers, we educate our criminals, we educate all those who hang themselves on to the sects, but we leave a large class, between the pauper and criminal on the one hand, and the sects on the other hand, totally uneducated. What we require is a system which shall take hold of this class, educate them, and so prevent them from becoming the paupers and criminals of the land.

said that, after the courteous way in which he had been met by the Government, and after their promise to give him even more than he could expect from the Committee, he was, of course, willing to withdraw his Motion. He thanked the House for the kind manner in which he had been spoken of throughout the debate.

said, he wished to state that when the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Dixon) branded the borough of Preston as being the worst borough in Lancashire in respect to education, the statistics from which the hon. Member derived the information that out of 100 persons only forty-nine were able to sign their names on marrying must apply to a past generation, and not to the present. He was happy to say that Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools had reported very favourably of the state of education in that borough. Preston was a large manufacturing town, and if the children there were not properly educated, that circumstance would be an argument against compulsory education, because the children in the factories were obliged to attend school or else quit their employment.

, in rising to call attention to the system of creating faggot votes in Scotch counties under the Reform Act of last Session said: Sir, we have heard during the debate which has just concluded a great deal about the effects of education on crime. That is indeed a very wide question, and I think we might show in reference to it that education has not yet gone so far as to stop such crimes as the adulteration of food and of drugs, and, moreover, that it has not stopped the people of this metropolis, in large numbers, from resorting to false weights and measures; while, further, it has not the effect of suppressing the manufacture of counterfeit coin. On the contrary, education has given facilities for all these crimes; and with regard to the manufacture of counterfeit coin, which at the present moment comes more within my immediate cognizance, I may state that chemistry and galvanism have been brought in to assist in producing imitations of Her Majesty's coins to great perfection. But, Sir, the counterfeit to which I desire to call the attention of this House is one of a somewhat different kind; and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me that this is a crime often not regarded politically as a crime at all. We have heard that in politics, as in love and in war, everything is fair. We have also heard a good deal about education in politics. The right hon. Gentleman, the late First Minister of the Crown (Mr. Disraeli) took it into his head one fine day to go down to the capital of my country, the City of Edinburgh, in order to tell us that he was going to educate us himself in matters of politics. Sir, this question of education is connected with these faggot votes to which I am about to call attention, and this is a matter also intimately connected to a great extent with the progress of the party now sitting upon those (the Opposition) Benches. I do not desire, in the matter which I am going to picture, so far as I can avoid it, to make it a party question, because I believe, with regard to the crime to which I am going to call attention, that it is one with which both sides of the House are more or less tainted—I mean the creation of what are called faggot or fictitious votes. I think history tells us that, although this has been done by both parties, it was begun by the Gentlemen who sit opposite. Soon after the passing of the Act of 1832, the manufacturing of faggot votes in Peeblesshire was commenced by gentlemen of the Tory persuasion. To use the explanation given in 1837 by Mr. Horsman, in that very able speech in which he brought before the House the question of the manufacturing of votes—he confessed that my countrymen were too honest to be bribed, and too independent to be bullied, but that in some constituencies they were not too numerous to be swamped by these fictitious votes. The party then designated the Tory party were not the popular party, or at any rate had not in Scotland the representation of the popular feeling. Shortly after the enfranchisement—the real enfranchisement—of the people of Scotland by the Reform Act of 1832, it became with that party a serious question how far they should take measures to prevent the entire extirpation of the party. It became a matter of self-preservation; and as self-preservation is a law of nature, they would say that they were justified in keeping their hold of the counties. No one can doubt that it began with the Tory persuasion in 1833. That it was tried by Gentlemen on this side of the House I do not mean to deny, and I do not condemn the system one bit the more because it came from the other side. On the contrary, we who are identified with the popular party, and are supposed to represent popular opinions, are more to be blamed than the Conservatives if we indulge in practices like these. More than that, the evidence goes to this extent, that although the thing was done by gentlemen of Whig persuasion, in self-defence, not to be outnumbered by these fictitious votes, many of them were afterwards so con- vinced of the error of their ways that they gradually bought back the votes they had themselves created. But I should rather leave to those gentlemen who have always been the opponents of popular principles the odium of having created this class of fictitious votes. Now, what were the means adopted by those who introduced the system? There was introduced into Scotland, under the Act of 1832, a perfectly free, fair, and independent franchise, and among others, the possession and ownership of property of the value of £10 in counties constituted a qualification, and the qualification included life-rents It was enacted that the actual possession of an annuity or life rent-charge of £10 and upwards upon the land was a sufficient qualification for a vote in the counties, and it is to this class of voters that I wish particularly to call the attention of the House. The system grew up, and small properties and blocks of houses were charged with life-rents—not in the ordinary way, where the proprietor parts with the fee but retains the life-rent for himself; but life-rents were created by proprietors retaining the fee themselves and granting nominal life-rents to a number of persons upon some piece of land or block of houses just sufficient to give each a vote. To show that in all these transactions there was no real bonâ fide change of proprietorship it is only necessary for me to say that most of the transactions were of this nature—A life-rent of £10 was created and sold to the person who was to be constituted a voter. No money passed, but a bill for £200 was granted by the life-renter to the owner of the fee. The interest upon that amounted to £10, and the interest on the bill was set off against the £10 life-rent. In fact, the whole transaction was a mere paper transaction; and this, supplemented by an oath before the Sheriff or proper officer, constituted the position of the voter. A very large number of these gentlemen were put upon the electoral roll simply upon the strength of these fictitious qualifications. And, mark, they were not gentlemen belonging to the county in which they got the qualification, but gentlemen residing in distant counties—in some cases gentlemen actually residing in London. It will be found, by referring to the roll of the county, that those gentlemen appear as owners of life-rents of £10, £12, or thereabouts—just sufficient to give them a vote. The ingenious method by which an attempt was made to give a semblance of reality to the transaction may be imagined from the fact that upon the register the voter is described by name, and put down as the recipient of so many pounds, one as proprietor of one-fourth of one-fourteenth; another as proprietor of one-twelfth of three-fourteenths; a third as proprietor of one-eighth of one-seventh of some wild spot. But if any Gentleman would make an arithmetical calculation, he would find that all these various fractional parts would come to one and the same thing. I hold in my hand the roll for the county of Selkirk, and I find on it the names of gentlemen who live in this part of the country, gentlemen who are writers in Edinburgh, gentlemen who are in the army serving in distant parts, but not one living in the district. Since 1832 there has been adopted a different system from that which prevailed before it. For instance, in Scotland we have what are called superiorities or feus—a system of granting feus upon a perpetual fixed rent, with the reservation of certain rights to the superior. They now grant feus, and the land is parcelled out into feu-rents beyond its value, and thus fictitious feu-rents are created. In the evidence given before a Committee of this House, it was shown that those parcels of land had been given out among gentlemen who had been brought into the county to over-ride and overpower the local vote. Whatever may be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen as to the extension of the franchise, I believe not one will defend a system which endeavours to destroy a constituency by infusing into it a large alien element which will swamp the free opinion of the constituency. Whether it be the opinions of the Liberal or of the Tory side, it is all the same for the purposes of my argument. You have no right—you Whigs especially—to go into a Tory county any more than you Tories have a right to go into a Whig county, and try to overturn local opinion by bringing with you a crop of strangers who have nothing to do with the interests of the county. My Motion, as a matter of course, refers to the smaller counties, because it is obvious that in the larger counties the difficulty of working this objectionable method is far greater. It is only hi the smaller counties, that by the introduction of fifty or 100 strange voters, you can overturn the local opinion of the county. The county which the hon. Baronet (Sir Graham Montgomery) represents gives one of the most marked and notorious instances of the -working of this system. I am glad to see my hon. Friend -where he is, and I do not wish to say anything that would be unpleasant to him or his constituents: but my hon. Friend gained his election, in a constituency numbering something like 800, by the small majority of three votes, the numbers being 361 to 358; and when you come to analyze the voting, you find in the majority that there were about fifty faggot votes—the votes of people who were all strangers to the county of Peebles, gentlemen who resided in Edinburgh, and, indeed, all over the country, and who never lived in the county of Peebles in the whole course of their lives. Therefore it is quite clear that but for this half-hundred of buckram troops he would have been defeated by a majority of more than forty. Now, is it right that any constituency should be treated in that way? There is a further matter in connection with the county of Selkirk well worthy of the attention of the House. There is a notorious building in the town of Selkirk—an inn which rejoices in the name of "The Fleece." While the county of Selkirk had a separate representation this inn was a favourite property for creating faggot votes for the county, being capable of qualifying some ten or twelve. But under the provisions of the Reform Act of 1868, the town of Selkirk is incorporated with the Border Burghs and the remainder of the county of Selkirk is annexed to the county of Peebles—the two together returning only one Member. The old faggot votes qualified on "The Fleece" having thus become useless, I am informed that "The Fleece" is now for sale, and by a curious coincicidence "The Tontine" hotel at Peebles is likewise in the market, and the ostensible proprietors of "The Fleece" are about to transfer their business to "The Tontine." These are the ingenious arrangements which the extreme education of the Scotch Conservatives enables them to carry out. But the system is not confined to Selkirk and Peebles. I received this morning an exceedingly interesting communication from the town of Rothesay, in the county of Bute. It will be remembered that in the election of 1865 the county of Bute returned Mr. Lamont in the Liberal interest. Last year a Gentleman of different political opinions was returned, and the writer of this letter from Rothesay states that in the county of Bute there are about 110 faggot votes in a constituency of 1,073. Of these 110 there are not more than fifteen resident; and about eighty have been created since the Liberal victory of 1865. This is the way the system is worked. They take a house belonging to some gentleman conveniently ready to sell and, curiously enough, they happen to find for that block of a house as many purchasers as can be qualified on it. Thus, for instance, on one "house and pertinents," at Craigmore, Rothesay, there are eight voters registered as follows:—Alexander Boyle, Captain, R.N.—place of abode, London; W. S. Stirling Crawford, Esq., Melton; Charles Dalrymple, M.P. for Bute, New Hailes; Alexander Hamilton, Commander, R.N., Rozelle, Ayrshire; James Auld Jamieson, W. S., Edinburgh; Sir Michael B. Shaw Stewart, Bart., Ardgowan, Renfrewshire; William Stuart, Junr., M.P., Bedford; John Pettigrew Wilson, Advocate, Edinburgh. On another house there are six, chiefly belonging to Edinburgh; on another there are seven, almost all belonging to Glasgow; on another there are four, of whom one is the hon. Member for Lynn, brother of the Governor General of India, and so on. In all, there are about 100 gentlemen qualified in this manner as voters in the county without having lived in it in the whole course of their lives, or having any other concern with it, and that in a small constituency, where, 100 votes are no mean weight to be thrown into one scale in the course of a contest. The writer continues in this way—

"You may be met with the assertion that faggot votes have been manufactured by the Liberals. This has been done to the extent of only four votes on a property purchased by our late Member, Mr. Lamont, much against the wish of his best friends. These votes have now ceased to exist, being recalled by Mr. Lamont."

This is all we did in Bute, and the gentleman who did it was so satisfied of the error of his own ways that he recalled all these votes. Similar attempts were made after the defeat of my hon. Friend Sir Michael Shaw Stewart, when he was defeated in 1865 by the late Member for Renfrewshire, whose death we all deeply lament. On that occasion he put between thirty and forty gentlemen upon a block of houses in Pollockshields, for the purpose of restoring the balance of parties for his own side in the constituency, and he did it so ingeniously that, although objected to at the registration court, the votes were all sustained, except in one case in which the voter did not appear to defend his qualification. Here is the statement from a paper which I believe Gentlemen on the other side are not exceedingly fond of, whose large circulation throughout Scotland has been a topic of great envy, and they have attempted, but attempted in vain, to supplant the good teaching of that eminent and distinguished publication by circulating a halfpenny periodical. But then the halfpenny would not take. Tory principles in Scotland are so little palatable that they were driven to subscribe to promote and circulate gratis a paper of Conservative tendencies; and even that, I believe, has utterly and entirely collapsed. But here is the statement which is made by the Scotsman with regard to Sir Michael Shaw Stewart—

"Finding that he cannot be Member for Renfrewshire through the votes of the inhabitants of Renfrewshire, he has, along with his agents, passed a resolution that he shall be Member for Renfrewshire by the votes of the inhabitants of anywhere else."

The writer then proceeds to point out what gentlemen of sound Conservative principles were put upon the property in Pollockshields. It may be said, "Oh, but probably the increase of the franchise has created a larger constituency in the smaller counties, and it does not follow that we can object to men being-qualified in this way." The great objection I entertain, however, is not so much to the qualification as to the fact that they are people not connected with the county. If you took your shepherds or your factors the case would not be so strong. But I will cite a case, stated by one of your own friends, to show that non-residence is absolutely necessary for the manufacture of these votes. I will quote the evidence of Mr. John Hope, a Writer to the Signet, who was examined before Mr. Horsman's Committee, regarding thirty life-renters he had foisted upon two farms of Lord Hopetoun's. He said—

"None of the thirty reside in the county. I studied as much as possible to obtain the consent of persons connected with the county, but there is great difficulty in getting people to take the votes. In 1837 I went about for nearly two months, and had the greatest difficulty in getting the number I wanted—17. In 1838 I only wished two persons, and I exerted myself as much as possible, and could only obtain one; and I had to fill up the other qualification with my own name, having reserved myself for such a contingency."

The agent of the party is searching high and low—not, like Diogenes, seeking for a just man—but for a man who will accept these fictitious votes, and undertake to vote always in the way in which the proprietor wishes. But it may be said that these are matters concerning proceedings under the Act of 1832. What I complain of is that under the Act of 1868 the system is now being perpetrated, and, so far as I know, perpetrated by only one party in the State. By the Act of 1868 we supplemented the franchise of 1832. We gave the franchise to persons holding property below £10 in counties, down to the ownership of property of the value of £5 a year. The object of that enactment was—and I do not think that any Gentleman on the other side of the House will contradict me—that whatever the legal wording might be, the spirit and equity of the Act meant that you should enfranchise the small artisan, the small proprietor, the small shopkeeper, living in the county and belonging to the county, whose voice up to that time had not been heard in the Constitution. And what are you doing? You are selling properties to rich merchants in Glasgow, to rich proprietors in other parts of the country, for the purpose of multiplying £5 owners, who shall swamp and not represent the feelings and opinions of the county. No less a number than thirty-four of these voters are being created in this way in the neighbourhood of Peebles alone. Now, there is a curious piece of evidence connected with these transactions. A man, to obtain a vote, must be in possession for six months at least before the 31st July. I hold in my hand a copy of the register of seisins for the county of Peebles, and I find there thirty-four gentlemen registered as proprietors and life-renters on house property in Peebles, and if you look through the list, you will find that everyone of these deeds was signed on the 28th, 29th or 30th January last, just six months before the 31st July. They are not conveyances of separate houses, but of small portions of houses, many of them being half-fiats, of the value of £5 to £7 or £8; and if any of my English Friends do not know exactly what a "half-flat" means, I will explain. It means a half-floor. These new proprietors comprise no less distinguished people than four Messrs. Kidston, of Glasgow, merchants and shipowners, who are registered upon a small house—so small that none of the tenants of the house have any vote at all. There are four rooms below and four rooms above. Each of these gentlemen owns; two rooms on each floor—each, in fact, has got half-a-flat; and that is intended as a representation of property. A gentleman who owns a couple of rooms in an attic in a back street of Peebles is; to be considered as a true and honest representative of the county of Peebles, while the people living in those same houses have no votes at all. I do not think that the House of Commons will consider that such proceedings are anything but a fraud. It never could be intended that the rich merchants of Glasgow should be registered in this way, simply and solely for the purpose of gaining a vote in counties with which; they have no connection. But there is another feature. The property is sold, most of it, by one gentleman. There is only one agent for the buyer and the seller. Who is that agent? The political agent of my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles, or the political agent of his party in Edinburgh. The whole of this, I think you will agree with me, shows distinctly the object for which these properties have been transferred and have appeared upon this register. We do not know how many more fictitious votes of different kinds may have been manufactured. They need not be produced until the registration court is held. What I hold in my hand is therefore, at any rate, the least that has been done in the county of Peebles. Now, Sir, I do not want to be too hard on one county. I propose to ask the House to grant a Return on this matter, so that we may ascertain how far this system has been carried on in the various counties of Scotland. I have given the House as much information as I have on the subject, and I think they will feel with me that, before any plan of remedying such a great defect and so great a fraud upon the legislation of this House is devised, we should have sufficient information upon which to act. But I may be asked, "What remedy do you propose?" Well, if I were to propose the remedy which I wish, it would be the remedy which was suggested on every Scotch hustings throughout the last election—a remedy to which I believe every Member for Scotland on this side the House is pledged—namely, the equalization of the county and burgh franchise. But I know there are many eminent men on this side of the House who are not prepared to go to that length. The other thing which I would propose as a remedy is the condition that residence shall be necessary in counties as well as in burghs. I have had it objected to me, "Oh, but you will disfranchise an enormous number;" and some have said I should disfranchise a very large number of my own friends. Well, the view I take is that the remedy for any special evil should be based upon a principle; and when you have once found the principle that will be the true corrective, you should adopt that, no matter whether it is at the expense of your friends or your foes. My belief is that the vote is a personal privilege, and is not the privilege of property, though property has been for many years adopted in this country as a means of testing the qualification for a vote. The Tories, on the contrary, have always maintained consistently that the vote represents property; and therefore they only adopt this system upon the principle that it is the property that should vote, and not the man. I maintain that it is the person and not the property that has the vote; and I say that by making residence the condition we should give to every man in this country only one vote, and place every individual upon the same footing of political rights. That is the only true and just principle. Why is one man to have nine, ten, or a dozen votes, whilst Ms neighbour—poorer than himself, but perhaps far better in intelligence and knowledge—is only to have his miserable one vote? The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), stated in this House on one occasion that he had votes for no less than twenty-five Members. I can myself vote for nine. In old days, before railways existed, it mattered very little how many of the counties a man had votes in, for he never could vote, except in very special circumstances, in more than one county. But now that by railways you can move about very rapidly, you have multiplied the power of voting, and have practically introduced into our political system that objectionable principle of giving votes according to the amount of property. I contend that this is not right, and I think I could refer to very high authority on this subject. An eminent lawyer, an honour to his own country and to his profession, made, in 1848, an exceedingly admirable speech upon this matter, and with the permission of the House I will quote a passage—

"The principle of the Reform Bill," he said, "was not to give the franchise to the property but to the electors. The possession of property was taken, not as a qualification properly speaking, but as a test. It was held to be the test of two things first, of the capacity to give an independent vote; and, secondly, of the territorial interest in respect of which a vote was given. The whole system of the Reform Bill is territorial. It does not make this or that man in any particular locality vote for all the members which Scotland sends to Parliament. Each man is to vote in his own locality. If it were desirable to go to Parliament for any remodelling of the electoral system, I am perfectly clear that the principle of residence under some modification or other is the only one that can secure true representation."

Those were the principles uttered in 1848 by my right hon. Friend the present Lord Advocate, and I hope he will legislate on them in 1869. We are told it is too soon to meddle with the Reform question; and that, out of deference to the feelings I suppose of hon. Gentlemen opposite, we ought to let this matter simmer on till another Session. But if you do not legislate now, depend upon it that before next September the register will be crowded by these fictitious votes. I trust, therefore, that the Government will not hesitate, but at once find some remedy for this evil. The adoption of actual residence for county voters may be one way of effecting it, but as that may interfere with those who have long possessed votes, it would perhaps be wiser to go step by step. It may be done by enacting that all proprietors under £10 should be required to be resident in the county where they vote, or the condition of residence might be attached to those holding a qualification below that necessary for Commissioners of Supply. Others propose that a £20 or £14 qualification should be the proper limit; and with a view to test these various limits, I shall move for a I Return that shall give us the non-resident owners of each county in Scotland, the I value of whose holdings are under £100, £50, £20, £14, and £10, and then we shall see how far, by adopting any one of them, we should disfranchise the present voters. My belief is that if we adopt the £20 limit, we shall not disfranchise a single one. Our rule should be to adopt a limit that will not disfranchise any real bonâ fide voter. The remedy in the case of the life-renters is simple enough. It is that those who receive the life-rents should be infeft in the property, and so to make it a bonâ fide possession. There should also be a provision preventing owners being tenants of the life-renters. You may limit the life-rent under the Act of 1832 to meet the case of ministers and schoolmasters, who are very proper persons to have a vote. There is another mode of multiplying votes—by creating a number of joint tenants. This might be met by requiring personal residence in every case; but, inasmuch as the Act of 1868 provides that in small properties there shall not be more than two joint tenants possessing the franchise, that practically meets the evil; but as regards the life-renters and great proprietors and owners of property, the House will agree with me that we ought to adopt some limit, and not allow the county votes to be made by fraud. I only allude to the case of the hon. Member for Peeblesshire as an example, and not personally. It is simply an instance of the working of the system. The case of manufacturing votes in England may be cited, and we may be reminded of the votes created to promote the objects of the Anti-Corn Law League, and probably the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will be alluded to as one of the greatest manufacturers of votes. I shall be twitted with that, but I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the creation of those votes was for a great public purpose. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but they cannot deny the fact that the votes created by the League were in furtherance of a great public object, whereas those created in recent times by the Tories were for personal aggrandisement, and there is a great distinction between the two. ["Oh, oh."] I must further observe that the votes created by the League were, as I am in- formed, not faggot but bonâ fide votes. Be that as it may, I will go as far as any man in adopting a system of legislation which will put a stop to creating fictitious votes, and maintaining the honour and dignity of our Legislature. I hope I shall receive the support of the House in moving for the Return to which I have alluded.

said, that, after the pointed allusions which had been made by the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Craufurd) to the two counties he had the honour to represent, he felt called upon to make a few observations upon the subject before them. At an earlier period of the evening a Petition had been presented with reference to his seat, and he could not help saying that if this question had been raised in consequence of the small majority of three by which he had been elected, he thought it would have been much more straightforward had the ordinary course been adopted which was usual in cases where the return of a Member was sought to be set aside. It had been truly represented in the Petition that there were fifty votes of the kind referred to in Peeblesshire. These life-rents were of two kinds; some, which might be called the old life-rent votes, were created avowedly by the Conservative party in self-defence, for the practice of manufacturing life-rent votes was commenced by the Whig political agent in 1835; and the proof that the Conservative votes so created were bonâ fide lay in the fact that these remained on the register till the present day, whereas the others had long ago disappeared. The other kind of life-rent votes were of a later creation, having been created by gentlemen in favour of their sons, brothers, and other near relations. In such a practice there was nothing whatever to be complained of; on the contrary, he stood there prepared to defend it. It was a right and a proper thing, he maintained, for a gentleman having sons to interest them in the political welfare of the county whore they were bred and born. And the reality of those life-rent votes had been proved on two or three; occasions, when, the holders of the life-rents having become bankrupt, the creditors seized upon and sold this interest. With regard to the counties both of Peebles and Selkirk, he could state that before the last election the business of the registration courts occupied a very long time, occasioning enormous expense to those concerned, and ending in numerous cases of appeal to the Court of Session. The lists therefore were thoroughly scrutinized, and he did not believe there was a single vote upon; them to which the character of an illusory or fictitious vote could for one moment be applied. The question of residence was, no doubt, an important one, but he should be sorry to see it made a condition of the franchise. It was a common practice in Scotland, in the smaller villages, for persons who had quitted them in early life to acquire property in them when their means enabled them to do so, without the; slightest intention of residing in them; and there was no pretence for saying that there was any collusion between them and anyone else for the purpose of supporting any political party. If residence were made a condition of the franchise, all these non-resident owners would be excluded from exercising the franchise in those localities, the connection with which they so highly valued. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) truly stated that before the Select Committee in 1838 no point was more strongly pressed than the desirability of making residence a qualification of the franchise. But did the Committee adopt that recommendation? On the contrary, no one could read their Report without perceiving that they had arrived at an opposite conviction. Upon the general question as to whether the system of creating votes in support of a particular political party was right or wrong, he offered no opinion. But as a distinction had been set up in this matter between the cases of England and Scotland, he might refer to one instructive passage from the Report of the Select Committee of 1846, which considered this question as relating to England. The Report set forth that as the law stood facilities undoubtedly did exist for creating votes by granting rent-charges and splitting up small freeholds, and that such facilities had been taken advantage of by different parties at different times and in different degrees, for the purpose of increasing their electoral influence. In many cases these new electors were connected with their respective counties in no other way than by their share in the county franchise. That appeared to him quite as strong a condemnation of the system in England as anything which had occurred in Scotland. The hon. Member for Ayr referred to the proceedings of the Anti-Corn Law League; and it had been stated in the Scotch papers that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was to address the House upon this occasion, and to declare his views. When the right hon. Gentleman did so, he trusted he would say whether he thought the Anti-Corn Law League were justified in the proceedings which they took to cut up with 40s. freehold votes the West Riding of Yorkshire, Surrey, and other counties. The proceedings of the League were all fully detailed in the Report to which he had just alluded; and if he was not mistaken, that body even went the length of advertising in the public papers, requesting persons to come forward, and make purchase of these votes. He would not father detain the House, but would express his own strong opinion that the Member for Ayr had made out no case whatever for Parliamentary interference.

said, the course taken by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) might, perhaps, be justified if he could succeed in obtaining from the House a definition of what a "faggot" vote really meant. At an indignation meeting on the subject held in a Scotch town and reported in a newspaper, the large circulation of which, according to the hon. Member for Ayr, was matter of envy to Conservatives, two definitions of the word were given; and though he did not think that either of them was strictly accurate, he would state them, as they might amuse the House. One speaker said—

"If you turn to a dictionary for the word 'faggot,' you get as its meaning, 'a soldier numbered on the muster-roll, but not really existing.' Faggot voters in a county I take to be men numbered on the roll of electors, but not really existing,"

Another speaker declared the meaning of the word "faggot" to be, "a bundle of sticks tied together for the fire," and added that "faggot voters were voters bound together by a political tie for the purpose of carrying fire and destruction to a bonâ fide constituency." The Member for Ayr said he did not bring forward this question in a party spirit, but immediately afterwards made use of this expression—"The Tories are desirous of having property, and property alone, represented." Sheltering himself under the example set the night before by an ex-Secretary of State, he (Mr. Charles Dalrymple) would venture to assert, with great deference to the hon. Member, that "a more nonsensical remark could scarcely be made." The speech of the hon. Member showed that he did not attach one iota of credit to the party lately in power for the part they had taken in the Reform Bill, or he (Mr. Charles Dalrymple) should say, that their share in that Bill ought to free them from any such ridiculous charge. The hon. Member for Ayr had alluded to the county of Bute, but was altogether mistaken in supposing that all the faggot votes there were on the Conservative side. A particular inquiry had been made into this subject, in consequence of an assertion that his (Mr. Charles Dalrymple's) return was owing to the faggot votes. The facts were these—At the last election, fifty-eight of these votes were given to the Conservative side and forty to the Liberals, the majority by which he was returned over his opponent being 165. He was ashamed to trouble the House about personal matters like these, but he was practically compelled to do so, after the course taken by the hon. Member for Ayr. It had been alleged, and truly, that he (Mr. Charles Dalrymple) was a faggot voter, but he had not recorded his vote in his own favour, although, according to the newspaper re- ports, that course, if he had thought; proper to adopt it, would have been justified by the step which the very highest authority in that House had taken, in voting for himself. There was no connection, he was bound to say, between: the recent election for the county of Bute and the creation of the vote in his favour. He would make one more remark, and that was with respect to some; of the names to which allusion had been made. None of the names which the hon. Member had read to the House were those of gentlemen who were not more or less connected with the county of Bute. The hon. Member for Ayr justified the course taken by the Anti-Corn Law League, by the assertion that they only created votes with a high political object. Well, he could assure the; hon. Gentleman that there was not a single vote made in the county of Bute which was not made with quite as high an object. After the late Reform Bill, the number of towns enfranchised was so great that the voice of the country districts was scarcely heard; so that if a landlord occasionally encourages his relations and friends to buy a qualification: in his county, even then the landlord interest in the county would be imperfectly represented, as compared with the influence of the towns. As the hon. Member for Ayr had referred to Rothesay—and he would say that it was the only large town in his constituency—and though he had received support from a large number of the new electors there, he should have no objection to return to the Anti-Reform Bill settlement, and to; make Rothesay one of the towns connected with the Ayr District of Burghs.

Sir, with regard to the Petition which has been presented this evening, the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Graham Montgomery) must have laboured under a misapprehension in supposing that there is any idea of raising the questions as to his title to sit in this House upon that Petition. The petitioners were, however, in my opinion, fully justified in setting forth the grievances under which they laboured in consequence of the large number of non-resident voters, who turned the scale in their unfortunate county, or rather counties. I say un- fortunate, because that part of the country enjoys the unenviable notoriety of having been the scope upon which this battle of faggot votes has been fought for the last thirty years. I remember it being stated to me by a friend who is now no more, and who contested Peeblesshire thirty years ago, that if all the resident voters in that county had voted for him, there were enough of non-resident voters to turn the balance. Without examining very closely the accuracy of that opinion, which may, perhaps, be open to doubt, I find some proof of the statement in the Report of the Committee which sat on the question of fictitious votes nearly thirty years ago; in which the register of these two counties was referred to, and it was stated that the constituency was almost doubled under the system which had been put in operation. I will not enter into the question as to who began this system. I think that from whatever quarter it was begun it deserves our condemnation, and that it ought everywhere to be received with reprobation, in order that it may be checked in future. I trust that this House and the Government will think that now is the time when they should be alive to the necessity of taking steps in this matter. I am justified in saying this, because I made an appeal to the last Parliament on this subject. Although the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dalrymple) says that it is not a party question, I was opposed to a man by hon. Members opposite. I made my attempt both upon the English and Scotch Bills, but, although I was unsuccessful, I predicted that the question would, in Scotland at least, crop up again. I admit that this question does not now occupy the same position as it did thirty years ago. The system as it then stood was full of the grossest abuse, and has been described by my hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd) as almost amounting to an interchange of bonds which might be destroyed in the following week; but such a system could not exist under present circumstances, and the scrutiny which follows the voting. It is obvious that wherever we have low property qualifications the desire will be felt to Tiring persons from a distance as purchasers, in order to overbear the natural constituency. I think there is no class of people who feel a stronger interest in the franchise they possess than the residents in the Scotch counties which are the subjects of this discussion. I wish to impress upon the House that there is a strong disposition to get rid of the evil. Public attention has been attracted to this question and to the system by which property is registered in such a manner that the public can ascertain where and how they pass from one hand to another. In the present instance many of the properties are created by gentlemen connected with Edinburgh and Glasgow, who have no connection with these counties; this being so, the object of the manufacture of these votes is perfectly plain. It is a singular fact that in the Petition which has been sent from these counties, fifteen out of the 300 signatures are those of gentlemen who voted for my hon. Friend (Sir Graham Montgomery) at the last election. With regard to the remedy, I think that the application of some such test as you take in boroughs would be advisable. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr has taken the right course in moving for Returns which will be of service to the House in considering this matter.

said, that although he was now an English Member he had been the representative of a Scotch constituency; and, perhaps, because he did not now represent a Scotch constituency, he might speak more freely of the system of creating faggot votes. It was not often that Members were converted by arguments used in a debate; and he confessed that, when the hon. Member for Ayr rose, his idea was that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) would have done well to recollect the maxim quieta non movere. He must admit, however, that he had been convinced by the arguments he had heard, and especially by those used by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They confessed that there was a vast number of faggot votes, but they contended that they represented the true and intelligent opinion of their constituencies. No doubt this was the case; but, if so, they had much better be returned by the intelligent voters of the district than by votes created in this manner. It was highly advisable that faggot voting should be discontinued, for the system neither reflected credit upon the hon. Members who were returned by it nor upon that House. He did not concur in the remark of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) that a person possessing a large territorial position ought not to possess more influ- ence than one who possessed merely a cottage. He thought that the territorial magnate must necessarily be in possession of more political influence than one who, to use a common saying, "had a lesser stake in the hedge." But, at the same time, he did not think that the creation of fictitious votes could by any possibility conduce either to the purity of election or to the honour of that House.

said, that after what had dropped from hon. Members opposite, the statement of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) that this was not a party or personal question could hardly be said to have been substantiated. It had been said by hon. Members, that whenever a nonresident was registered on a £5 qualification, the vote must be taken to be a fictitious one. Now, he could only say he had several applications from gentlemen, of whom he had never previously heard, who happened to have originally belonged to the county he represented (Wigtown), requesting that his political agent might find properties on which they could secure a vote. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh, but, perhaps, it would not be very pleasant to them to be informed of the reason given for those applications. It had also been said that strangers had no business to possess votes in small Scotch counties; but if strangers might not vote in small Scotch counties, was it proper for large Scotch counties to be represented by Members who had no title in the county at all? If the principle were carried out, where would the hon. Members for Perthshire, Renfrewshire, and also the gentleman who sought to represent Dumfriesshire, now be?

said, he must remind the noble Viscount (Viscount Garlies) of the fact that the hon. Members (Mr. Parker, Mr. Bruce) to whom he had just alluded had been returned not by faggot votes, but by the free and unbiassed liberal voters of the counties. That was deyond all dispute. The noble Lord objected to them because they were Englishmen—["No, no!"]—well, because they did not reside in the counties they represented; but if that was an objection in the eyes of the noble Lord, it was no objection in the estimation of the whole of Scotland. The fact only showed that, failing to secure good and true Liberal representatives in those counties they looked outside for them, and there could be no doubt those who had been selected did them the highest credit. With reference to the more general question, he did not envy the position of the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House from the other side on that occasion. In default of a shadow of argument in support of the present system it had been asserted that it was an admirable system by which a gentleman could assist his sons, nephews, and other near relatives to obtain votes in the county in which he lived. But the lists did not fulfil the hon. Member's own conditions. It appeared from the roll for the two counties of Selkirkshire and Peeblesshire, that the faggots were not sons and nephews of proprietors in those counties. They had not the most remote connection with those counties, but were per sons from Berwickshire, East Lothian. Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh, Dumfriesshire, and other counties; and the parties had even gone as far as the county of Fife to import from that distinguished county the Conservative agent and his son. [Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY: There is not one of them on the roll yet.] He only hoped the Government would take such steps as would prevent their ever getting on the roll. Public feeling in Scotland was undeniably strong on this subject and was daily becoming stronger. The intention of the Legislature in passing the Reform Bill was that the bonâ fide opinion of the Scotch constituencies should be made known in the election of their representatives; and he contended that where a large body of non-resident voters were brought into a county, they swamped and destroyed the voice of the electors, and prevented a free expression of their opinion. He strongly advised the Government to deal with the matter with a bold and unsparing hand, and if they did so, he could promise them the support of every liberal-minded man in Scotland.

Sir, the hon. Baronet who has just sat down has said that it is an unjustifiable act on the part of any person to increase his interest in the political condition of the county in which he resides by giving votes to his sons, nephews, and other relatives. I do not think that the hon. Baronet has given fair interpretation of what has been said on this side of the House. No one on this side has maintained for a moment that he has a right to create fictitious votes. The existence of fictitious votes is what is denied. Having long represented the Selkirk constituency, I can safely say that, with the exception of those votes which were put on the roll in 1835, and which are certainly open to the charge of being fictitious, there have been no such votes created in the county of Selkirk. In the Report of the Committee of 1838 on the fictitious votes in Selkirkshire, it is stated that it was not to be wondered at that in a small county whore the parties were so equally balanced, they should struggle for the mastery; and they began—which made the first start it was immaterial to inquire—by creating fictitious votes; but these votes are now nearly exhausted by death, bankruptcy, and other causes. We have since had a certain number of voters imported from the neighbouring counties. They have bought properties, and paid for them with their own money, and they have a fixed bonâ fide interest in these properties. If you are going to alter the Reform Act, and say that a man shall not have a vote for any place except where he is resident, that is another question. That would be altering the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1868, providing that the county representation should rest upon property, and, however much the arguments of the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Craufurd) pointed to manhood suffrage, I am glad those Acts did not assert that principle, and I hope the principle of a property qualification will always be maintained in the electoral franchise. If it can be proved at this moment that any man is a fictitious voter, let him be struck off. This is surely a, matter strictly for the registration courts. Very recently, in the county of Midlothian, seventy joint proprietors in a small oil factory claimed to be placed on the register; they belonged to the Liberal party, but were objected to as fictitious, and the names were struck off the roll. I maintain that that is the proper way to deal with them. The Liberal party, although anxious to cast odium on their opponents in reference to the creation of fictitious votes, did not scruple to try and sustain those votes in the registration court. I only hope the Returns moved for will be given, because they may be of use to both sides of the House. The question should not be dealt with as affecting particular cases, but should be decided on a broad principle applicable to the country at large.

Sir, the hon. Baronet who represents two counties of Scotland (Sir Graham Montgomery) is quite mistaken in supposing that I was anxious to address the House on this question; but he made some observations which I may be justified in attempting to reply to. He quoted, as an authority for what is now complained of, the course taken more than twenty years ago by the council of the Anti-Corn Law League. It may be a sufficient answer to the hon. Baronet to say that on that occasion the whole of the Conservative party in this House utterly condemned the course which was taken by the Anti-Corn Law League. I say, therefore, that unless hon. Gentlemen opposite have entirely changed their opinions on this matter, they must utterly condemn the practices to which our attention has been directed to-night. A Committee was moved for, I believe by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and an attempt was made to show what bad things the Anti-Corn Law League was doing. One of the cases referred to in it was brought before a court of law—I think before the late Lord Chief Justice Tindal. He not only supported the vote, but declared that it was quite within the purpose and privileges of the British Constitution that the franchise should be extended by those means which were sanctioned by the law. But bear in mind that there was this distinction: the votes made by the Anti-Corn Law League were real votes, not sham votes like these which are being manufactured in Scotland. What we did was to ask the population of the counties, who, under the £50 tenancy clause had almost no representation, to avail themselves of the 40s. freehold franchise, and to purchase qualifications and become electors in their counties. I do not pretend to say there were no persons who bought votes in other and adjacent counties. I will not overstate the case at all, but the general course was to advise the populations of Leicestershire, Yorkshire, and Cheshire to buy properties in the counties in which they lived, and thus to enfranchise themselves. But judging by the statement of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd), and other Gentlemen who have spoken, it is quite clear this is not the course which has been taken in Scotland. When you buy, or obtain these faggot votes, you cannot give me one of them; I am of different politics. It would be a breach of trust if I were to ask and you were to propose to give me one of them. You cannot sell them even, at least, if you were to propose that, you must sell them to one of your own politics. I can quite understand that that Gentleman who ran to and fro upon the earth—to find two or three different persons whom he could qualify—might have found great difficulty in discovering any specimens of the Tory persuasion in Scotland. If he had been willing to have as electors persons of Liberal opinions, no doubt he could have found persons who could have qualified without going out of his own village. Therefore, the difference is all the difference in the world. In our case the votes were real votes, and we held the property which could be sold, and could be left by will; but in your case your property—if it be a property—has none of these qualities, and in point of fact is no property whatsoever, and the vote is no real vote according to the principle of English law, and is a sham vote. You are doing that which the English law would most certainly condemn. I look upon it that making votes in this way, coming in among a constituency so small—they have in fact no large constituencies—as those county constituencies to which reference has been made—is really making war on the British Constitution. There are many ways of disfranchising a constituency. You may pass an Act and get rid in that way of all the electors; but if you introduce persons who are not resident in the county, and have no property in it, you may just as effectually get rid of the constituency, and as completely disfranchise it as if you passed a Bill for the purpose. Hon. Gentlemen opposite profess to defend the Constitution. I think if they consider the matter as it has been debated to-night they will feel that the course is not only foolish, but that it is wrong, and Gentlemen returned by votes of this kind must feel that they would much rather be returned by the uncontrolled expression of the real will of the whole constituency. The House has done a great thing within the last three years upon this question of the representation. It is, I believe, resolved, having given a wide suffrage, to endeavour to make the suffrage pure and real; and we have got rid of the foolish and ignorant idea of past years, that there was something injurious in having real representatives of the people in this House, Having come to that conclusion, why should not hon. Gentlemen opposite take the course which some gentlemen in Scotland, who would sit on this side of the House were they in it, have taken, and give up a practice which they themselves must condemn, and which whenever they speak of it as practised by a Liberal they condemn just in the same manner as we condemn it. If it should not be abandoned, it will, I should think, become the duty of Parliament to take some steps by a short Act or by the introduction of some words to make this fraud impossible? If you send a man to gaol for stealing a pocket-handkerchief, what should be done to a man who, in the face of the noble representative Constitution of this country, invades a county, and by means which the law never intended to sanction, and the principle of the law emphatically condemns, shall defraud the whole resident population of the county of the franchise, and of the electoral power which the law has conferred upon them?

said, he had not intended to take part in this debate, but the vehement expressions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite induced him to make one or two observations. As one hon. Gentleman after another had risen and declaimed against the practices they were considering, he could not help making the reflection, "What hypocrites we all are!" The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said that when the creation of faggot votes was instituted by the Anti-Corn Law League—

No. I did not say the Anti-Corn Law League created faggot votes; I said exactly the reverse.

said, he was sorry if he had misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman, but he certainly understood him to say that the Tory party condemned the creation of faggot votes by the Anti-Corn Law League. That was the impression he had given the House. ["No!"] If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that, it was impossible to say exactly what he did mean; he stated that when the Council of the Anti-Corn Law League suggested the creation of faggot votes the Tory party objected. ["No!"] He (Mr. Hunt) thought they should not be unfair to one another; each party, no doubt, did its best to secure a predominance in the constituencies by every means the law allowed; when the effect was against the Opposition the Opposition complained of the practice; when the reverse was the result the other side complained. His hon. and gallant Friend behind him, (Mr. Dalrymple) had said that fifty-eight faggot votes had been polled for him and forty for his opponent; and no doubt if the numbers had been reversed his hon. and gallant Friend would have remonstrated against the practice. Judging from the vehemence of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, he presumed the balance of advantage through the practices referred to was on the Conservative side. It was, therefore, natural that right hon. Gentlemen opposite should make themselves out to be monopolists of public virtue and patriotism, and that their opponents ought to be reprobated. His experience had been that Conservatives of great territorial influence in counties were met by energetic Liberals getting up land societies and enabling cottagers to become freeholders by paying 1s. a week or 1s. a month until they purchased their houses. He had been present at registration courts when the question was fought out whether the freehold in question was worth 39s. 6d. or 40.s. Now, what did the landed proprietor do to counteract this endeavour to upset his legitimate interest as the owner of 5,000 or 6,000 acres? Determined not to be beaten by the Anti-Corn Law League, or some other society in London, he thought that, as his eldest would some day inherit his property, there was no harm in his becoming possessor of a portion of it at once; so he made over some land to him, and perhaps did the same by a younger son, that both might throw their votes into the scale and defeat the ends of the land society, who, under the pretence of benefiting the poor man, designed to deprive the landed proprietor of some of his proper weight in the county. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that Chief Justice Tindal had laid it down that these votes were within the purpose of the law. [Mr. BRIGHT: Real votes.] But the question was what votes were real. If these practices ought to be put an end to let them have a Committee on the subject and see what should be allowed and what not. In his opinion they had wasted a good deal of time that night in raking up personal questions between this great man and that great man. The debate had not added much to the dignity of the House, for the question, if raised at all, ought to have been debated with much less acrimony and party spirit.

said, he did not at all agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, in thinking that the debate had not added to the dignity of the House. On the contrary, he thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd) had done good service in bringing the subject forward, and that the right hon. Gentleman had also done good service by the tone in which he had discussed the proposition before them. He agreed, however, with the right hon. Gentleman that the question ought not to be discussed in a party spirit, and further, he admitted that those on his side of the House were not entitled to assume that they were the sole depositaries of electoral purity. He recollected the beginning of this system in Scotland, and a more disgraceful or degrading system it was impossible to imagine. It was put in practice by both parties; he would not say by whom it was commenced, because he did not know. The question, however, ought not to be who began it, but who was to put an end to it. He hoped that would be the only question that would be asked in future. He had been in hopes that the system had come to a natural termination. The noble Lord who had addressed the House a little while ago (Lord Henry Scott) was quite right when he stated that since 1836 no fictitious votes had been created in the county which he represented. The practice had died out altogether since that time until 1865, when it was revived, and the other day indications were given that it was again going to commence. It was in vain to go back to the past, and to bandy recriminations in the matter; hon. Gentlemen could not but see that the times were changed, and that influences which were looked upon with a lenient eye before would not be tolerated now by the enlarged constituencies. The last Parliament had given a great boon to the people which had been received with gratitude and enthusiasm, and it was the duty of Parliament to see that the boon was protected and not abused. There was one great evil in the system complained of, and it was this—that it was as near a system of corruption as anything in which honourable men could engage could be. Parliament was trying to prevent electoral corruption, and yet, by this system, they would import into a county a set of voters who must in honour vote one way. In Scotland that evil was felt much more because the constituencies were so small. In large constituencies like the English counties the representation could not be affected by such a system; but in Selkirk and Peebles, if they were to allow non-resident voters to come in, they would over-ride the resident constituency. He would not say anything about the Anti-Corn Law League and its Council, further than that there was a great difference between their case and that which the House was now discussing; but this he would say, that he had always held that it was far more constitutional and far better for the country and the people to leave voting and the acquisition of qualifications to the natural course of things, and not to interfere in one way or another to increase the constituency. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) had suggested that a Committee should be appointed, and that the matter should be inquired into calmly and deliberately. Whether that course ought to be followed, or the Government were to attempt to legislate upon the subject; or they were to wait to see what effect the expression of the opinion of the House might have upon the country, he would not at that moment attempt to say. But this he would say, that the course complained of could not be continued, for the people would not submit to it. It might be that the landed interest in Scotland was not so fully represented in that House as the landowners and perhaps some others might wish. But he could only say that territorial influence was to be acquired by other arts and other means—by sympathizing with the people, by feeling as they felt, and sharing in their sentiments. That was what would give the landlords an influence which they never could acquire by such a system as that which had that evening been brought under the notice of the House. He would beg his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, and the Returns would be granted, as a matter of course, if he would move for them on Monday.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into certain contracts entered into by the Postmaster General with Messrs Cunard and Mr. William Inman for the conveyance of mails to the United States. On the 20th of March, last year, on a Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), a debate occurred on the subject of postal contracts, when the practice of giving fixed subsidies to special lines of steamers was condemned by almost every person who spoke on that occasion. It was likewise contended that in the several contracts which might be entered into all the companies should be placed on the same footing as to terms of payment and conditions of service. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said—

"He did not think there was any real difference of opinion between the Government and the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 2017.]

His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade closed the debate, and recommended the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) to withdraw his Motion, and he did so. But anyone who would examine the contracts to which he was now calling attention would see that those two principles of no fixed subsidy and of equality of condition between the several contractors had not been complied with. On the 25th of June, last year, the hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in answer to the hon. Member for Montrose, said that—

"It was the intention of the Government in making new contracts for the conveyance of the mails to place all the companies on the same footing as to terms of payment and conditions of service."—[3 Hansard, cxcii. 2132.]

But, instead of equality, it was found now that Messrs. Cunard were to receive a fixed subsidy of £70,000 a year for two services a week, and Mr. Inman £35,000 for one weekly service, while the North German Lloyd were to have no fixed subsidy, but only the sea postage, so that what they should receive was to depend on the number of letters they carried. Then Messrs. Cunard were not tied to perform the passage in any given time, nor was Mr. Inman, but the North German Lloyd Company, which had no subsidy, were bound to a particular time, under a heavy penalty if they did not keep it. Again, Messrs. Cunard wore to have a contract for eight years, if the House ratified it, and Mr. Inman for eight years also, while the North German Lloyd Company could be sure of their contract only for six months, when the Post Office might put an end to it, and he understood that the Treasury had written to the Post Office, recommending that it be put an end to. On the 20th of March, 1868, the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, that—

"According to the calculation of the Post Office the sum eventually agreed to be given exceeded by only £1,500 the spa postage they were likely to earn."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 2018.]

It was now admitted, however, by the Post Office that the loss was £22,500. But if the Committee which he moved; for was granted, he would undertake to show that the loss, taking the sea postage only into account, would be much more like £40,000. The condition in former contracts that there should be a sorting-room on board the steamers had not been enforced in this case. It might be urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government did the best they could, and that they had no option but to take the offers made to them. Now, he contended that there were other lines of steamers which would have been able to perform that service; but that was a question which was, perhaps, better fitted for discussion in a Committee. At the same time, he might mention that there were the two Glasgow Companies' steamers, the Hamburg steamers, the North German Lloyd's, and other Companies, with some of which he did not believe there would be any difficulty in arranging for the service to the United States—he believed that the Hamburg Company would have I given them a Saturday service if required—and the Post Office could compel Messrs. Cunard to have taken ship let- ters at 1d. each, and there were penalties for delay. He was aware that it would be urged that it was necessary that the vessels should call at Queenstown, but the Hamburg steamers could be got to do that. The Inman line when it had a contract which did not bind it to call at Queenstown nevertheless did so. All last year the Inman steamers called there, having only the sea postage, and they would have gone on doing it. He maintained that it would have been quite easy to get as good services as those they had now obtained, and in support of the assertion he would read the opinion of the Duke of Montrose, when Postmaster General, expressed on the 24th of October, 1867. His Grace's opinion was given in these terms—

"The Cunard Company, though no longer under contract with us, would, it is well known, continue to despatch their ships as at present, and would assuredly endeavour, and very properly endeavour, to place the packets under contract with us in a disadvantageous light. It has been thought that we might put ship letter mails on board the Cunard ships. If we did so, the Cunard Company would, no doubt, endeavour to carry those mails so well as to make the public draw an unfavourable comparison between the foreign company which was within, and the British company which was without, the pale of a contract with the British Government."

That opinion was contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 42, page 37; and it appeared to him almost to dispose of the question. By the contracts now on the table of the House they would get two good services a week for £105,000; whereas on the basis of the tenders issued in 1867 they might have had three good services weekly for the sea postage only—namely, one by Mr. William Inman's vessels, one by the North German Lloyd's, and one by the Hamburg Company. The contract for 1868 contained no fixed time within which the service should be performed, and no penalty for exceeding the time; whereas, in 1867 there was a fixed time, with a penalty. It was now proposed—excluding the route of the North German Lloyd's, which was to cease—to have one line of Cunard's quick steamers, one line of Cunard's slow cargo boats, and one of Mr. William Inman's vessels. They might strike out the Cunard's slow cargo boats, because they were generally overtaken by boats which left one, two, and in some cases three days afterwards. By the proposed arrangement they would also be tied for eight years, and would in all probability not get a daily mail during that period. Now, in 1866, Lord Stanley of Alderley, then Postmaster General, said he thought a daily mail was a very desirable thing, and that it might be obtained. So under these contracts they would discontinue, in all probability, the North German Lloyd's service—a good service, costing £12,000 a year, the sum which they received for postage; and they would get the service of the Cunard's slow boats on the Wednesdays for £35,000 a year. As to speed, the Cunard boats, which would be under no penalty as to time, went at the rate of 12 knots an hour by the measured mile. On the other hand, the Hamburg Company had one boat the speed of which was over 13 knots by the measured mile, four boats the speed of which was over 14 knots, and it was no extreme calculation to say that in all probability, before these contracts expired, they might have boats which would go 15 or 16 knots an hour. He was informed that the Messrs. Cunard were not building any new vessels, while other companies were building new vessels and fast vessels. And he prayed the House to remark that of the twenty boats which the Messrs. Cunard kept to perform these services there were only six fast and fourteen slow vessels; and whatever time they took the Post Office could not say they had not fulfilled their contract, because it had accepted those slow boats, and knew, therefore, that a good speed could not be obtained from them. The United States sent no mails by the Cunard cargo line. The form of tender issued in 1868 required the different companies to be bound to time, and the fourth clause contained a penalty for not keeping time. The Messrs. Cunard and Inman struck out those clauses. By a Return he had got from the Post Office he found that between the 1st of January 1869—the commencement of the contract—and the 8th of February the Messrs. Cunard and Inman's boats made sixteen voyages, nine of which exceeded time. In two cases the excess of time was one day and a half; in another case, nearly three days; in another, over three days and a half; and in another, over four days and a half. The proper time was twelve days. The North German Lloyd's vessels during that period made five voyages; and in two cases they exceeded time—in the first case four hours, and in the second eighteen hours. Would it not be better, therefore, to dispense with, the slow boats and keep the North German Lloyd's boats? Again, he objected to contracts of this kind being entered into for a term of eight years, because they would in all probability be pleaded as an argument against any reduction of the rates of postage. The renewal of the contract with Messrs. Cunard in 1858 was alleged again and again as a reason why the post age should not be reduced from 1s. to 6d., and it was stated by the Postmaster General that that contract entailed a loss of over £100,000, whereas by arranging with other respectable owners of ships the postage might have been reduced and a saving of £100,000 a year effected. He confessed he looked forward with great hope to the reduction of the post age between this country and the United States from 6d. to 3d., or even a smaller amount. At all events, he felt satisfied that before long arrangements would be made for fixing the postage at 3d. Nay, he even went further and maintained that it would be wise for us to reduce the postage to Id., for he believed that the loss we should thereby incur would not be nearly equal to the amount we expended by reason of the contract entered into with Messrs. Cunard. He strongly objected to the system of giving fixed subsidies to particular firms. A kind of monopoly was by that means built up which was highly injurious to parties who did not share in it. On the 22nd of November, 1867, Mr. Inman wrote to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer a letter containing the following passages:—

"Any advantage given to them [that is, the Messrs. Cunard] can only injure the public service … We have as good a fleet as the Cunards; our company is seventeen years old."

And in the same letter they expressed their willingness to take the sea postage. In another communication they stated that to give Messrs. Cunard a greater subsidy than the Inman Company would be to enable Messrs. Cunard "to under- quote our rates of freight" and make Inman's ships go empty. No doubt: these arguments were very telling as against Messrs. Cunard, but they could now be applied with equal force against Mr. William Inman. He understood, and in fact he knew, that Messrs. Cunard had informed the Post Office two days ago that if the Motion of which he had given notice were carried they would not call at Queenstown to-morrow. The Motion they alluded to was Ids original Motion, in which he asked the House not only to appoint a Committee but to withhold their approval of the contract until that Committee had made its Report. Since then, however, he had so modified the Motion that it only related to the appointment of a Committee. Now, he confessed that to his mind it was a somewhat strange and novel thing for a private company to place itself in opposition to the power of Parliament. He would say nothing about their want of patriotism, but it would be for the lawyers to determine whether, in the event of Messrs. Cunard's boat not calling at Queenstown to-morrow, they would not place themselves in a difficulty. At all events, the House of Commons ought not to allow itself to be influenced by a threat of this kind. He might likewise remark that the commercial men of London need not be under any apprehension that even if Messrs. Cunard should not call at Queenstown their letters would not be forwarded to the United States. He held in his hand the copy of an offer which a Hamburg Company had made to the Post Office to the effect that their boats for carrying the mails to the United States should call at Queenstown, and that they would comply with all the conditions in the contract of Messrs. Cunard, with the sole exception of that which bound them to allow the Government to purchase their vessels in the event of war; and they offered to carry the mails for £25,000 a year instead of £35,000.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he wished to state why he disapproved the contract which had been laid upon the table. In the first place, the system of subsidies had long been condemned by this House, and he therefore regretted that this contract should have been proposed. Like his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) he was a warm advocate of a 1d. postage to America. The mere freight of letters across the Atlantic would not cost more than £5 per ton, whereas 1d. for each letter would mount up to £140 per ton. There was ample reason, therefore, for supposing that a 1d. charge would give a sufficient profit to induce owners of vessels to carry the mails. If there were no monopoly, we might have a daily communication with America. The Secretary to the Treasury of the late Government, during a discussion which took place last year, stated that it was the intention of the Government authorities "to put an end to subsidizing lines of steamers and establish free trade in the carrying of letters;" and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was desirous of seeing the postal service across the Atlantic self-supporting, and that it was in that spirit that future contracts would be entered into, but that it would not be advantageous to fetter the hands of the Government or lay down such a rule as was then suggested. He thought after such statements they would have some difficulty in explaining why these contracts had been so impetuously entered into.

said, that as the Government did not propose to offer any opposition to the Motion for the appointment of a Committee he should not trouble the House with any very lengthened observations on the subject. He should like, however, to enter a little more into detail than he had been able to do in answer to a Question which had been put to him a few evenings before, with respect to the course which the Government had taken in the matter, and the reasons which had induced them to take that course. As he had stated in reply to that Question, the Government, when they came into Office, found that the contracts were completed, as far as it was possible, by the action of a Government, to complete them. They had been agreed to by the Government and the contractors; they had been approved by the Treasury, and actually signed, and had it not been for that provision which had of late years been introduced into all contracts of the same nature, that they should be laid for a period of one month. on the table of the House, and not be binding if before the expiration of that time they had been disapproved by the House, it would have been impossible for the present Government to put an end to the contracts without a direct breach of faith with the contracting parties. The Government were perfectly aware that many Gentlemen on their own side of the House—many Members too, he believed, of the present Administration—were altogether opposed on principle to the granting of subsidies for the performance of postal service. They had, therefore, to consider whether they would make use of that power which the proviso in the contract placed in their hands, and take upon themselves the responsibility of recommending the House to withhold its sanction from contracts which had been entered into by their predecessors. They thought that, wholly irrespective of the policy of those contracts, it would have been very unwise and inexpedient that they should upset the action of their predecessors. They arrived at that conclusion on general grounds altogether apart from considerations of the policy of the arrangement. They were of opinion that the Government in future negotiations with commercial companies would be placed in a very disadvantageous position if such an element of uncertainty were to be introduced into their dealings as that, on account of a change of Government, engagements entered into on perfect good faith by both parties should be liable to be set aside. Besides he very much doubted, on looking at the Report of the Committee, on whose recommendation the proviso to which he had referred had been introduced into the contract, whether they ever intended it should be used for such a purpose. The Committee had pointed out that, under the system which then prevailed, the Department responsible for confirming the contract had very imperfect means of obtaining all the information which was necessary. They were also of opinion that the control which the House of Commons possessed over that branch of the public expenditure was very imperfect. With that view they introduced the proviso; but he did not find from the Report of the Committee that it had ever entered into the intention of any of its Members that the proviso should be used as a means of enabling any Government to upset the engagements of another. Un- der those circumstances the Government declined to take upon themselves the responsibility of recommending the House not to sanction the contracts. But they, at the same time, desired that if possible the House should have an opportunity, at an earlier date than that contemplated in the contract, of re-considering the whole arrangement. They had, therefore, entered into negotiations with the Cunard and Inman Companies with a view if possible to induce them to assent to a shortening of the term of the contract which was made by the late Government for seven years with one year's notice, or practically for eight years. They tried to get the Companies to agree to a curtailment of two years. On consideration the Companies refused to agree to any shortening of the term, but in the course of the negotiations Mr. Inman consented to alter the day of sailing fixed by the original contract from Thursday to Friday, which would be a considerable improvement on the whole arrangement. The Government certainly did not deem it to be their duty, because they did not approve of the whole arrangement, to act an over punctilious and somewhat pedantic part, and refuse to touch the contract even for the purpose of making in it what everybody must admit to be an improvement. He denied that there was any ground for saying that in the negotiations between the Government and the Companies there was anything which in the slightest degree diminished the freedom of action of the Government with regard to the contracts in Parliament. On the contrary, the action of the Companies in declining to agree to the shortening of the term which they proposed made it, to a certain extent, more difficult to defend in that House the contracts which had been entered into. He entirely repudiated the inference which he supposed was intended to be drawn by the Question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) that evening, that the Government in the negotiations had committed themselves to any greater extent than before. Having said thus much, he would very briefly state to the House what, in his opinion, were the advantages and the disadvantages of the arrangement, and why he thought the subject was one which might very well be inquired into by a Committee. It seemed to him that by means of the arrangement we should secure the continuance of that which we had enjoyed for a great number of years—that was to say, a very satisfactory and well-performed service between this country and America. Whatever might be the objections to the system, no one would, he thought, deny that the Cunard Company had conducted the service in a manner which, on the score of speed, regularity, safety, and general convenience, left nothing to be desired. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) had made some observations about the boats which that Company now proposed to make use of, but so far as he was aware they had performed the service in the most admirable manner. The Company besides, he believed, pledged themselves—and he saw no 'reason to doubt the pledge—to perform those contracts in the same satisfactory manner. So that we should not only secure the advantage which we had hitherto enjoyed in that respect, but escape those disadvantages to which we should be subjected if the alternative course had been adopted. If the Government had refused to accept the offer which had been made to them by the Cunard and Inman Companies, there must for a time, at any rate, have been considerable inconvenience to be incurred. For a time we should not have the advantage of the ships of these Companies, and we should have to depend on the longer voyage which was performed by the German Company between Southampton and New York; while the mails would have to be despatched on a more inconvenient day for the commercial community, and we should have the further inconvenience of having our mails—he did not know whether the House would attach much importance to that point—conveyed not by a British, but by a foreign, company. There were, however, on the other hand, no doubt, disadvantages in the arrangement. It was much more costly than the alternative one at present, and would, he believed, very probably be more costly in future. But the great objection to which, in his mind, it was open was that it i bound us for a long term of years to one particular arrangement. As the hon. Member for Lincoln had said, there was a very great desire—and he believed a growing desire—to reduce very considerably the rate of postage between Eng- land and America. It was quite possible that that desire might become so strong that this country would consent to give up something of the rapidity and the punctuality of the mail service in consideration of obtaining a very great reduction in the cost. Even should that not be so, it was possible that, by adopting some such system as had been adopted by the American Government, we might get the service performed at a greatly reduced cost, and with equal efficiency. But under the present arrangement our hands would be tied for nearly eight years, and it would become a matter of very considerable expense to the revenue to effect any material reduction in the rate of postage between the two countries. There were, no doubt, other considerations to be taken into account, but those appeared to him to be the chief advantages and disadvantages of the arrangement, and they were matters which, in his opinion, might very properly form the subject of discussion before a Committee of that House. He was also of opinion that the Committee might very well get through the inquiry and report to the House within the time which had yet to elapse before the contract became binding, and that the House would have an opportunity of coming to a decision on that Report. The Government were further of opinion that the subject was not one on which it was their duty to recommend any definite course of action to the House. The Government as a Government had done nothing to put an end to the arrangement which had been entered into by their predecessors, nor to induce the House to assent to that arrangement. The contractors, they thought, must have been perfectly aware that the decision of the question would rest ultimately with that House, and there was nothing which could render it necessary for the Government either to be the defenders of their predecessors in the matter, to dictate any particular course of conduct to the House, or to prevent a full and impartial inquiry into the whole case, which would enable hon. Members to form their own opinions on the whole case. For these reasons the Government assented to the appointment of the Committee, and if the inquiry were conducted in the spirit which he had suggested, it might, he believed, be terminated within the prescribed time.

said, as it would probably become his duty to divide the House upon this Motion, he regretted that so important a subject should be brought forward at so late an hour—half-past twelve. It was not, apparently, a mere question of these particular contracts, but the whole principle of subsidies had been raised. The noble Marquess who preceded him had told them how tenacious a Government should be before upsetting the acts of a preceding Government; but what must have been the impression produced by the speech of the noble Marquess upon every candid and impartial mind? Upon his mind the impression certainly was that, though outwardly the noble Marquess desired to preserve neutrality, inwardly he desired that the acts of his predecessors should be upset. As to the hon. Member (Mr. Seely), his quotations about subsidies and his general objections respecting them would have been much more in place if made last year, but since March 20 of last year this House had confirmed and ratified a most important contract with the West India Royal Mail Company, extending that contract on terms infinitely more advantageous to the Company than those proposed in the present case. By preserving silence at that time the hon. Member was a consenting party to those contracts, and to the principle of subsidies. As to the statement that no time was guaranteed in the performance of this contract, the answer was that Messrs. Cunard had never guaranteed their time; but did experience of the way in which the service was performed show that there was any need for such a guarantee? Their own imputation was a far better guarantee than any condition as to the number of days and hours could be. Again, comparison was made with foreign companies, and one might really fancy that one was not in a British, but in a foreign House of Parliament, to see the evident sympathy that existed for foreign competitors, and the hostility shown to English companies. These foreign vessels were not built under such a survey as was imposed by our Government; they did not even come under a passenger survey; and he believed that there were 200 tons less weight of material in their construction than English vessels had to carry. That would account for speed in the foreign vessels, but he maintained that the Cunard and most of the Inman boats delivered their letters in New York sooner than the boats of any of the foreign companies. Some allusion had been made to the fact that Messrs. Cunard were building no vessels, but this House was to blame for that fact. It was the temporizing policy of Parliament and the uncertainty of the continuance of the contracts which had prevented Messrs. Cunard from building; but as soon as these contracts were ratified they were prepared to go on building the class of ships that were suited for the conveyance of the mails. A remark had been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Seely) which he hoped was unintentional—namely, that the owners of these boats should be compelled to carry the mails at 1d. a letter. On reflection, the hon. Member would hardly adhere to this remark, for it could not be the wish of Englishmen so to deal with those who maintained the maritime supremacy of this country; and it never was contemplated that the obligation placed on ships to carry letter-bags should embrace the regular mails of the country, for those, if forced on a shipowner, could be frustrated by delay in delivery. Then as to the threat which, it was alleged, had been used to this House, the contracting parties had a perfect right, in case the House would not ratify the agreement, to act as self-interest dictated. It was true that when they first saw the Motion placed on the Paper, the effect of which would have been to annul the contract they wrote to the Post Office to say that they felt themselves released from further obligations, and would not allow their ships to call at Queenstown. As soon, however, as they saw that the hon. Gentleman had amended the terms of his Motion—merely asking for a Committee—they wrote to state that it would not be necessary for them to act upon the previous letter. No such threat, therefore, was in existence. He presumed that what were required as essential conditions of any contract for conveying the mails between this country and America were rapidity, regularity, and safety. Cost was, no doubt, a consideration, but it was of secondary importance when compared with the other conditions, and the country would condemn any saving which was effected at their expense. Now, what were the facts of the case? In 1866 the Government of Lord Russell believed it was possible to carry on a proper service based upon a system of ocean postage and not of subsidies. They advertised for tenders, and some four were received; but the Post Office Report was that the public would practically only have two mails a week, leaving Southampton on Tuesdays and Fridays, and no foreign company volunteered to call at Queenstown. Messrs, Cunard declined to tender on the prescribed conditions, but sent in a specific proposal to convey the mails for a specific sum. That sum was considered too high, and ultimately an arrangement of a temporary nature was come to for the conveyance of the mails, at £80,000 for the year. Last year the attempt was renewed, and tenders were invited. Messrs. Cunard and Inman refused to tender, and the only parties who responded to the invitation were the North German Lloyd's, going once a week. Messrs. Cunard and Inman, however, sent in proposals of their own to carry the mails for ten years; the former for £100,000 and the latter for £50,000. The Government did not agree to this, but made a counter proposal to pay Messrs. Cunard £70,000 and Messrs. Inman £35,000 for seven years, and these terms were accepted. The gross postage received was £112,000, but the North German Lloyd's received £10,000 out of this sum, thus virtually leaving £100,000 to meet £105,000, the amount of the proposed guarantee. He did not wonder that the Treasury desired that the arrangement with the North German Lloyd's should be cancelled, seeing that their boat sailed on the same day, Tuesday, and was frequently outstripped by the Queenstown route. Contrasting this contract with two other contracts based upon subsidies, which had been virtually adopted by the House within the last two years, he did not hesitate to say that, taking efficiency and speed into consideration, there would be something inconsistent in adopting the Motion before the House. If any company deserved confidence it was the Cunard Company, which for thirty years had carried the mails, and had never failed to keep their appointed day, unless detained by the orders of the Government, and had never lost a letter or a life. When that Company commenced their career the carry- ing trade on the Atlantic was in the hands of the Americans, but now it was in the hands of Englishmen, and the Company, had, without recompense, adopted Queenstown as their port of arrival and departure, at a cost to themselves of £10,000. They had also, at a critical time, shown the value to the country of their magnificent service. He did not mention these facts to influence the opinion of the House, but to claim fair consideration for old servants. Neither was the Inman Company less entitled to consideration. For nearly twenty years they had fought their way on the Atlantic, and their vessels were as creditable to England as the Cunard's vessels. Allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley) to a penny ocean postage, as if these contracts would interfere with the accomplishment of that idea. All he could say was that, seeing that a letter to Paris now cost 8d. postage for the same weight, the adoption of a penny postage to America must lead to an entire revision of the whole postage system. If a letter could be carried to New York for 1d., people would begin to ask how it was that a letter sent merely from one part of London to another cost just as much for postage. At all events these great experiments should not be tried at the contractors' expense, but at that of the country. Whatever might be the amount of postage, these contracts would not stand in the way of arrangement on that point. With respect to subsidies, there was no doubt that the tendency of opinion in late years had been in favour of doing away with them, and he had been inclined to adopt that opinion. But new circumstances had arisen which that House must not lose sight of. France and other nations had entered on a career of competition with this country in respect to carrying letters. France was subsidizing fast lines of steamers with heavy bounties to New York, to the Antilles, and to Mexico; and what did they get?—£350,000 a year, besides a loan of 10,000,000 francs for twenty years without interest. The French nation paid 16s. a mile for their subsidies; while under this contract England would pay 2s. 6d. Was that fair competition? There was an English company with which he was connected which, ran vessels monthly between Valparaiso and Panama. The French thought that their flag should appear in the Pacific, and a proposal was made to subsidize a company. The English company to avoid competition, offered to take the French mails for nothing. But the French Government, anxious that their flag should fly in the Pacific, paid to the Trans-Atlantique Company 8s. a mile for the carrying of the mails. Unless the House was prepared to deal liberally with the English companies, it could not be expected that they would maintain the steam lines. The establishments of the English companies had greatly added to the strength and power of this country, and had formed a great nursery of seamen for times of emergency. The enlightened Ruler of France desired to possess the same advantages, and this country, therefore, must not stand idly by, and treat a fair offer to carry the English mails in the way in which it was now proposed to treat it. He objected to the Committee which had been moved for, because the object was not to inquire into the terms of the contracts, but to upset the contracts after they had been ratified by the previous Government, and after the faith of the present Government had to a certain extent been pledged to it. He looked upon the Motion for a Committee as a systematic and organized attempt to get rid of the contracts. If the question was sent up to a Committee, they would have only twenty days to consider the matter, and ten of those days would be holidays. It would not, therefore, in his opinion, be possible to obtain a Report before the contracts would by time be ratified. He thought the House was the most competent tribunal to consider the question, and as a question of principle was involved in the matter he would take the sense of the House on it, though he was willing to have the debate adjourned. He had fair grounds for so acting, because the contracts, regarded in all points of view, were such as ought to be sustained. For £105,000—the whole of which sum except about £3,000, would be covered by the postage—there would be three services a week, all starting from Queenstown, and looking to the regularity, punctuality, and speed of the service, he believed that a more fair or moderate arrangement could not be made. The country would not be satisfied with so great and serious an altera- tion as was proposed, and on these grounds he asked the House to hesitate before they refused to ratify a fair, and equitable arrangement.

said, that as one who had a large connection with America, he was of opinion that we should be better served by free competition than by subsidies and engagements for eight years to come, especially as regarded the communication with a country our relations with which were increasing week by week, so that eight years hence we did not know how many steamers might be running, and how much better terms we might be able to make. He had no objection at all to a little foreign competition; on the contrary, when he found that anything was manufactured abroad better than it was in this country, he bought samples in order to display them here. He had no objection to the Cunard Company having a portion of our traffic, or the whole of it if they could work it as well or better than others; but do not let us give them a monopoly for eight years. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had endeavoured to make it appear that this was a question of faith as between one Government and another; it was no such thing. The House was quite competent to deal with it, and, indeed, why should there have been an alteration of the law, giving the House a month to consider contracts, if they were to have no control over them?

said, the contract with the Cunard Company did not come before the House now for the first time. Some years ago it had the exclusive conveyance of the mails of the English Government, and the subsidy was justified upon the ground that no other company could be found to perform the service with such speed and punctuality. Experience had shown that a company without a subsidy—namely, the Inman Company—had attained such a position that the Cunard Company had been obliged to treat it as a partner. If we were free and offered no subsidy at all, the result would probably be that in a few years we should have a daily line of steamers to America, equal either to the Cunard or to the Inman line. In no way could this House be accused of a breach of faith, either positively or constructively, if it refused to ratify a provisional contract; because any man who entered into a provisional contract with the Government for the conveyance of mails did so with the knowledge that it was within the province of the House to treat the contract as the contract with Mr. Churchward was treated.

said, they were discussing the question under considerable disadvantages. There were upon the table of the House the contracts in question, and a Treasury Minute would throw no light upon them; but there were other Papers of the greatest importance without which the House could not come to a fair conclusion on the subject. Why were these Papers not produced? These contracts were concluded by the late Government some time before they went out of Office; there had been abundant time for the Papers to be printed, and if the usual practice had been followed they would have been placed in the hands of Members at the same time as the contracts themselves. The non-production of them was, no doubt, an oversight; possibly it was due to the confusion that might have arisen from the new distribution of business at the Treasury. It used to be the business of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to lay these Papers on the Table; it was possible the Financial Secretary might have thought it was now the business of the Third Lord; and the Third Lord might have thought it was the duty of the Financial Secretary. At any rate, it was the duty of the Government to have produced them, and they had not done so; and he said it was the duty of the Government because the time allowed to the House to consider the contracts was so short, If the House was to pass contracts in review, a month was the shortest time that could be allowed, because there were often voluminous documents, and other business of great importance must have its place. In a Session like this, when men's minds were occupied with one great question, the time seemed particularly short. We had arrived at the 13th of the month; and the contracts having been placed on the table on the second of the month, more than half the time given for their consideration had passed before the necessary information was communicated. The Mover of the Amendment had had access to Papers at the Post Office, which, by the courtesy of the Postmaster General, he had also seen; but even if he had not seen them he should have had an advantage over other hon. Members, because his recollection would serve him as to what occurred when he was in Office. But this was not a position a Member of the House ought to be in; he ought not to stand in a position of exceptional advantage. He much preferred that the House should be in possession of all information, and then he thought hon. Members would conclude that the course which was taken by the late Government was one which ought to be endorsed by the acceptance of the contracts. The Mover of the Motion appeared to know more about the contracts made for the last year than about those for the next eight years; he dwelt largely upon the false estimate made by himself (Mr. Hunt) with regard to the postal service of 1868, and very little upon the estimate on which the Government undertook to enter into these contracts. The estimate he gave when Secretary of the Treasury of the amount that would be lost by the exceptional contract with the Cunard Company for one year was varied considerably by the non-realization of expectations as to the amount of postage from America, a large part of which the American Government preferred to send another way. Again, after the arrangements were made, they were discussed in the House, and, on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman now the President of the Poor Law Board, a contract was made with the Hamburg Company, whose earnings were deducted from the amount which otherwise would have been earned by the Cunard Company. To that extent the estimate of what we should lose by the Cunard Company was considerably enhanced. The contract was discussed fully at the time; and he stated that the Government did not consider the arrangement a good one, but it was made under difficult circumstances, and only for a year. It had been attempted to be shown, and had been insinuated by a question put upon the Paper, that there had been a breach of an implied promise on the part of the late Government; but there had been no breach of a promise at all, express or implied. On that occasion he expressed the opinion that the American service should be a self-supporting one; and he said now it was. He stated that he did not believe we could expect the service to he performed properly, except an arrangement were made for a term of years; and, he also stated that he thought it was wrong there should be different arrangements with different companies. A question had been raised as to the inequality of terms between the Inman and Cunard Companies; but in the present contract the terms given to both were precisely identical. In all particulars the arrangements which were made by the late Government had been fulfilled to the letter. What he laid down was the principle on which they ought to proceed. He objected to being tied down by a Resolution not to give a subsidy by a fixed payment, and he referred to the Report of the Committee on the subject which resolved that it was inexpedient to lay down precise rules. He said it would be utterly impossible for the Government to do its best for the country if it were bound hand and foot; and the Motion asking the House to bind the Government was withdrawn. It had been said that there should not be any fixed term of years appointed, but that the service should be open to any person or any company who would undertake it for the sea postage. But the Government offered to receive tenders exactly in those terms, and what was the result? They asked for tenders to start from Queens-town. In 1868, which they might regard as a trial year, they had had two services weekly from Queenstown and two from Southampton, and the proportion carried from Queenstown was 75 per cent and from Southampton only 25 per cent. The advantage in point of time by the adoption of Queenstown as the port of departure might be set down as forty-eight hours in the case of Ireland, thirty-six hours in the case of Scotland, and eighteen to twenty-four hours in the case of the English manufacturing districts; while the adoption of Southampton, even in the case of London, presented no advantage. The Government therefore advertised for open service from Queenstown, on terms of sea postage, terminable at six months' notice. It was an old proverb that you might take a horse to the water but could not make him drink, and the House might be surprised to learn that their invitation for this particular form of tender did not meet with a single response. One tender was received from the National Steamship Company. They, however, require us to make a stipulation in regard to half-ounce letters which it was impossible for us to comply with in consequence of our arrangements with the United States. The North German Lloyd proposed to take letters at 1d. per ounce, but also proposed that Southampton should be substituted for Queenstown, thus losing all the advantages in point of time which were to be gained by the adoption of the latter port. The Hamburg Steampacket Company also tendered, but required 288 days to perform the voyage during the summer months, instead of 264, and 312 during the winter months, instead of 288, and to start from Southampton instead of Queenstown. There were also two other tenders, one from Messrs. Cunard for £100,000 a year for two services, and one from Mr. Inman for one service for £50,000. The average length of the voyages of the respective lines for the first three months of the year was as follows:—Cunard, 11 days 8 hours; Inman, 11 days 22 hours; North German Lloyd, 11 days 12 hours; Hamburgh-American line, 12 days 2 hours. In the months of April, May, and June the average length of the voyage was as follows:—Cunard, 9 days 20 hours; Inman, 10 days 13 hours; North German Lloyd, 11 days 10 hours; Hamburgh-American, 11 days 23 hours. Now, it had been objected against the Cunard line that the contractors got as much out of the contract as their possibly could, and in return laid themselves under no obligations, inasmuch as they did not in any way tie themselves down as to time. But the answer that the contractors made was a very reasonable one. They said they were unwilling to hold out any inducement to the captains of their vessels to risk the lives of the passengers and crew and the safety of the vessels by endeavouring at all hazards and in all weathers to avoid the infliction of penalties. They reasonably enough pointed to what they had done in the past and, taking that as their guide, he thought they might trust them in the future, especially when they remembered that without penalties their vessels had kept better time than the vessels of others who were liable to penalties in case of their being overdue. The late Government had honestly and loyally tried the experiment which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had said they ought to have tried. For the decisions then made he himself was chiefly responsible, and that responsibility he was perfectly willing to bear. What were the Government to do? Those two Companies offered to conduct the service from Queenstown for a subsidy of £150,000, and for a term of ten years. He was satisfied that it was but reasonable to stipulate that the contract should be continued for a term of years, because it was evident that it would be impossible for persons to build suitable ships and conduct such a service unless such a condition were agreed to. They had in contemplation the reduction of the postage as soon as they could, and they believed that it might be possible to make that reduction at an earlier period. They were, therefore, unwilling to agree to the adoption of so long a term as ten years. They, therefore, insisted upon the term being reduced to seven years. The sea postage of the outward mails of the last year carried amounted to £101,700. According to calculation and according to the increase which had been going on of late years, the Department estimated that £111,870 would be the sea postage to be earned. They decided that the principle upon which they would act should be that the service should be self-supporting. Allowing a certain margin, they fixed, the amount to be earned at £105,000, and allotted the dividend to each service to be performed—that was to say, £70,000 to Messrs. Cunard for the two services, and £35,000 to Mr. Inman for one. The Post Office authorities regarded the terms as preposterous, but the Government were firm, and the result was that, though with great difficulty, those terms were obtained. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), said that there ought to be no subsidy, but that the line should be self-supporting. But the hon. Gentleman should remember that, even if the money was given in the form of sea-postage, it was till a subsidy and nothing else. He claimed also for their proposal the merit of being self-supporting. In answer to a memorial signed by some very influential gentlemen in the City, although the Government did not concur in the views of the memorialists, who thought that a gain in time and convenience would result from the arrangement they proposed, they assented to try the other services as a temporary matter. Now, if the contract held good, what would be their position in a few years? In 1871 the excess, as estimated, would amount to over £30,000, which would allow the postage to be reduced by 1d. By 1873 the excess on the postage to be earned—supposing the letters to go on increasing as they hitherto had done—would amount to £58,000 and would enable them to take off a second 1d., and by the year 1876 the postage would amount to £218,000, and permit of their reducing it to 3d. Therefore the object the hon. Gentleman so much desired would be arrived at under the very arrangement which the Government had made. He had not the smallest objection to all these matters being referred to a Select Committee. Indeed, if he were to select one act of his official conduct which he would like more than another to be thoroughly inquired into, it was this one, because he believed it had been the means of giving the public the maximum advantage at the most economical price possible. What the people would be inclined most strongly to insist upon was efficiency and regularity, and they must remember that they could not get all the advantages of cheapness without losing some of the advantages of regularity. He wanted to know, if these contracts were not to be carried out, why the Inman Company were to be asked to change their days for sailing? But since the Inman Company had been led to believe that the contracts were to be carried out, the hon. Member for Lincoln had put his Motion upon the Paper. And what was that Motion intended to effect? He had heard of the evils of a weak Government—and unfortunately for himself he had been a Member of a weak Government—[Laughter]—that was to say, a Government which was not supported by a Parliamentary majority, and he had experienced much humiliation in consequence. But they were told that they had now a strong Government—a Government that could command a majority of upwards of 100; and what was the conduct of that strong Government? It came down to that House and said, "We wish to abdicate our functions in this matter—here are the contracts made by our predecessors—deal with them as you will, we decline to say whether they are good or bad, or to express any opinion whatever concerning them." Was that the part that a Government should take? He called it a poor, mean course for them to adopt. What would have been said had the late Government adopted such a course? But he denied that the late Government would have adopted such a course—they would have, at all events, avowed their opinions upon the subject. They might not always have been sufficiently strong to carry their opinions out, but they would, at all events, have avowed them, and would not have asked for a Committee in order to shelter themselves from the responsibility which justly attached to them. The Government had declared that they were neutral in the matter, but he wished to know whether the Government really were neutral respecting it? The hon. Member for Lincoln said he wished to refer the contract to a Committee; but what did he wish the Committee to do? The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) had stated that, although it was not the view of the contractors, it was the view of the legal authorities that if the Motion of the hon. Member was carried as it originally stood, ipso facto, the contracts would be cancelled. He was, therefore, not surprised that the Government should have thought the original Motion of the hon. Member rather awkward, because in that case the public might have complained with just cause that at a few hours' notice the whole of the Atlantic postal system was put an end to. Under these circumstances, the Government had found it convenient that the latter portion of the hon. Gentleman's original Motion should be struck out; but although the terms of the Motion were altered, the original intention of its Mover to cancel the contract remained unaltered, and yet the Government, while professing complete neutrality upon the subject, supported the Motion. If there was to be a division upon this Motion he should not divide with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) because he did not wish it to be supposed that he shunned investigation into the matter. Had he the wish to afford a complete triumph to the late Government, he should be perfectly willing that the contracts should be rescinded, because the state of things that would result to the public from the postal arrangements being suddenly upset would be intolerable, the present Government would be turned out, and a clamour raised for the return of the late Government to Office. He should, however, be sorry to secure any advantage to himself or to his party at the expense and inconvenience of the country; hut what he wished to say was Do not let it be supposed that the Government was neutral in this matter. If they were indeed neutral and there was to be a division, let the Government walk out of the House, as he intended to do himself. He was not going to oppose the appointment of the Committee, because, for his own part, he should be glad to let it be seen that the statements he had made were correct. The late Government had acted with the best of motives, and with an anxious desire for the public service; and the appointment of a Committee would make that fully apparent to the public.

said, he did not exactly Under-stand the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt), who said that those who supported this Committee were in favour of abrogating the contracts altogether, while at the same time he declared that he himself was also in favour of the appointment of the Committee. [Mr. HUNT: No.] At all events the right hon. Gentleman said he wished and desired that the Committee should be appointed, while at the same time he attacked the motives of those who supported the Motion. It was very easy to explain that which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think so difficult—namely, the conduct of the present Government in this matter. Had the right hon. Gentleman thought fit he might easily have thrown the whole responsibility on the present Government by abstaining from executing the contract at the time when the late Government had made up their minds to quit Office. These contracts were not executed until after the present Government had formally accepted the Seals of Office from Her Majesty. He did not attribute blame to anyone; but the late Government chose to take upon themselves the responsibility of making the arrangement—as they were legally entitled to do—being still the Board of the Treasury till their successors received the Seals of Office. They exercised the power which was in their hands of binding the country to this most important engagement, and their successors had then to consider what they would do under the circumstances.

said, he must ask leave to correct the right hon. Gentleman. It was either in September or October that the engagement was actually entered into. He could not give the date upon which the contract was finally signed, but he knew that everything had been settled by the Treasury long before there was any thought of resigning.

said, the Treasury Minute authorizing this contract was signed on the 9th of December; the present Government accepted Office and went to Windsor on the 10th; and on the 11th the contract itself was signed. The late Government had done what they were legally entitled to do, and, having acted upon their responsibility, the present Government considered themselves bound by the acts of their predecessors in Office. They considered themselves bound by a sort of official etiquette and necessity to carry out the acts of the late Government, and they accordingly felt themselves precluded from taking any part for or against these measures, and had not made any appeal to the House. As far as any statements of their own were concerned, they had observed a strictly neutral position, for they did not think it consistent with the dignity of a Government to be at the same moment carrying out an engagement entered into by others and taking part in the overthrow of that very engagement. That, no doubt, seemed very incomprehensible to the right hon. Gentleman. But he repeated and maintained that it would present a very regrettable, and even contemptible, appearance in the eyes of foreign countries if—having adopted the measures of the previous Government in good faith and honour—the present Government were to take part in getting rid of those very measures. That was the explanation of the conduct of the Government, and he hoped it was satisfactory to the House. He was very sorry that there had been any slowness in producing the Papers; they were in the printer's hands, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they were not withheld with a view to prejudice his case. And he was glad to perceive that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to provide himself with such documents as were necessary. He had adopted the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and endeavoured to carry it out. But an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seely) having—without any prompting from him or his Department or from the Government as a whole—moved that the subject be referred to a Select Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite having acquiesced in that proposal, he should not be prevented by any taunts which might be thrown out from taking the course which he considered best under the circumstances. Investigation was challenged, and he thought it ought to be made. He offered no personal opinion upon the measure itself—that they had inherited from their predecessors; he was quite ready to go into Committee upon it; he had no wish to hide anything, and he was prepared to abide by whatever the wisdom of the House might decide.

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that he had mentioned the dates inaccurately. He was now in a position to quote them from official documents. The offer was made by the Secretary to the Post Office to Messrs. Burns, M'Ivor & Co.—on the 1st of October; to Mr. Ingram on the 2nd of October; and accepted on the part of both those firms on the 7th of October.

thought the Committee should be appointed or the debate adjourned for the production of Papers.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persevere in the Motion for adjournment which would cause the evasion of the inquiry. The case for the Committee was very strong, and the House could not otherwise perform an important duty which it had reserved for itself. The Committee would be appointed with no foregone conclusion. The sense in which it would be appointed would be to afford free scope for the exercise of a jurisdiction which in this particular case it had specially reserved, for itself.

said, he could not see how it was possible that an impartial Committee could be constituted in this case. It was quite clear the Mover could not be a Member of it, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) had no intention of taking any part in it.

said, as the representative of a great mercantile community, he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool. The Committee was only a means in order to get rid of the contract.

declared he must do the same, unless he got a satisfactory explanation.