I beg leave to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the letter read at a public meeting at Birmingham on Monday the 14th instant, signed John Bright, and which has appeared in the public journals, was written by the President of the Board of Trade; and, if so, whether the Government concur in the opinions therein expressed?

Sir, in answer to the inquiry of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that the letter which has been published in the journals as having been addressed by my right hon. Friend to some of his constituents at Birmingham, and as having been read at a public meeting there, is—his production. Further, Sir, I have to state that letter was written by my right hon. Friend without communication with his Colleagues, upon his own responsibility, as, in fact, also was a letter I myself wrote to a gentleman at Bradford, acknowledging the receipt of a Resolution passed at a town meeting on the Irish Church two days before; and that letter of mine was published in the same paper with the letter of my right hon. Friend, but it was not dignified with the same large and clear type, nor with the same prominent position in the newspaper, and it attracted, I feel somewhat mortified in saying, no notice whatever. With respect to the latter part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that is, as to whether the Government agree in the opinions expressed in that letter, I must say that the Government have not thought it their duty, and will not think it their duty, to consider in detail the particulars of those opinions, and for a reason which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will readily perceive to be just. There may be many things with which, in the abstract, as propositions the Government would agree, and yet with which as a Government they might not think themselves justified or warranted in stating with regard to the action of a branch of the Legislature. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I think, perfectly entitled to ask from me is—Whether the Government themselves in any manner approve, or desire in appearance to approve, any interference, by threat, dictation, or otherwise, the perfectly free action of the House of Lords? Now, Sir, upon that subject I hope I may appeal to the tone that has been preserved in debate both here and elsewhere to sustain me when I say that nothing can be further from our intentions. Each branch of the Legislature in this country is not only naturally, but justly, jealous of the slightest attempt to interfere with its liberty of discussion, and most of all would it feel that jealousy when sentiments, which might be in themselves possibly defensible, just, or wholesome, were propounded with a quasi authority of the Ministers of the Crown. And, Sir, I may presume to state, as the question has been raised—I do not say unjustifiably raised—that these are not mere words upon our part; for I can say for myself that within the last week or ten days overtures have been made to me from largo centres of population with respect to the holding of great meetings on the subject now under discussion in the House of Lords. I have, as far as I could presume to do so, steadily discouraged such meetings, and, perhaps, I may be permitted to say also, on the part of my right hon. Friend, though again without concert with me, and upon his own responsibility, that he has met similar overtures by pursuing a similar course to that I deemed it right to adopt, and he has been anxious to avert any popular action of that kind which may interfere, or seem to interfere, with the free action of the House of Peers.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government propose, during the next Session of Parliament, to bring in a Bill to repeal the Clause of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, providing for the representation of minorities?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not taken into consideration whether they should make any proposal to the House upon the subject of the clause in the Representation of the People Act providing for the representation of minorities. It is well known to my hon. Friend, as to all the world, that neither all the Gentlemen on this Bench, nor, I think upon any other Bench in the House of Commons, were entirely agreed in their views upon that clause. Whether all my Colleagues retain the opinions they expressed I do not know, but I may own that I still retain my opinions on the subject, and they have certainly been rather strengthened than weakened by all that has since occurred.

said, he had no intention to offer any opposition to the first stage of the proposed Bill; he must however, be allowed to express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) had brought back into the House one of those questions which they had been doing all they could to keep out of it. He deeply regretted it, because the precedent set by so high an authority would not be easily forgotten. With regard to the matter itself, he confessed it shocked his sense of justice when it was said that there was a case for inquiry, and then without any inquiry they were called upon to condemn. He also regretted that the subject was brought before the House for a special reason. The House would recollect that last year there was a discussion upon the subject of the freemen of Ireland on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). The House would not forget the grounds upon which they were then asked to disfranchise the freemen of Dublin. Corruption was not the main ground, but the position they took in regard to the connection of this country with Ireland. Would it be possible for people to believe that this question had been brought up because forty or fifty freemen of the City of Dublin were corrupt, or would they not, on the other hand, be convinced that it was because these freemen were of a particular way of thinking in political matters? He especially regretted the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, because the Members on his side of the House had been dealing with the Irish Church with a strong hand. The hon. Member for Clare last year used the same argument with regard to the freemen of Ireland which he had used as to the Irish Church. Did they not believe that the land question would follow? How were they to separate them? If a right hon. Gentleman on the other side brought forward this Motion on a colourable pretence, why should it not apply to the land question, which was as much a badge of ascendancy as the Irish Church? He regretted the introduction of this Bill, because he believed there was much more inconvenience in taking this course than in permitting the corruption to pass unnoticed.

said that, independently of the respect he entertained for the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he desired to say a few words to explain the course he had taken. It was impossible for the House to maintain its character for desiring to check corruption if it allowed the Dublin Writ to issue, and took no steps to purify the constituency. "When the House of Lords, for reasons which he was far from regarding as unsatisfactory, declined to join in the Address to the Crown for a Commission, there were two courses open to the House of Commons, but not, in his opinion, a third; yet that third course had been taken by the hon. Member (Mr. Noel), who, representing the party opposite, had moved the issue of the Writ. With such a Report from Mr. Justice Keogh, if they allowed the Writ to issue, the corrupt portion of the freemen would again exercise the franchise, and with the same desire to make as much private profit as possible out of the election. A Bill might be proposed to authorize a Commission of Inquiry according to the precedent adopted in the cases of Sudbury and St. Albans, but in that case the inquiry would not be completed before the end of the Session, and the Writ could not issue until the beginning of next year. On the other hand, the case of the freemen of Dublin fell exactly within the precedent of Yarmouth, where gross and extensive bribery having been proved before a Committee of that House to have existed among the freemen of the borough, the House passed a Bill for disfranchising the freemen on the Report of its own Committee, and without further inquiry. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) and others who opposed this Motion whether they had read not only the Report of Mr. Justice Keogh, but also his elaborate judgment, which had been laid upon the table? It was said that only a small number of the freemen had been proved corrupt. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) said he had reason to know that if the learned Judge who made that Report had had reason to believe that the House would proceed against the Dublin freemen in the way now proposed he would not have made that Report. [Mr. VANCE: If the House were to proceed without further inquiry.] But if the hon. Gentleman would read the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, he would be satisfied that the corruption of the freemen of Dublin had been not only extensive, but gross and systematic. It was true that only fifteen freemen were named as having been guilty of corrupt practices, but between 280 and 290 were specified, although not by name, as having been equally guilty of corruption. The learned Judge added that a considerable number had been seen asking for payment for the votes they had given for Sir Arthur Guinness. He was glad that the learned Judge entirely exonerated that gentleman from personal participation in any act of corruption. A "Mr. Foster" was designated by the learned Judge as "the great contriver of this system of corruption." Mr. Foster was called upon the trial of the petition, but he was not to be found, and it was ascertained that he had gone to England the day before he was wanted, and that the evidence to identify the freemen was insufficient, owing to Mr. Foster's absence. If the Writ, consequently, were now to be issued, only fifteen freemen would be disqualified from having been named in the Report, while the 280 who were proved to have been corrupted would be still enabled to exercise the franchise. No doubt existed in the mind of Mr. Justice Keogh as to the extent of corruption among the freemen. The learned Judge, at the conclusion of his judgment, said—

"I shall furthermore declare—because it has been proved by Mr. White, one of the principal solicitors for Sir Arthur Guinness, acting for him at the election, and now acting for him on this petition; proved by Campbell, whose agency has been established, and whom Mr. Goodman described as best acquainted with the freemen; proved by that document, the most artful of all, which was to be delivered at No. 3, Dame Street, after the election, and which was printed and paid for at 76, Capel Street, at the desire of Henry Foster; proved by what appears to me the most conclusive evidence, direct and circumstantial—that the freemen of this city have been shown to a great extent to be corrupt voters, and I shall leave the House of Commons to deal with their case and the constituency as affected by them."

said, he had perused the shorthand writer's notes of the judgment, and his impression was that the Report to the Speaker exactly followed from what the learned Judge remarked in delivering his judgment. It appeared that a great many suspicious circumstances struck the learned Judge's mind as to the manner in which the freemen were induced to vote, but that they were not of a kind to justify his reporting to the Speaker that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. What the learned Judge said in his judgment entirely coincided with his official Report, and they both seemed to point to further inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Grey) had said that the Writ ought not to issue until the corrupt part of the constituency had been eliminated; but it should be borne in mind that, under the 45th section of the Act passed last Session, every person found guilty of corruption was disqualified from voting for the period of seven years. Therefore the present state of things was altogether different from that which existed when the ease of the Great Yarmouth freemen was brought before the House. If a new Writ were to issue for Dublin, the thirteen or fifteen freemen mentioned by name in the Judge's Report would not be able to vote. The right hon. Baronet had offered to withdraw the present Motion and to substitute a Motion for Inquiry. ["No!"] Such a proposal made it questionable whether the Bill he asked leave to introduce was justifiable. He would offer no opposition to the Bill on the present occasion; but he thought it would be a great injustice to the 2,700 freemen, who could not be regarded as being included in the charge made by the Judge, if the Bill were read a second time in its present shape.

explained that he had not proposed to substitute inquiry for the present Motion, but had merely suggested that some hon. Member opposite might do so.

contended that the case of Great Yarmouth was not analogous to the present, and it should also be remembered that the course adopted with regard to Yarmouth had not been attended with much success. He also wished to point out that the object of purifying the constituency of Dublin would not be attained if, as was likely, a considerable number of the persons disfranchised as freemen should come upon the register as householders.

said, he represented a constituency containing many freemen, and he wished to state distinctly that any vote he might give upon this question would not imply any opinion as to the impropriety of continuing freemen upon the electoral roll. One of the devices of the party opposite at the last election was to circulate in every borough, a statement that it was the intention of the Liberals to disfranchise the freemen as soon as possible; and he had not the slightest doubt that when it was convenient to make that assertion again it would be made, and with as little foundation as it was made at the last election. He did not desire to disfranchise freemen generally; but, if they were corrupt, he did not see why they should not be disfranchised just as much as any other class of a constituency. With reference to this particular measure, he was glad to think, if a determined attempt had been made to cast a shield over corruption, it had not been made by the Liberal majority of the House of Commons. The position in which they were placed was this—there was a certain statutory power under which, if a Judge reported that extensive corruption prevailed, a Commission could be issued, and the statute required that there should be an Address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament. As a Member of the House of Commons, he could not understand upon what ground an Address from the Lords should be necessary for such a purpose. It ought to be the exclusive privilege of the House of Commons to guard the purity of its own constituencies. If the House of Lords wished in a Committee of Privileges to inquire as to the rights by which an individual claimed a seat in the Upper House, they did not come to the House of Commons to ask for their assent to such an inquiry. He did not understand upon what principle it was that the House of Commons had not the right to address the Crown of its own intrinsic authority, and ask the Crown to issue a Commission for an Inquiry as to corrupt practices in a constituency returning Members to this House. This House had already assented to an Address to the Crown for an Inquiry in this case, and the question was then referred to the House of Lords. With the greatest respect for the eminent authorities who said, that the law did not apply to this case, his judgment concurred with that of the Lord Chancellor, that the distinctions drawn by the Opposition lawyers were extremely technical and unsound. The Lord Chancellor gave this illustration. He said that if, in the case of the cattle plague, a statute prescribed that cattle were to be slaughtered if extensive disease and rinderpest prevailed, and it happened to be reported by an inspector that rinderpest prevailed extensively among black cattle, then, according to the contention on the other side, you could not slaughter any cattle at all. That seemed to him to be a pretty complete reductio ad absurdum of the argument on the other side. However, the House of Lords determined they would not address the Crown for an Inquiry; and hon. Gentlemen opposite, having by their majority in the Lords prevented an inquiry, came to this House and said—"You cannot disfranchise the freemen, because there has been no previous inquiry." But whose fault was it that there was no inquiry? It was not the fault of the House of Commons; they wished to have it; and now the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) put a searching test to hon. Members opposite by inviting them to move for an Inquiry if they wished for one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Hunt), speaking with all the authority of his position, reserved his answer to that question; but the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) less bound by official prudence, said he would have no inquiry at all, but would resist such a proposal to the death. What, then, became of the statement of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were opposing this Motion because there had been no previous inquiry? By a sort of special demurrer, which was got rid of in Westminster Hall fifteen years ago, and which seemed to have been revived in the law of election petitions, they had opposed the inquiry which the House wished to make, they had used the power they had in the Lords to prevent it, and then they came to this House and said—"You shall not deal with this matter, because there has been no previous inquiry." He ventured to predict that until some measure of the kind had been taken the Writ would never issue from the House of Commons. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, by this species of election special pleading, chose to resist this Bill, they would simply deprive the constituency of one Member. Individually, he should prefer inquiry, as the House of Commons did; but, it having been reported that an integral portion of the constituency was corrupt, the House would take care, either by inquiry or disfranchisement, that no Writ was issued until a real and substantial attempt had been made to purify the constituency and vindicate the character of the House.

deprecated the tone of the speech they had just heard. The question was one of the simplest, for they were all professing to desire inquiry; and he did not see what was to prevent the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) from proposing it, instead of bringing in a Bill to disfranchise the freemen of Dublin, whether they were guilty or innocent. He protested against that in the name of common justice, and still more because last Session election petitions were handed over to another tribunal. He considered it cause for regret that these questions were always turned into party questions. He thought nothing was so discreditable as the bribery that existed, and every means ought to be taken to check it by proceedings against those who had bribed.

said, the House had only committed to the new tribunal the duty of deciding whether an election was valid or not, but it still reserved the power to act upon the report of a Judge or of a Commission. On that side they were satisfied with the inquiry which had been made; if the other side desired more inquiry, by all means let them have it, but let it be remembered that the cost of inquiry fell upon the City of Dublin. Next time he hoped that Mr. Henry Foster would be forthcoming.

ventured to say that, under the statute referred to, a Commission could not issue. The Attorney and Solicitor General had endeavoured to set him down by declaring his reading of the statute to be unsound; but when the matter came before the House of Lords his opinion was upheld by Lord Westbury, Lord Chelmsford, and Lord Cairns, and with such support he was perfectly satisfied.

complained that a majority in the House of Commons should be used for the purpose of keeping an important constituency for a time without its share of representation. Moreover, the Lords having determined that there was not sufficient evidence to justify inquiry, would not be likely to stultify themselves by passing this measure.

rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the common practice of purchasing Adjutancies of Militia, in opposition to the declaration which has to be signed by the incoming adjutant; and to move the annulment of the declaration. The declaration which the incoming adjutant made, upon his honour as an officer and a gentleman, was that, in order to obtain the appointment, he had not given, paid, received, nor promised, nor did he believe that anyone had for him, directly or indirectly, any recompense, reward, or gratuity, from any person whatsoever. It was well known that, in the face of this declaration, adjutancies were bought and sold, and the declaration was regarded as a formality. The growing importance of the Militia rendered it necessary to maintain the high character of its officers, and there were some who were so scrupulous that they had refused to append their names to the declaration. The present rule resulted in this, that men were obliged either to sign a declaration they hew to be false, or else forego an appointment for which they knew themselves perfectly well fitted. He therefore moved that the order be annulled.

said, he thought he would be able by a very few words to induce the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion. The object of the hon. Member seemed to be to introduce into the Militia the purchase system, which most persons desired to get rid of in the Army. It was impossible to admit that a gentleman could make the declaration referred to, and yet purchase without tarnishing his character. Such a proceeding, in his opinion, was so reprehensible, that he was determined to do the utmost in his power to prevent the sale of adjutancies in the Militia, and he trusted the course this promise indicated would be deemed preferable to the adoption of the Motion before the House.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and he was sorry to hear it so positively stated that sales of adjutancies in the Militia were of daily occurrence. A man who could read the certificate and sign it, and yet pay money for his appointment, would be a disgrace to Her Majesty's service and unworthy the designation of gentleman.

said, he was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Colonel so express himself, but, nevertheless, he assured the House that the forbidden purchases were of daily occurrence. He trusted the Secretary for War would be most determined in his action in the matter.

observed that it was the duty of those who knew of these daily infringements of the rules of the service to make the Horse Guards acquainted with the fact.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make the declaration more stringent than it had been, and would put down the abominable system.

remarked that if the practice complained of were frequent it should be remembered that the Secretary for War was not easily able to get evidence of the facts in a case. The Lord Lieutenants and the colonels of regiments should be applied to for guarantees that nothing of the kind was carried on among those under their command. He had heard of a case in which a colonel of Militia or Volunteers had received £1,000 to recommend an officer for a post. He was sorry to hear a Member of Parliament palliate the signing of a false certificate.

rose to move, That it would be a great convenience to the commercial interest if the Stamp Duties on Inland and Foreign Bills of Exchange were assimilated, and if it were permitted to use adhesive stamps for Inland as they were now used for Foreign Bills of Exchange. The hon. Member said that up to 1853 there were no stamps used on bills drawn in foreign countries on commercial men in this country. At that time the present Prime Minister modified the stamps for inland bills, and at the same time extended the duties on foreign bills. He thus imposed a heavy tax on all men engaged in commercial affairs, but of that he did not complain. The first question was as to the assimilation of home and foreign bills with regard to stamps. Up to £500 the stamp on foreign and English bills was the same, but then it began to vary. On a bill of £600, drawn in a foreign country, the stamp was 6s.; for a bill to the same amount at home it was 7s. 6d. The stamp on a foreign bill for £800 would cost 8s., it would cost 10s. on a home bill to the same amount. But after £1,000 the stamp was the same. Now, this variation of which he had spoken gave rise to great mistakes, and it would not make a pound difference to the Exchequer if there was an entire assimilation. In 1853, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day introduced the system of putting adhesive stamps upon foreign bills, and it was found very convenient. What he asked was that we might have one system for inland and foreign bills, and the only reason he had heard against it was that stamps once used might be taken off and used again.

said, what the hon. Gentleman had recommended as to the assimilation of stamps on foreign and inland bills was well worth consideration, and he should be happy to inquire with a view to remedy what appeared to him a manifest imperfection in the law. But he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion with regard to adhesive stamps. He had carefully inquired into that subject, and he believed the truth of the matter was that they ought never to tolerate anything but an impressed stamp, except through necessity, and an adhesive stamp was a matter of necessity with regard to foreign bills. The Inland Revenue Department informed him that there would be a serious danger of loss if they were to allow adhesive stamps on inland bills, because they did not, like the hon. Member, under-rate the resources of chymistry. It would be much easier than the hon. Gentleman supposed to discharge any mark on a stamp, and put it in a condition in which it might be used twice, and there would be a great temptation to do so in cases where the stamp was costly.

rose to call attention to the armament of the Sea and Land Defences constructed and in pro- cess of construction at Portsmouth, Plymouth, &c. The noble Lord said, there had been no previous opportunity of discussing the subject, because the Report of the Committee appointed by the late Secretary of War in April last year had not been placed in the hands of Members until after the passing of the Votes. It was satisfactory to find that, in the opinion of the Committee, the works had been constructed with due regard to strength and security, and that the amount expended up to June 30 was £5,118,000, leaving only £2,832,000 to be expended. In general terms, two-thirds of the outlay on fortifications had been expended, and only one-third remained to be completed. The House ought now to be informed as to the provision to be made for the armament of those fortifications. On the introduction of the Army Estimates he expressed his belief that provision had only been made for the armament of one-sixth of the fortifications constructed, and no denial had been given to the statement, while large reductions, amounting altogether to £345,000, had been made in the department of Gun and Carriage Factories. He hoped that the Secretary of War would state the amount provided for in this year's Estimates for such armament, independent of any saving which may be effected by the probable adoption of the Moncrieff system.

said, that the whole question would come before the House at no distant period; but, with regard to the land defences, he might state that there were now in store more guns than were wanted to supply the whole of them. As to the sea defences, there were not guns enough yet made, but there were more than could, at the present moment, be mounted, and the supply was gradually and steadily increasing. In reference to the amount proposed in this year's Estimate for armaments, he would say that ninety-nine 12-ton guns were provided last year, and a similar number would be provided this year. This statement was not literally an answer to the noble Lord; but it really gave the information he required.

said, that the second reading of the Bill had been moved at one o'clock in the morning, when discussion upon its merits was then impossible; nor had his hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate given any reason why, with such a large and comprehensive measure for the reform of endowed schools in England, they should be treated with so small and restricted a measure for similar schools in Scotland. There might be some justification for this if the northern endowed schools were so much superior to the southern schools that they required less reform; but the very reverse was the case, for they were condemned by their own trustees, as well as by public opinion, and required reform of the most radical kind. The endowed schools of Scotland were proportionately fewer than in England; but, on the other hand, their wealth was much greater; for in Edinburgh alone the endowed schools had an income of £50,000, which was one-fourth of the total income of the English schools reported on by the Schools Inquiry Commission; and in all England there were only eight schools having incomes over £2,000 a year, while in Edinburgh alone there were the same number above that amount. Yet, notwithstanding this great wealth, the Scotch schools had a miserable amount of scholars—in Edinburgh only 1,100 boys were receiving education in these schools; and over all Scotland, with an income perhaps two-thirds that of England, the number of scholars was but small. Again, the educational results in Scotland were without question far lower than those in England; and if this were undeniable, then there was more necessity that the Scotch schools should come under at least equally stringent measures to render them educationally productive. It would require a very strong case to show that, while comprehensive and compulsory measures were necessary for England, contracted and voluntary measures were sufficient for Scotland. The term "hospitals" in this Bill concealed its meaning to many Englishmen. Anyone who had visited Edinburgh must have been struck by the number of palatial edifices which stud every party of the city, and force themselves on the attention of the visitor. It would be well for the honour of Modern Athens if he rested satisfied with their outward appearance of palatial grandeur, for he would not find a well-educated or thoughtful man who would praise the system pursued in them. In these "hospitals," as they are termed, though they are simply schools, 1,060 boys are immured in monastic seclusion, separated from home influences, separated from the world, which educates more than the schoolmaster, contracting habits and receiving an education which utterly unfit them for their future career. If monasteries act hurtfully on men with characters already moulded, they must necessarily intensify these evils in the case of boys, for they destroy individuality and substitute morality in theory for morality in practice. No wonder, then, that, generation after generation, these boys went out into the world pauperized morally and intellectually, and were no more heard of; for a distinguished "hospital boy" was unknown in Scotland. The parents of the boys were equally degraded by the existing system—instead of superintending the education on their children, and making a parent's sacrifice for their benefit, and bestowing upon them that vigilance which was the best part of home education, they relied on charity to do what they should do themselves. When Dr. Guthrie, so well known as a philanthropist, was asked, in his capacity of governor, to grant admission to an hospital for the son of a well-to-do father, his reply was, "My friend, were I you, it should not be till they had laid me in my coffin that boy of mine should lose the blessings of a fireside, and be cast amid the dangers of a public hospital." These unfavourable opinions were but the echo of Scotch feeling with regard to these institutions—they were the opinions of Dr. Bedford, the headmaster of Heriot's Hospital, of Mr. Lawrie, the well-known educationist, of Mr. Fearon, one of the Commissioners; and those who have read his Report would understand the full significance of the mournful complaint made by the master of one of these hospital schools, when he said—"Here we have to pour everything into the boys." The dreary monotony of their life, the annihilation of their individuality, the destruction of the obligations and supports of family life, so completely stunted mental growth that the labours of teachers were of small avail. It was the system—not the trustees, not the teachers, who were in fault—it was this monastic system, rotten at the core, which required to be rooted up. Yet this Bill was a mere permissive Bill, and offered no securities for a radical reform, either now or in the future. The principles upon which a radical reform should be based were clearly laid down in the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, and in the admirable speech of the Vice President of the Council when he introduced the Endowed Schools Bill. That speech must be taken as the Government interpretation of the Bill, and as the indication of the manner in which it is to be worked by the Executive. The first principle enunciated was, that admission by merit must be substituted for admission by favour. Did they find, even in distant perspective, any such leading; principle in this Bill? They were asked to intrust power to close corporations to reform themselves when they choose, and not unless they choose. Who ever heard of close corporations divesting themselves of their class privileges and their patronage, or of taking an enlarged view of the interests of the public as opposed to the interests of their constituents? The second principle enunciated by the Vice President of the Council, in his interpretation of the English Bill, was that gradation in schools must be established; so that, if there be two or more endowments in one district, they should not be mere duplicates, but each, acting in co-ordination, should supply a particular educational want of the district. And the Bill provided a double security for this—first, in the organizing Commission; and, second, in the permanent Educational Council. The Scotch Bill could not be worked in this wise way, for it was merely permissive. Each of the Edinburgh hospitals might propose if it like, and not unless it like, a scheme of reform for itself, and without relation either in time or circumstance to other schools. It was true that if any hospital should desire to initiate any reform, it was to petition the Secretary of State, who might inquire into the case by special commissioners. But the Secretary of State was not a Minister for Education, and was not responsible to the House for the education of the country. If, again, the actual inquiry was to be made by the Lord Advocate, that official was already over-worked. Again, the Amendments proposed to refer the scheme to the sheriff. This really would result in making the Lord Advocate and the Sheriffs a cumbrous Charity Commission for Scotland, and a new irresponsible department for the secondary education of the country. The third principle enunciated by the Vice President of the Council was to abolish the powers that these schools possess of pauperizing the middle or poorer classes, by bestowing education as an alms or dole upon people who can afford and who ought to pay for it. Did this Bill in any way involve this wise principle? The only largo reform ever attempted by the Edinburgh hospital schools was in the very face of the principle. Heriot's Hospital, groaning under a wealth which it could not employ further in pauperizing the burgesses, came to Parliament and obtained power to pauperize the working classes by establishing free schools in competition with the paying schools of the district. These schools were well taught, and contained 3,000 scholars; but they tempted parents amply able to pay for the education of their children, to shirk their responsibilities and avail themselves of charity. It might be supposed that these free schools served as feeders to the parent hospital, and that, by an open competition among the children attending them, there was a limited application of the principles of admission by merit and not by favour. But it was not so; the old, dreary system of patronage still went on, and the out-door schools had no connection, except in name, with the parent hospital. Thus, then, not one of the three great principles under which the English Endowed Schools Bill was brought forward was contained or is contemplated in the Scotch Bill, which was simply permissive, and relied on the hope that hospitals would reform themselves. In justification of the hope, the promoters of the Bill pointed to two facts—first, that the funds have prospered under the management of the trustees, and the second that reforms have already been initiated by one or more of the hospitals. It was true that the funds of the hospitals had largely increased; and in some cases their annual incomes approach the amount of their original capital, or, as in the case of Hutcheson's Hospital at Glasgow, largely exceeded it. Heriot's Hospital had an original capital of £24,000; its annual income was now £16,000. But it must be remembered that, since the foundation of that insti- tution, Scotland had made enormous strides in material prosperity, and therefore it was but natural that the hospital funds, honestly administered, should have augmented in like proportion. In this respect the Scotch hospitals did not differ from the English endowed schools; but the Vice President of the Council did not on that account exempt them from the operations of his compulsory measure. The second argument—that certain hospitals showed a disposition to initiate reforms—was more to the point. It was true that the trustees of Watson's Hospital and others had shown a desire to effect reforms in their management—the former proposed to break up the monastic system, and to board the children with their own friends, and educate them at the burgh schools. This was an admission of their inability to organize an efficient system within their walls. But so limited were their notions that they still confined their benefits to a privileged class, and forgot that there was a large public without; and they had not given the slightest sign that they intended to extend the area or scope of education. On the other hand the actual proposal was to degrade respectable citizens by paying them a sum of £20 or £30 a year for the board of their own children. This was a prostitution of a moral duty in a very barefaced fashion, yet these reforms were probably quite as much as could be expected from close corporations. There might be the desire, but the reforms could only be efficient when submitted to one common organizing Commission, such as the Scotch National Board would be. The sweeping away of class privileges, the abolition of the charity system, the gradation of schools, and their correlation, were reforms that could never be obtained from close corporations themselves. The wants of secondary education in Scotland had been clearly made out by the School Inquiry Commission, and they could only be supplied by adequate organization and simultaneous action of all the endowed schools of a district. "While not neglecting the education of the middle classes who could pay for it, they should send their roots down into the primary schools, so as to draw out of them, by an open competition, the âlite of the poorer classes, and advance them by an education suitable to their future occupations; and they ought to throw out their branches into the Universities, so as to knit together the lower and higher education of the country. Instead of being stereotyped in one common mould, they should glory in distinctive character by establishing special schools fully appointed and equipped—such as trade schools, schools of commerce, schools of science, all properly graded, and coordinated, so that pupils might pass from one to the other. A good deal of this might be obtained by persuasion and not compulsion, if the Lord Advocate would consent to postpone his measure and place the hospitals under the Scotch National Board which they were to be asked to create. He did not expect that he would agree with the promoters of the English measure in thinking that the hospitals might, with advantage to themselves and the public, have reforms wholly initiated by an outside independent body. But if the latter were intrusted with the restricted powers recommended by the Scotch Commission, and the initiation for a limited period were left with the hospitals themselves, a much better result could be secured for the education of Scotland than can be expected from the Bill in its present shape. He, therefore, appealed to the Lord Advocate to go into the Committee on this occasion pro forma, and delay the prosecution of the measure for a few weeks, until he saw whether the Scotch Board would be created, so as to enable him to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, of which he was such a distinguished and efficient member. He was quite sure that his learned Friend had brought in his Bill in the conviction that it opened up the path of reform. He (Dr. Lyon Playfair) was equally convinced that it would block up the path of reform with crude and disjointed schemes, and that Scotland would by it be thrown many years behind England in its educational progress.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that what appeared to him to be the great objection to this Bill was the fact that it was suited only to those institutions which were willing to reform themselves. Some were anxious to reform themselves and others were not. If the Bill passed into law, there would be spasmodic efforts enough, but no uniform system of administering the funds. The whole circumstances of the case were such as to render obvious the ne- cessity for immediate inquiry; and he should have been glad if the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire had been agreed to. If the right hon. Gentleman would permit the insertion in this measure of clauses such as had been suggested by the hon. Baronet and other Members, it might be made more effectual in developing those great forces that were latent in Scotland for informing the ignorance, and, to a certain extent, relieving the necessities of the people.

said, his impression was that every Scotchman owed a debt of gratitude to the Lord Advocate for introducing this Bill. He would himself have been willing to see a larger measure; but there was no reason why they should not accept a smaller measure, if it were directed to a good end, as he firmly believed this was. His hon. Friend (Dr. Lyon Playfair), in order to depreciate the hospital institutions, had represented that the funds had increased merely because of the material increase of the wealth of the country; but he (Mr. M'Laren) maintained that the funds of these institutions had increased because they had been well invested and economized. His hon. Friend had spoken in a manner not quite respectful of the sheriffs of Scotland. These gentlemen were important legal functionaries, who, from the different powers which they combined in their office, were peculiarly qualified for the part they would have to take under the Bill. The function of the sheriffs in this matter would be, not to propose a scheme for the management of these institutions, but to hear evidence, to digest it, and report their opinion to the Secretary for the Home Department and the Lord Advocate. To join with them members of the Universities would be a useless incumbrance, and add to the expense without a corresponding benefit. The main argument in favour of the Bill was its expediency. The question had been argued somewhat as if the House were entitled to take all these funds, belonging to private endowed hospitals, and throw them into the hands of some managing body, who would deal with them as they thought fit, disregarding altogether the wishes of the original founders; but he contended that they could not deal with the funds of such institutions as Donaldson's and Fettis' Hospitals, the first of which had been founded within the last half-century, and the last not yet finished, in such a manner without plainly setting aside the intentions of the founders. By so doing they would, in the case of Donaldson's, and other such hospitals, deprive the poorer classes of the benefit the founders intended for them, and divert them practically to the rich and prosperous. In short, he believed that these institutions were most admirably managed as they now were, and what was wanted was that they should have power, which they had not at present, to extend their operations, to establish outdoor schools, and reform themselves. In this way the Lord Advocate might do a great deal of good by carrying the Bill he had introduced.

was willing to do full justice both to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government and to the desire of the managers of these institutions, to administer their funds to the best advantage; but as regarded the Bill, it was obvious that a mere permissive measure would not meet the requirements of the case. He felt convinced that the only effectual way of dealing with the question was by a measure which would give to Scotland the same advantages as those which would be conferred by the Bill for England. But if this could not be done, they should make full and immediate inquiry into the subject, with the view of making the Bill for Scotland more efficient.

said, he entertained no doubt but that the managers of these institutions—those who had the administration of the endowments—were desirous of turning them to the best advantage. He felt scarcely capable of giving an opinion on this Scotch measure; but he had had an interview with those managers who had been to London in connection with the Bill, and he was gratified to observe how anxious they seemed to be to reform these institutions, and open them up generally for the benefit of the people of Scotland. He had ventured to propound some ideas to them, and they seemed to receive his suggestions with the greatest possible readiness, showing the utmost desire to effect such improvements as were calculated to render the institutions efficient. He could well understand the objection of the Member for Edinburgh University, thinking that, if this scheme were adopted, a great and comprehensive measure of reform might be indefinitely postponed; but that objection was entirely removed by the last clause of the Bill, which makes it simply a temporary measure only continuing in force, until 31st December, 1871. He could not but think that the Bill afforded a fair opportunity of testing whether the managers of these great institutions were not willing to do what many of them stated they desired, by putting them in a position in which they might carry out the reforms required.

said, many Members seemed not aware of the fact that this Bill did not profess to be a comprehensive measure, dealing with the whole question of secondary education in Scotland. It was one urged upon the Government, in the first instance, by some of the managers of those great hospitals, and taken up by the Government, in order that those trustees might have granted to them the facilities for improving the institutions which they required, and would not interfere with a more comprehensive consideration of the question whenever circumstances would permit. In his opinion they were very much indebted to the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair) for having enforced upon them the importance of introducing a Bill for Scotland resembling that for education for England, which had been so rapidly carried through the House. When such a measure should be introduced, it would, no doubt, have due regard to the principles which the hon. Member had laid down. It seemed to be supposed that no legislation on a larger scale was undertaken, because there had been no inquiry into middle-class education in Scotland. But he held in his hand two volumes—one entirely devoted to the Report on middle-class education, the other containing the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners. He would refer to the first volume and to the Report of Mr. Fearon in the second, to show that there already existed ample materials for legislation. The fact was that in Scotland they had done precisely the opposite to what they had done in. England. In Scotland they had commenced with primary education, and he hoped to see it extend to the middle classes; and in England they had begun with middle class education, and he had no doubt it would there have a good effect upon primary instruction. Taking all the obstacles together that stood in the way of education, both in England and in Scotland, he might say that they were all comprised in the term, "want of organization" in relation to the powers which would have to work in unison for the attainment of the common end. This he wished to say—The minds of the poorer classes in Scotland were fully occupied by the idea that not only was a good primary measure of education the great thing wanted, but that an arrangement was very much needed, which would allow them to rise from grade to grade as their abilities might fit them, and that they might ascend from the primary school, making their own way, until they reached to the University to receive the reward of their own exertions.

said, that the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair) seemed to misunderstand the object of the Bill, and what it professed to accomplish. It was not intended for the reform of the hospitals upon a large and sweeping scale; for it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the question of middle-class education—they were not in a position to do so. They felt that, until the elementary education of the people of Scotland was established on a basis on which they could rely, they could not effectually deal with middle-claass education. The Universities had been greatly reformed, and they hoped to effect a great improvement in the primary schools; but until this was done, they could not attempt to fill up the gap. He should like to see a full system of education supported by the public property, beginning with the lowest step and ascending up to the Universities, and these endowments would be a magnificent foundation for such a scheme. The object of this Bill was to relieve the trustees of the large institutions from the difficulties in which they were placed. They felt that the present system was full of faults, and they were unable to remedy it; they asked therefore for power to be granted them to make these schools more effectual. When that application was made it was not thought fit to reject it, for it was felt, that when they asked to revise their own foundations, it would be very desirable that they should be helped in doing so. If they should neglect to perform their duty, the Bill still retained to the Government the power of dealing with the question. Should the Bill of the other House be found to be a good and effectual measure, he should have no objection to engraft this Bill upon it.

said, that the justice done to Scotland by the Bill was of a very mild description, but it did not seem to be very agreeable in certain quarters when it came to be applied.