said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether by the use of the words "he" and "his" in the Clauses of the Elementary Education Bill relating to Local Boards, he intends to exclude women from sitting on such Boards?

, in reply, said, he had to state that the words "he" and "his" were not used with the view of excluding women from the local Boards of Education, but because the use of those words was the best way to include them. ["Hear!" and a laugh.] He was not at all surprised at hon. Members laughing; but the reason why "he" meant "she" in this case was that Lord Brougham's Act, the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 21, enacted that in all Acts words importing the masculine gender should be taken to include and mean the feminine gender, unless the contrary was specifically declared. So far from being anxious to exclude women from these Boards, he looked forward to their assistance in some cases being most valuable.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to letters that appeared in "The Times" on June 3rd and June 11th, signed "Daniel Mathieu, B.A.;" and, whether a strict investigation has been made into the conduct of the police who wrongly apprehended Mr. Mathieu, also into the truth or otherwise of the statements made in those letters; and, if he has any objection to state the result of such investigation?

In reply, Sir, to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I have to state that my attention has been directed to those letters, which appeared in The Times, and that a strict investigation was immediately made into the circumstances of the case and into the conduct of the officers who had been implicated by the charges contained in those letters. The facts of the case, as far as I have been able to ascertain them, are these—On Saturday, the 3rd of June, there was a large assembly of people in the Parade behind the Horse Guards to witness a review. Some detectives, in plain clothes, were stationed there to watch for pickpockets. One of these detectives saw a person whose conduct he deemed suspicious, whom he followed for some time; but at length, believing that the person in question had discovered his object, he spoke to two other detectives, also in plain clothes, and informed them of his suspicions. The result of the observations of the two detectives was to satisfy them that on more than one occasion the person whom they were watching had attempted to pick the pockets of some women, whereupon they took him into custody, and conveyed him at once to the police court, where, owing to the case of Boulton and Park being heard, it was impossible that his case could be disposed of that night. The prisoner was then conveyed to the Bow Street Station, where he was asked to give his name and address. He absolutely refused to give his residence, but gave what eventually turned out to be a wrong name. However, in the course of the evening he did state where his residence was, and the next—Sunday—morning the police of their own accord went to his residence to make inquiries with refer- ence to his position and employment, I when they saw his wife, to whom they communicated what had occurred. At 12 o'clock on that Sunday morning his wife came to see him, and he then, for the first time, applied for a message to be sent to his friends, which request would have been immediately complied with had it not been that the presence of his wife made it unnecessary. I regret exceedingly that this long delay occurred; but it was the opinion of the magistrate, before whom the case was heard, as well as of the Commissioners of Police, that these men, who had been selected to perform the duties of detectives in consequence of their previous good character and trustworthiness, had only been performing their duty in the course they had pursued. The magistrate dismissed the case with a warning to the defendant, and stated that the detectives had only done their duty. Therefore, although it is quite possible—and I hope that such is the case—that they were mistaken in their suspicions, I cannot come to the conclusion, in the face of the opinion entertained by the magistrate and by the Commissioners of Police, that these men were acting otherwise than in the discharge of their duty, and that they have done anything to call for punishment or for dismissal.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. M'Leavy Brown, ex Chinese Secretary to the Legation at Pekin, and Private Secretary to the British Minister, and now in charge of the Chinese Embassy to Europe, resigned his office or is still in the service of the British Government; and, if so, whether on the return of the Chinese Embassy to Pekin he will be permitted to resume his place in the British Service?

replied, that Mr. Brown, on being appointed Secretary to the Embassy of Mr. Burlinghame, offered his resignation to Sir Rutherford Alcock, who declined to accept it, leaving the matter to be settled by the Secretary of State. Sir Rutherford Alcock, however, granted him leave of absence for a certain time. The Secretary of State approved of this proceeding, and ultimately Mr. Brown was informed that, without prejudice to his position in the British Mission, and, of course, without pay, he might remain with the Chinese Embassy until such time as the Secretary of State should feel it necessary to call on him to resume his duties.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, On what ground and under what authority Mr. Leonard Edmunds has been arrested and is now confined in Whitecross Street Prison, the Act 32 and 33 Vic, c. 62, declaring—

"That no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, be arrested or imprisoned for making default in payment of a sum of money?"

The ground, Sir, upon which Mr. Leonard Edmunds has been taken is his debt to the Crown of the sum of £7,904; and the authority on which he has been taken is the authority of the law, which has not been altered in respect to Crown debts by any recent legislation. The hon. and gallant Member, I apprehend, proceeds upon the assumption that the Act for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt affects Crown debtors; but we are advised that this is not the case, and that writs have been issued in consequence of the non-payment of Queen's taxes; so that Mr. Edmunds has been subject to the same treatment as any other debtor to the Crown. I am informed that Mr. Edmunds calls in question the legality of the arrest, and he has applied to a Judge for his discharge; the point will, therefore, be immediately determined. Under these circumstances, it would not be desirable to notice the subject further at present.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention to abolish the rank of Cornet and Ensign, notwithstanding the promise made to the House on March 14th that this should not be done pending the Report of the Royal Commission now sitting to consider the Purchase System; and, if this is not intended, why the Circular, dated May 25th, 1870, fixing the Establishment of Subalterns of Infantry Regiments at fourteen Lieutenants and no Ensigns, has been addressed to Officers commanding Regiments?

, in reply, said, he had not the smallest intention of departing from the declaration made by him on the 14th of March.

Mr. Speaker—I rise for the purpose of moving that you, Sir, should leave the Chair, and that the House should go into Committee on the Elementary Education Bill. I venture to assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) that if the Notice which he has placed on the Paper had stood alone, and had constituted the solitary point to be decided as between him and the Bill of the Government, I should not have thought of interposing at this moment, but should have waited respectfully till he had made his statement before giving any opinion on the subject. But such is not the case, and the natural interest, warming into eagerness, which the House and the country feel with reference to the measure, has caused the Notice Paper to be charged and loaded with a number of Motions, all of which express alternative and different methods of proceeding with regard to questions bearing upon religion, but all of which it is not possible, according to the forms of the House, to bring under consideration upon equal terms. It has, therefore, appeared to the Government that it would be for the convenience of the House if, before a Motion was made by way of proposing a substitute for the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, we should declare our general views and intentions with regard to these very important portions of the Bill. I shall not now refer to other portions of the Bill, which are also of immense importance, but which, with the exception of my hon. and learned Friend's second Resolution—and that could not be put on the present occasion—do not enter into the matter immediately before us. I shall confine myself generally to that field of discussion which is embraced in the first Resolution of my hon. and learned Friend, in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), and the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Reed). The Government have thought it their duty to reserve to themselves the advantage of consideration for as long a time as was accorded them by the interval between the second reading and the Committee on this Bill—because every day which has passed has multiplied the expression of the opinion and the feeling of the country—and all these manifestations add something to the materials upon which we have to legislate. It is quite true that expressions of opinion and feeling may still be declared to be very incomplete. There are very large and powerful bodies of great influence in this country who cannot be overlooked in legislating on such a question as elementary education, and which, up to the present time, have made but very partial expressions of their views. But though it is the duty of the Government at the proper time to take its part, and not to shrink from its part in considering how to settle the question, we concluded we had better wait till the Bill was about to go into Committee, and then frankly explain the view we take on the matters principally in dispute, so as to lay before the House at once the terms and the mode on which we hope it may be possible to legislate on this great subject during the present Session. It must be borne in mind that there are many parties and sections of parties in Parliament and in the country who may be strong enough to postpone or prevent legislation; but that nothing except a general disposition to make sacrifices of cherished preferences, for the purpose of arriving at a common result, can enable us successfully to go through a work so difficult as that before us, but which, difficult as it is, we feel ourselves pledged to in honour and in character, and likewise by that greatest of all obligations which binds us to consult in everything the highest welfare of the country. With regard to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. V. Harcourt), which is the only Motion which can be brought directly to issue on the present occasion, the Government are not able to accede to it. They feel that it is very easy, without its being necessary for me to anticipate the general argument of my hon. and learned Friend, to state in a few words the reasons why we cannot become responsible for the Motion. It appears to me that if we were to adopt such a proposition, the very first challenge that would be addressed to us would be to explain its terms. And I am bound to say, without in any way fettering my hon. and learned Friend, that that is a challenge which we should be totally unable to meet. We do not know what, in the language of the law, "undenominational" and "sectarian" instruction mean. We know perfectly well that practical judgment and the spirit of Christianity, combined with common sense, may succeed, and does succeed in a vast number of cases—probably in the enormous majority of cases—in averting the thorny paths of controversy in the work of communicating religious instruction to children. But the whole essence of that process lies in its voluntary character. If you lay down rules, you must provide those who administer the law with the means of compulsion. You must do one of two things—either constitute a new religious code by the authority of Parliament, by a process of excision or amputation, or you must do that which appears to me to be more objectionable, though perhaps not quite so difficult—you must set up, as seems to be the fashion "elsewhere," a living authority which, with the sanction and in the name of Parliament, will from time to time, when appealed to, draw the lines and definitions of Divine truth on behalf of the children. Now, we are not prepared to enter into this thorny and tangled wilderness, at least until some one shall have been successful in cutting out paths through its wastes such as we have been wholly unable to discern. Passing on from the particular methods of meeting the difficulties of the case, I would wish to remind the House succinctly of the general scope of the Bill, which forms as it does the starting-point from which we have to measure the modifications which have been, or are now proposed to be, made in its provisions. Leaving out of consideration the reasons which governed the Administration in the preparation and introduction of this measure, we have now arrived at a time when religious differences ought, we think, no longer to stand in the way of conferring upon the nation a great and essential public good. It was, therefore, our desire to present to Parliament a scheme which should aim at making elementary education universal in an efficient form throughout the country. It was in our view essential to the success of this measure that so far as the funds of the State—and I use the term now in the narrow sense of that which proceeds from the Imperial Treasury—that so far as the funds of the State were concerned, they should be applied only for secular results. The machinery of voluntary schools we found not only existing in this country, but overspreading it to an immense extent; and on every ground, whether of that which is due to the promoters of those schools, to their benevolent and self-denying labours and the success which they have obtained, or, whether on the ground of that which is due to the purpose which we have in view, and its effectual, speedy, uniform, and economical attainment, we adopted this principle also as a fundamental principle of this Bill, that we would frankly and without jealousy endeavour to employ the machinery of voluntary schools, as far as it was available, in aid of our object. But, feeling that that large deficiency which is now observable in the country could not be made up by means of voluntary schools alone, we proposed to fall back on the principle of rating, and to make use of it by way of supplementing the gap which we saw before us. Of that machinery we proposed to make use under the authority of local Boards. These were to be appointed by a free popular election. They were to be, in a substantial and genuine sense, the representatives of the parents of the children who were to receive education at their hands. We looked upon them as the most natural champions and representatives of these young creatures. We, therefore, proceeded without hesitation on the principle of placing a large, though not an entirely unlimited, discretion in the hands of those local Boards. They were, indeed, to be bound, in our view, to grant in every case effectual provision and of a generous character, but subject to the sole condition that they were to be free to introduce schools of a strictly secular character, and of carrying it to the extreme; or, on the other hand, of introducing such shades, such degrees, and such development of religious teaching as they might, in their judgment, find best suited to the wants of the particular districts which they happened to represent. Besides this function of these local Boards, they had, under the Bill as it stands, another most important function to perform—namely, that of giving or refusing aid, as they might think fit, to what I should call the voluntary schools of a district, subject only to the condition that, in order to check the action of undue religious prejudice, they must give to all or none, and might not make a selection between them. That, I think, combined with the circumstance that the Bill exhibited no preference for any one religious body in the country, but aimed at aiding all benevolent and useful exertions, is a fair outline of the Bill as explained upon its introduction in his able speech by my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. The Bill, however, has been sufficiently long before the country to enable the House to understand the considerations which have been pressed on the minds of the Government, and the degree of weight which they attach to those considerations I shall lay before the House in the statement which I am now about to make. We see nothing to be ashamed of in the outline of the Bill as I have described it. We should have deemed nothing more to have been necessary in order to make it work efficiently than some amendments in its details without any modification in its principles. Nor do I now think it is our duty to modify what I should call the principles of the measure; but undoubtedly one of the moving springs of the Bill is local discretion, which, although I do not call it a vital principle, yet it is undoubtedly associated with its objects, and is a matter of the utmost importance and consequence with reference to the question how far the sphere of that discretion extends, and to what extent it should undergo contraction. On this subject we have carefully observed the manifestations of opinion throughout the country, and I own that our anticipations and hopes with reference to it have not been altogether fulfilled. We found that throughout the country, in many of the greatest centres of population, thought, and activity, the utmost apprehension prevails with respect to the extent of the sphere which we have assigned to the free judgment of the local Boards. I am not ashamed to say we have watched carefully, with a desire to observe correctly, and to possess information as to the actual state of public feeling on the subject, because the state and feeling of public feeling must necessarily enter largely in the motives which weigh with the Government in introducing a measure of this kind with the hope and desire of seeing it carried into a law. Looking specifically to the objects of the Bill, I think I may say that there are three principal points which have reference to the question of religious feeling. It is, in the first place, urged that the Conscience Clause gives insufficient protection. In the second place, comes the objection which is so strongly urged by the Nonconformists in this country that it is not right, as some go so far as to contend, that any funds which proceed from taxation, whether general or local, should be made applicable to purposes of religious instruction; others, while not going quite so far, maintaining that the funds of the entire community, whether general or local, ought not to be made so applicable in cases where either many or some persons might disapprove such application, and feel that it constituted a grievance. The third objection, and, perhaps, the weightiest, is that the free choice which we propose to give local Boards would create discord in those Boards, and the announcement that such discord would be likely to arise is to us a very great obstacle, because the prediction is one which is likely to fulfil itself. If the prevailing opinion among the communities who are to elect these Boards prognosticates animosity and contention as the result of a measure entitling them to discuss and settle many questions bearing on religion with the great breadth of free discretion, and if then you still proceed to force such Boards, with such constitutions and such powers, upon these districts, we may be pretty sure that we are going the way to defeat the beneficial action of our own measure, because it will be felt that the action of this measure cannot be efficacious, nor, in a larger sense, widely beneficial, unless it also be pacific and satisfactory to the public sense and opinion of local communities. This last and greatest objection turns, of course, upon two points—first, that we propose an unlimited discretion with regard to religious teaching in the rate-founded schools, limited by no condition except that of the Con- science Clause; and, secondly, that, with respect to the voluntary schools outside the circle of those founded upon the rate, we refer it wholly to the discretion of the 'local Boards to give or to withhold aid from those schools. And now as to the mode in which we propose to treat these objections. In the first place, as regards the insufficiency of the Conscience Clause, that, I hope, in principle we have adequately met by the addition of the time table. Leaving it to my right hon. Friend to enter upon the discussion of any questions that may arise upon the particular form of the enactment, I may say that the time table Clause which we propose has its origin in our admission of the necessity that something of that kind is required to give working efficacy to the principle of the Conscience Clause. The very best Conscience Clause that can be devised in terms may be, to a great extent, neutralized, where there is a disposition to neutralize it, unless it be also further guarded by some conditions as to time. We therefore propose a time table Conscience Clause, founded upon the double principle of an entire freedom, so far as the interposition of the clause goes, in the matter of religious instruction—although the time for that instruction must necessarily be circumscribed—and an entire freedom on the part of the parents corresponding with the freedom of the teacher to teach. Then we come to the second objection—that, namely, to the levying of public funds from public taxation of any kind for purposes of religious instruction, or to the overlooking of the scruples of a minority in respect of the application of these funds for such a purpose. And here it cannot but be observed that the situation is a very peculiar one. On the one hand, there is a very strong and vivid opinion among a large and active part of the community, that the safe course in a matter of national education is to limit the application of public funds to secular instruction. That is the principle upon which our Privy Council system has always been founded; because, although it may be said that you have deviated from the rigour of that system in permitting inspection with regard to religious results, yet it has been always seen that the amount of public aid has left a large void to be supplied by private benevolence, and this it is which supplies the means of religious instruction. I apprehend it is perfectly clear that if education throughout the country had been, or were to become, a matter of secular instruction only, the sources of private benevolence would at once be dried up, not from any want of appreciation of secular instruction or aversion to it, but because it would be said that that was a matter with which public authority was quite competent to deal, and if the instruction were only secular, voluntary contributions would entirely disappear. It is now proposed by some that we should meet this objection by limiting the application of the public rate to secular instruction alone, and there is no doubt that that is the logical result of the particular objection I have mentioned. Nor do I refer to that logical result with any horror, because I do not think that by itself it implies the slightest disrespect to religious teaching, or any wish to prevent or obstruct such teaching. I think it is compatible not, indeed, with the finding of the means of religious teaching from public sources, but with every freedom and facility, outside the actual application of the rate for giving religious teaching to those who are the subjects of secular instruction from the rate, and even in such near conjunction with the secular instruction that, practically, no inconvenience need be felt, and no separation need be preserved. But, however logical this conclusion, I am bound to say—pronouncing upon it a most impartial judgment, and endeavouring to come to the consideration of the question with a perfect integrity of purpose, and with that abnegation of mere personal preferences which I have presumed to recommend to others as the only solution of our difficulties, I do not think this conclusion would be agreeable to the general prevailing sense of the country. It is true that the country has a right to expect, if it chooses, that its Parliament should be logical, while there is no corresponding right on the part of Parliament with regard to the country. If I may presume to criticize its proceedings, the country has been far from logical upon the subject of education, for multitudes of those who have felt the expediency of limiting the rate to purposes strictly secular, and the difficulty of discovering another course, yet have felt such a reluctance, and have combined with other bodies of people in showing such reluctance, to the severance of religious instruction by public authority from other instruction, that they have proposed a variety of plans which it is perhaps difficult to reconcile with the strictest rules of consistency, but which nevertheless indicate the strong and, I believe, the decided prevailing sense of the English nation. Some have given effect to this feeling by recommending that the local Board should have a discretion to introduce the reading of the Holy Scriptures into the schools, but to do nothing else; and I observe that there are those who are so oppressed with the difficulty between their rigid, abstract, voluntary principles and their desire to give religious colour to education, that they maintain, and I think very perilously maintain, that the reading of the Bible is not a religious but a secular exercise. Now, I do not speak with any disrespect or contempt of the reading of the Bible. A reverent reading of the Bible may be a most valuable thing; but I cannot agree with those who think that, if it is done in the manner in which it ought to be done, it is to be regarded as a secular exercise. I only refer to this as indicating the difficulties which people have felt in resolving the problems attending this question. Some, going a little farther, have said that we might do what was done in Ireland—endeavour to form a body of extracts from the Bible, and allow instruction to be given from that volume of extracts. I will not dwell upon that proposal, because it has not attracted much attention or support, and although that plan was attempted in Ireland with the best possible intentions and the greatest authority to start it on its way, it cannot be said to have succeeded in that country, because, practically, Scriptural extracts, though originally read as well as the Bible, have passed out of use in the National Schools of Ireland. Then came the plan of Bible reading, with a faculty for expounding the Bible, limited by terms such as those which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) proposes we should use, and as to which I have briefly stated the reasons why we could not adopt this proposition. Last comes the proposition placed on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who, if it were in his power to do so by the forms fof the House, would confine the scope of the Amendment to rate-founded schools, shutting out the rate-aided schools, and who invites us to leave out all the words after "schools" in the Amendment, for the purpose of inserting the words—

"Hereafter established by means of local rates, no catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught."

My right hon. Friend, I suppose, like others, has felt how desirable it was, on the one hand, to make those schools widely and, if possible, universally accessible—at least not to frighten from their door, by the ostentatious exhibition of any peculiar symbol, those who might otherwise be disposed to enter—and, on the other hand, to maintain in its essence and in its substance the power of a religious education, without attempting any of those interferences with the mode of handling Scripture, no practicable mode of effecting which has yet been discussed or suggested. All the projects which I have thus briefly enumerated are projects proposed to be introduced into the Bill as modes of limiting the discretion of the local Boards. Nobody has proposed to take away that discretion absolutely and entirely—I mean with regard to rate-founded schools. It is free to the local Board at this moment by the Bill to found schools perfectly secular; but no one I think has said—"Tell the Board to confine itself to schools absolutely secular." What is a school absolutely secular? Not one which merely compels the application of the rate to secular instruction; but one which shuts the doors of the school-house and withholds the aid of the schoolmaster from any religious instruction within the walls of the school building at any time whatever. I want to point out how essential it is to proceed in this measure not by endeavouring to give effect to any abstract and inflexible opinion, but to allow conflicting considerations to meet and equitably to modify one another. I beg those who have objected so much, and to some extent fairly, to the unlimited discretion of local Boards with respect to religion, to observe that it is impossible absolutely to get rid of that discretion, for even supposing we adopted the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), there would still remain the question—which might become a question of religious discord, whether religious teaching was to be permitted in the school building at times other than the school hours fixed for secular instruction, and whether, if given at all, it might or might not be given by the master, he acting as the servant of the Board, on the application of the parent. Therefore, I take it for granted, we cannot wholly get rid of this discretion of the local Boards, and the real question is, what limitation it is desirable to impose upon them? I must remind the right hon. Member for South Hampshire that, by the adoption of his Amendment, we should very greatly narrow the field of religious contention, and at the same time allow religious instruction to be introduced into the schools. It would still remain open—as I think it ought to remain open—to the local Boards to confine the rate to secular instruction. Accepting that which undoubtedly appears to be the general desire, I will assume that religious instruction should not be excluded from schools, even during school hours, taken in the strictest sense of the term; and if a plan is to be adopted to carry out that object, I believe this is one which is perfectly practicable, which to a large portion of the community would be highly acceptable, and which, to all those to whom it was not absolutely acceptable, would yet be much less unacceptable than any other that could be adopted. We think, therefore, upon the whole, that the proposal of my right hon. Friend is one which in substance we ought to adopt and incorporate in the Bill. We think it is the best mode in which we can recognize the prevailing and very general desire and conviction of the people for including religion in the career of education within rate-founded schools, and that it is the most equitable manner in which, while imposing a certain limitation upon the discretion of local Boards, we can, on the one hand, bring together the conflicting opinions of various parties, and, on the other, if not wholly get rid of what may be called denominational controversies, yet in a very great degree abate their acrimony and diminish their range, besides, in a large number of cases, abrogating them altogether. That is the mode in which we propose to meet the objection taken to the unlimited discretion of local Boards so far as the rate-founded schools are concerned. Now I come to the important case of the rate-aided schools, and here the very same objection has been taken, and I must say with, even greater force. The voluntary schools contain every variety of full denominational teaching; they raise in the broadest form whatever controversy may be connected with the subject; and they raise controversy especially in connection with one portion of the community, whose case is the most difficult to deal with, whose case is also one which demands justice at our hands, and which cannot be overlooked—I mean the case of the Roman Catholics, who may be said to form 5 per cent of the entire population. I believe they assume that the proportion is higher; I take it at that. But that proportion by no means represents the share they ought to have in the operation of this Bill, because they are massed together in the great towns, and probably a tenth, an eighth, or even a sixth of the educational destitution sought to be relieved is that of the children of Roman Catholic parents. Of course, the fact that they would claim full denominational education in their schools would, in many cases, provoke acrimony at the local Boards when the question had to be decided whether or not they should give aid out of the rates to denominational schools. It would be quite idle to propose that the denominational schools should be required by the local Boards to abandon their denominational character; and, if that is so, on the other hand we feel that whatever objection applies to the free exercise of discretion by local Boards in the case of the rate-founded schools, applies in an enhanced degree and with augmented force in the case of rate-aided schools. There is another point of view from which it is right to contemplate this part of the question, and it adds great force to the considerations on which I have been dwelling. It is this—What sort of assistance is it that the local Board may be enabled to give to these rate-aided schools? If persons are to be encouraged to expend their own resources by the prospect of public aid, it is perfectly plain that the public aid, of which the prospect is held out to them, ought to have something like permanence attached to it. I do not mean from generation to generation, but from year to year. It ought to carry the same sort of confidence as to its continuance as has been carried by the annual Votes of this House of sums dis- bursed by the Privy Council. How could the local Board give aid under these conditions? A local Board might with the utmost sincerity and good faith vote assistance to local schools by a majority attained after a contested election; but who could secure the continuance of it? The fluctuating and unstable character which must attach to any assistance given by a local Board out of the rates to voluntary schools has come prominently under our notice, and appears to me to be a consideration of the utmost importance in any attempt to bring about a practical settlement of this question. There are two modes in which this difficulty may be met; but, unfortunately, in removing that particular objection we encounter others still more formidable. We may either forbid or compel a local Board to aid voluntary schools; but if we forbid them, and make them leave voluntary schools, as they are, dependent on the modicum of aid which they now obtain from the Privy Council, that would not be consistent with the view with which this Bill was brought forward, and it would not fulfil that engagement under which all along we have admitted ourselves to lie—namely, that of giving fair terms to voluntary schools, so as to enable them to lend to us all the aid they are capable of lending in the accomplishment of this great work, in which there is plenty for us all to do. Therefore, as our sole measure for dealing with that part of the case, we cannot forbid the local Boards to give aid to voluntary schools, because the promoters of those schools would be liable, equally with others, to contribute to the rate, and, contributing to it, to aid and found schools to compete with and beat down the school for which they were paying out of their own private resources. That is a state of things we do not desire to bring about, and cannot be responsible for. Then, would it do to compel the Boards to aid voluntary schools? We might give schools which communicated an effective secular education, and which adopted a time table Conscience Clause, a right to draw a limited amount from the rates, carefully limiting and defining that amount, so that in no case when added to the grant of the Privy Council it should come up to the full value of the secular instruction given; but we cannot conceal that even that form of drawing from the rate, although it is done at the discretion of the local Board, might embarrass the operation of a measure of this kind, for if a payment were made out of the rates, as to which the ratepayers as such were not consulted, and over which they had no control, it might become a cause of discontent and exasperation. As our desire is to avoid bringing such feelings into activity in the inauguration of this great and important measure, we should not think it wise and desirable to ask Parliament to invest a voluntary school with an absolute claim on the rate. There is one other mode in which we might proceed, and in which we may gain a great variety of objects. We may entirely escape from the evils attending these controversies in the local Boards in connection with voluntary schools, and we may at the same time do justice to these voluntary schools, and prevent any of that action of religious prejudice against particular, and possibly in some place obnoxious, Communions, which may give great cause of complaint, and we may at the same time adhere to what I hold to be the fundamental principle of the Bill—namely, that the funds of the Exchequer, whatever discretion you give to the local Boards, are to be dispersed solely and exclusively for secular results. I say these objects we may gain in one way, and it is the way we now propose to the House—that is, that we shall sever altogether the tie between the local Board and the voluntary schools; but then we must fulfil the engagements we have already entered into with the voluntary schools. We all along held out—and I think in every scheme of education that has been propounded it has been held out—to the promoters of voluntary schools, that in their competition with rate schools they should receive some assistance towards lightening the burden of their expenditure. What we propose is this—that in lieu of the mode now inserted in the Bill, of giving this augmentation from public sources to the means available for secular education in voluntary schools, the amount of that augmentation shall be drawn from the Exchequer, instead of from the rates. We do not accomplish this object so much by positive provisions in the Act of Parliament as by negative changes. It would be carried out principally by a modification of the Minutes of Council under which these grants are now made. As to the amount of that augmentation the Government have considered the objections which have been taken to unlimited assistance given to voluntary schools, and we are strongly of opinion that that assistance ought to be so limited that the whole amount which they would receive, whether from the rates, or from the Privy Council, or from both combined, ought to be so limited as that it should be less than it would cost the ratepayers under any circumstances to establish a purely secular school. We think that an addition to the present grant from the Privy Council to the voluntary schools, which may be taken at its maximum at 50 per cent, would fully gain that object. I do not know whether the House is aware of the computations generally current as to the expenses of schools and the contributions to them. I believe that none of those computations can be said to be exact; but, speaking roughly, it is said that the expense of educating a child in an efficient secular school is 30s., of which it may be said one-third is now provided by the Privy Council, one-third from voluntary sources, and one-third by payments from the children. We think that if to the third which is now dispensed the half of the second third were added, subject to the strict conditions which I have described with regard to secular education, the voluntary schools would have no reason to complain. But of course it will be necessary that further voluntary subscriptions should be contributed by the Exchequer with regard to the rated schools; because whatever the Privy Council might do in regard to the amount of its contribution, it is clear—and I believe it has never been disputed—that it can only be fair if the amount given to voluntary schools from the general taxation of the country be equal, and no more than equal to that which should be given to rated schools. Some changes will be necessary in the body of the Bill if the proposition to which I have just referred should be adopted by the Committee. It will be necessary to change the 84th clause, which provides the assistance to be given from the Exchequer to secular schools in case the rate should exceed 3d. in the pound, because the relief to the rates by this plan would be so considerable that, in point of fact, the rate would never come to 3d. in the pound. We might, therefore, altogether dispense with this, contingent reserve of assistance from the Exchequer. We think, also, that if this liberal annual assistance were granted by the State to schools—whether voluntary or rated—it is quite unnecessary to maintain any system of aid for building grants. The building of schools is the easiest of all the efforts made by the promoters. Their great difficulty is the maintenance of the schools; and when we give liberal assistance to the maintenance, I think we may fairly leave to the locality the cost of the building. Another point has been the subject of continued discussion and much interest. I mean that which has been called the "year of grace." This is mixed with various matters which enter into the most complex part of the machinery of the present Bill, and I cannot say precisely whether we shall be able to offer any modification with regard to the proposal in respect to the "year of grace." But there is a very great desire undoubtedly that a system of rated schools, by which local deficiencies are to be supplied, should be brought into action as rapidly as possible. It may be found that the adoption of the provision which I have recently referred to may make it practicable to accelerate the operations proposed to be taken under the Bill, in such a manner as to allow that some shorter period should intervene before the system of rating is brought definitely into action. These are changes which may perhaps follow from the adoption of the plan which I have described. I hope the House has understood the nature of the changes which the Government propose to make. But I will very briefly repeat them. We propose to, in substance, adopt the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) with regard to the rate-founded schools. We propose that a time table Conscience Clause shall cover all schools whatever receiving any description of aid, whether from rates or from the Privy Council. We propose that local Boards shall cease to have any connection with or relation to voluntary schools, and that these voluntary schools, so far as they have depended on public aid, shall only stand in relation to the Privy Council; we propose that the contribution of the Privy Council towards the annual charge of schools shall be augmented in such a manner as to afford an increased amount of support to the local schools, whether voluntary or rated. That increase or amount of support would vary in detail according to the different heads under which it would be given. It is not necessary for me to refer to them separately; but the augmentation would be within a maximum of 50 per cent. It might not be so much; but taking it at about that amount, I think if our propositions be acceded to we may fairly require the promoters of voluntary schools to supply from their own resources and the pence of the children what, with the grant from the Exchequer, will enable them to perfectly well stand in competition with the rated schools. I need scarcely say that our plan would not have any effect on the Estimates of the present year, though they must be considered in connection with future rates. The changes, therefore, in the body of the Bill will be very slight in order to give effect to the propositions which I have described. Indeed, to give effect to the change with regard to the altered relations between local Boards and the voluntary schools requires the omission of three clauses, the 22nd clause, which principally deals with the subject, the 23rd, which is supplemental to it, and the 84th, which provides for a contingent draft upon the Exchequer, which the Government consider to be quite unnecessary under the circumstances of the case. Sir, before sitting down, I would say I am deeply sensible of the great disadvantages under which we approach the consideration of the Bill. Those disadvantages are many, both as regards time and circumstances. This Session the House has not been idle, and I believe that its exertions have not been unfruitful. If we have passed through the months of February, March, April, and May, and are half through June, in Parliamentary business I believe we have no cause to be ashamed of the work which has been under our hands, and which has been the result of our hands. Still, we must not disguise from ourselves that we are now approaching the practical consideration of a measure which, from its importance, its complexity of machinery, its variety of objects, and its grave difficulty, when all taken together, may well be compared even with the measure upon which we have spent the greater part of the Session, and is equaled by very few Bills which, in recent years, have been presented to Parliament. We are approaching the middle of June, when general legislation of a secondary order cannot be said to be forward, and when, of the necessary business of the Session, connected with the Votes in Supply, a very large proportion still remains entirely undischarged. Under these circumstances, when I ask myself what we have to set against this disadvantage—the disadvantage of that growing exhaustion which, as long as men are men, must affect the House of Commons as well as any other assemblage in proportion as its labours are prolonged, I know of but one thing that can be set against it—and that is the earnest desire of the country—faithfully, as I believe, reflected in this House—that the Bill shall pass during the present Session on the great subject of the elementary education of the people. There has been, I think, no single occasion in which the Bill has been mentioned, even in the incidental form of Question and Answer across this Table, when the cheers, the spontaneous utterances of the Members of the House have not testified to the earnestness, and I may say the vehemence of that desire. That it is entertained in good faith I do not for one moment question, and that it is entertained by both sides of the House, I fully believe and am aware. I hope that, being as it is, perfectly upright and undeniably strong, it will also be attended with that careful computation as to the means by which we can attain our end, and on which we must wholly depend for any hope of eventual success. That desire can, after all, only be attained by a disposition on the Benches opposite, and upon these to abate private opinion, to put aside subjects, not of party—because they have never been introduced—but of sectional difference of whatever kind, and to join in one common effort for the attainment of a common object. There was a man who left a name which is ever to be mentioned with honour in this country—Mr. Cobden—whose declaration long ago on this subject is well worthy of our attention. He certainly had no religious or sectarian prejudices, but was a man of popular principles and ideas, and one who would have taken fright, if any one could, at the idea of too great a scope being given to the power of religious communities or to the ministers who preside over them. He spoke, too, at a time when the deficiency in the means of elementary education was far less glaring than it is now, for the sentiment to which I am about to refer was uttered nearly 20 years ago. Addressing a meeting in Manchester, he declared that—

"Such was the sense he entertained of the necessity of a universal, efficient, and accessible secular training for the children of the mass of the community, that he was ready, so long as private conscience was protected in the school, to accept a measure that would attain that end on any terms whatever, he did not care what, in regard to the details of its religious arrangements."

A prolonged consideration of the subject has enabled us, I have no doubt, to deal with some of the difficulties which were unsolved in the days of Mr. Cobden. We have, at any rate, endeavoured carefully and impartially to weigh the claims that might fairly be made by the various sections of the community, and in the proposals that we now make we have been governed by a sense of the great responsibility that we shall incur—a responsibility which others also will incur if they pursue a course that will produce the same result—if we abstain from using any means in our power to promote and expedite the passing of this measure. We have, therefore, sought to meet, as far as we could, the demands that may be urged from any quarter, and to make a liberal provision to enable the promoters of voluntary schools to continue their Christian and philanthropic enterprize. We have sought to meet the objections, the fair objections, of those who wish to exclude, as far as possible, from the area of local Boards the painful subject of religious controversy; and to meet the strong, the widespread, the everywhere manifested desire of the people that the general education of this country in secular matters shall not be separated from religion. Upon this broad basis we present our proposals, and as to the particular form which they have assumed, we present them as the best and fairest plan, in our judgment, by which, in the existing state of opinion and feeling, without involving the State in religious controversy, but confining its central function strictly to its work of obtaining beneficial secular results, we can give not only facility, but also respect, honour, and aid to religion, and secure—as we hope to do for the people of this country, wherever it is still deficient—the great and paramount advantage and blessing of elementary education.

Whether we look to the gravity of the subject, or to the unexpected manner in which the communication has now been made to us by the Prime Minister, I must say, both for its importance and for the rarity of the circumstances, I hardly know any occasion since I have sat in Parliament that can be compared with the present. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his observations by dwelling on the impossibility of our arriving at any satisfactory conclusion on this vital subject, unless we acted in a spirit of mutual concession, and he terminated his remarks by an appeal to the co-operation of all sections of opinion in the House for a common object. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has anything, so far as this measure is concerned, to complain of in the conduct of those who sit opposite to him. It is four months ago since Her Majesty's Ministers, after having had no trifling time to mature their measure, and to consider its provisions, placed upon the Table of this House, after an able exposition from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education—which it was my misfortune not to hear—the measure for the elementary education of the people which had been so long promised and expected. What was the chief provision of that measure? A provision which delegated to school Boards the power and the privilege of deciding upon the religious education of the scholars. The right hon. Gentleman remembers well our long contests and controversies about the Conscience Clause. In this instance we waived all question of the principle of a Conscience Clause; we testified the sincerity of our support by dealing with the right hon. Gentleman in a spirit of co-operation and concession, by abrogating for ever all ground of controversy, and meeting him in a manner which greatly facilitated the progress of the measure, and permitted us to accede to some of his most novel propositions. When I speak of the principle of a Conscience Clause, I allude, of course, to that contained in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has since given Notice of an Amendment to that Conscience Clause; but we have not yet had any reasons stated in favour of the change, and I think the most legitimate and natural manner would be to allow us in Committee to express our opinion upon it. The principle of that Conscience Clause was unanimously, sincerely, and cordially accepted by those who have hitherto been opposed to it, and by that course they greatly facilitated the plans of the right hon. Gentleman, and permitted him to expect that with our co-operation the arrangements that he had proposed to make in delegating to the School Boards this power of deciding upon the matter of religious education of the pupils in schools would be carried. What, however, is one of the leading features of the statement which the Prime Minister has made to-night? I came here to support the Bill which the Government introduced four months ago, and the character and provisions of which have been maturely considered. I came here to candidly consider in Committee any Amendments, whether they were made by the Government or by hon. Members sitting on either side of the House, which might have modified, improved, changed, or developed the principle of the measure; but so far as the Bill of the Government was concerned, I was prepared to support it. I take it for granted that, in this discussion, we are not to enter into any arguments respecting the abstract excellencies or disadvantages of secular education; and I understand it is agreed on both sides of the House that we are to recognize the determination of the great majority of the people of this country that "national education" is to be a "religious education." I understand that is the admission of those who are avowedly, and no doubt conscientiously, advocates of a strictly secular education. I understand that, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, in our efforts to carry a measure of elementary education, we are not to deviate into barren arguments upon the subject of secular education. Then, if we are to have a religious education, I am at a loss to understand how it is to be secured by the change which the right hon. Gen- tleman has notified to-night for adoption by the House, though I shall listen with candour, if opportunity offers, to any arguments that may be advanced in favour of views to which at present I do not give my adhesion. Our course is clear. The country demands a "national education" which will be a "religious education." The country will not entrust that education to the Church, but has agreed to entrust it to the community; and the right hon. Gentleman, acting on that principle, has proposed to us, in the measure before the House, that to the community shall be delegated the power of deciding upon the religious education of the people. To-night, however, we are told that the powers of the school Board are not only to be abridged but even to be abrogated, and it is proposed that we are to take refuge in an Amendment, Notice of which has been given, but which cannot be moved. This appears to me a most extraordinary course for a great Minister and the Leader of the House to take. After having devoted a portion of his time, and that of his Colleagues, to the consideration of this question, after having laid a matured and deeply-considered Bill before the House, and after Parliament and the country have been considering it for four months, the right hon. Gentleman suddenly comes down and tells us he is going to make a great change—a change which is expressed in an Amendment by a private Member who cannot move it. This appears to me to indicate vacillation of purpose. I do not wish to depreciate the proposition of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple); but I want to understand it. It is easy to say that no catechism or formularies should be used in these schools distinctive of any particular denomination. But I think that before we can accede to such a proposition, it would have been convenient if we had had the advantage of having it explained to us. When the original Bill was brought in we had the advantage of an explanation of its principles. Without, therefore, depreciating in any way the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire, I wish to remind the House that we have never had from the right hon. Member (Mr. W. E. Forster), nor from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, any explanation of what may be the possible or the probable consequences of this principle if admitted, or what really is the meaning we may annex to it. The right hon. Gentleman has very properly expressed his belief that it would be impossible to give any definite and precise meaning to such words as "unsectarian" and "undenominational." In dealing with the proposition of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire, which we are now told is to be the leading principle of the Elementary Education Bill—of this Bill which has been so long before us—which has been before us for four months in another shape—I am merely giving my first impressions of it; but when a proposition of this importance is started without Notice, called upon to discuss the subject upon the spur of the moment, I can see nothing but the utmost difficulty in the course which has been indicated by the Government. I am speaking now in the hope of eliciting some information which may guide us in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he, for one, would not be content with religious education in our elementary schools if it merely consisted in reading chapters of the Holy Scriptures without comment. Why, there are but few of us who read chapters in either the Old or the New Testament who do not require comment, and sometimes considerable comment, upon them. Therefore, nothing would be more unfair than that the children of this country, without any previous religious instruction, should be told by Parliament that they must find adequate religious instruction in merely reading passages from the Holy Scriptures. I am, therefore, not at all surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is not inclined to sanction such a course; but, as far as I can ascertain from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the new scheme would be this—that, although no creed nor catechism of any denomination is to be introduced, yet the schoolmaster would have the power and opportunity of teaching, enforcing, and explaining the Holy Scripture when he reads. Now, he cannot do that without drawing some inferences and some conclusions, and what will those inferences and conclusions be but dogmas? They may not be the opinions of the rector, nor of the Presbyterian minister, nor of the Nonconformist mi- nister, but they are the opinions of the schoolmaster. You are contemplating the establishment of a class who must be endowed with great abilities, and who certainly will have to perform most important functions and to exercise great powers, and I want to know in the present state of affairs where these school-masters are to be found? You will not intrust the priest or the presbyter with the privilege of expounding the Holy Scriptures to the scholars; but for that purpose you are inventing and establishing a new sacerdotal class. The schoolmaster who will exercise these functions, and who will occupy this position, will be a member of a class which will, in the future, exercise an extraordinary influence upon the history of England and upon the conduct of Englishmen. That was the second great announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I say that that announcement, if the right hon. Gentleman intends to adopt that scheme of elementary education, is not only one of which we have had no notice, but it is one which we are not in a position even to discuss. I, for one, am not prepared to discuss it; it is too grave, big, comprehensive, and wide a subject for discussion at so short a notice; but I am stating the first impressions that occur to me with regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman, after abridging or abrogating the functions of the school Boards, after announcing that new powers of a most remarkable description are to be intrusted to a class with whom we are at present but little acquainted, enters into details of the most complicated kind with regard to voluntary schools, assisted schools, and rate-established schools under the Bill. The details produced by the right hon. Gentleman, although he said they were very simple, appeared to me to assume almost the character of a Budget. I followed his explanation with difficulty, and my right hon. Friends near me were not able to assist me in the matter. That is to say, my right hon. Friends shared what I believe was the universal feeling of the House, that when a complicated statement was made involving financial details, it would have been more convenient for a popular Assembly to have received it in a more precise and formal manner. Of one thing there can be no doubt—that the details of the right hon. Gentleman, and the changes generally, which he has announced, show that we are called upon to consider an altogether new Bill. The Bill which during months of the autumn was carefully prepared by the Government—which was brought forward with so much comment upon its details four months ago—the Bill which for four months has been studied by the House of Commons, is not the Bill which we are now called to go into Committee upon, and which, if we enter into Committee upon, we shall do so with the greatest disadvantages. I am bound to say that there is not a man out of the Cabinet—and I believe not every one in the Cabinet—who has at this moment a precise and clear idea what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do with voluntary schools which are not to be supported by the rates of the school Boards. Now, Sir, how have we been treated by the Government in this matter? The Vice President of the Council on Education only very recently placed some important Amendments upon the Paper, and he told us that those were all the Amendments he meant to propose. These were his last words just before the Whitsuntide Recess. No doubt, the Government have acted with the utmost straightforwardness in the matter—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council really meant what he said—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister meant what he said four months since, and meant what he said to-night. We are dealing with a very difficult subject, and it will not do to make—I will not say a claptrap appeal to the House, because that would not be respectful to the Prime Minister, but that ordinary appeal to the House that it is of the utmost importance that we should legislate upon this subject during the present Session. I had hoped until to-night that we should be able to legislate upon this subject this Session; but allow me to impress upon the House that there is one thing much worse than not dealing with this question this Session, and that is to pass a sham Bill, evading all difficulties by loose phrases to which no one can annex a precise idea, and which, when attempted to be carried into practice by a practical people like the English, will end in the utmost mischance, and result in public disappointment and mortification. Now, the course that I should have thought would have been taken under the circumstances is, that the right hon. Gentleman should have moved this Committee merely pro formâfor the purpose of inserting these clauses, and should have then postponed further discussion upon it until the Bill had been reprinted. I will not, under the circumstances, move the adjournment of the debate, because I am anxious that on this question we should proceed with as much accord as possible; but I desire to put it fairly to the House and to hon. Members opposite, whatever may be their peculiar opinions respecting elementary education, whether they think that we are now going into Committee with that ample and precise information as to the intentions of the Government which it is desirable, and indeed, which it is absolutely necessary, we should have. Ought we not to have an opportunity of considering the new scheme of the Government? And although we have wasted four months in studying the first Bill, is it right that we should not have four days nor four hours to consider propositions which so intimately concern the interests of the country? The right hon. Gentleman tells us they are very simple; he has only to take out three or four important clauses and we might then go to work; but the right hon. Gentleman took an hour and a-half to explain this new scheme, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman did not waste a word in that explanation. As far as I am concerned, I candidly confess I cannot comprehend the scheme; there may be others who have more confidence in themselves, and who are not so ready to confess a weakness, which I fear is rather my characteristic; but I candidly confess myself utterly incompetent to decide at present upon the momentous propositions and the minute details set forth by the right hon. Gentleman. I trust, therefore, he will accede to my proposal that he will move this Committee pro formâ, insert his new clauses, and let the Bill be reprinted. This done, I care not whether it be at a Morning or an Evening Sitting, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will find the House ready to give his propositions a candid, and, I hope, an efficient examination.

said, he was obliged to join the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) in his confession of weakness. He was quite unable to master the new scheme of the First Lord of the Treasury, and he was sure the House would concur in the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the matter should be postponed. As far as he could understand, it would be absolutely impossible that the principle of compulsion could be applied, for voluntary schools would be removed from the operation of the local Boards, which would alone have the power of enforcing attendance. This was a question that affected the whole framework and texture of the Bill; and it was a matter which they must have time to consider. It was, in fact, a new Bill framed upon new principles. As to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), he would ask who were to determine whether a religious formulary was the distinction of any particular denomination? Every objection that the right hon. Gentleman had urged against his (Mr. Vernon Harcourt's) Amendment appplied equally to that of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire. There ought to be some tribunal to decide as to religious formularies. The New Testament was a religious formulary of Christians, as distinguished from those who were not Christians. He hoped, on a future occasion, to show that there was such a thing as unsectarian religion. He had heard with the deepest regret the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that he did not understand what was meant by undenominational and unsectarian religion. He believed that the great body of the Christian people of this country knew thoroughly well what was meant. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I never used the words.] He was extremely sorry to find he had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman; but the incident showed how true his statement was that he did not understand him. Certainly he gathered from him that there was no such thing as undenominational religion. He was glad, however, to find he had misunderstood him. The country did not desire to have a national system of education founded on denominational principles, though he agreed with the Prime Minister that the country desired religious education; and if the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that he could not secure unsectarian religious education, then he was perfectly certain that at no distant period the country would have a system of secu- lar education. The Amendment adopted by the Government on this subject was in very vague terms. While it pretended to do a great deal it really did nothing at all; it simply prevented the formularies of religion being taught, as if the substance of those formularies could not be taught without the words. It would be easy to teach the Apostle's Creed without the form; even the Athanasian Creed could be put into vulgar and intelligible English, if it were possible, and imparted to the children. He would be no party to a proposal which forbade the form and yet permitted the thing to be done. The proposition would be offensive to the Churches of England and Rome, which had formularies, and unsatisfactory to the Dissenters, who objected to the substance which those formularies taught. As he thought that they were not in a condition to discuss the Bill, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

agreed that it would be utterly impossible adequately to discuss the important questions involved in the new proposals of the Government without an adjournment; and he submitted that if the Bill were pressed forward that evening the new propositions would not be approached in a proper spirit. There were two principles discussed out-of-doors, both of which were seriously affected by the statement of the First Minister. The strongest feeling existed among Nonconformists and almost all those who supported the National Education League, that, whatever was done, there should be no extension of the present denominational system, and that there should be no increase of public grants to the existing denominational schools. Yet, if he understood the Prime Minister, his new propositions involved an increase of the grant to denominational schools of 50 per cent. There was another principle which was held to as strongly, and which was under consideration, as to whether the money of the ratepayers should be given to support sectarian religious teaching. If he correctly understood the proposition of the Prime Minister, it was that the teachers might be allowed in all rate-provided schools not only to teach religion, but to teach religion of the most sectarian character. It would be permissible to teach the sectarianism, not only of 20 Churches, but of thousands of individuals. These two principles had been prominent throughout the whole agitation which had been going on in the country, and he would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they ought to allow a little time to elapse before asking the House to approach the discussion of these new propositions, lest they should give utterance to feelings and opinions that might afterwards be painful to themselves, as well as unjust to the Government. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the House would, without hesitation, agree to adjourn the debate.

rose with very great regret to approve a course of procedure similar to that recommended by his hon. Friends opposite. Entertaining, however, as he did, an earnest desire to press the Bill forward, he felt that the course proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) would lead to some unnecessary delay. He therefore urged the House to go into Committee pro formâ, so as to delay as little as possible the consideration of this important measure. As to the proposals of the Government, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that they made the Bill almost a new one. With regard to many important details, the measure had been entirely transformed. The adoption of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), respecting the exclusion of formularies, was one of very great importance, now it had been adopted by the Government, and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House required time to consider whether they could support it. Again, the future position of the existing schools would be different from what was originally intended. He did not say that the Government proposals might not turn out to be highly valuable; and, for his own part, he hailed with delight the concession with regard to the relief of the rates, for he believed the inhabitants of populous towns had no idea of the unfair burden they would have to bear if all schools were put upon the local rates. Seeing the magnitude and importance of the changes proposed, he trusted the Government would allow hon. Members at least two days to consider them. He recommended the hon. and learned Member for Oxford not to persist in his Motion for the adjournment of the debate; but to assent to the milder course of allowing the Bill to go into Committee pro formâ, with a view to its being reprinted with the Amendments, and to its further consideration on another day.

said, he thought it very desirable that hon. Members should have time to consider the proposed changes. He agreed with the last speaker that the best course of procedure would be to go into Committee pro formâ. The impression he had formed from listening to the speech of the Prime Minister was, that the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject in a most statesmanlike manner. The hostility with which this comprehensive measure had been met proceeded from other causes than a desire for the best education of the poorer classes of this country, and some changes had become necessary to conciliate objectors. The Amendments acceded to would diminish the opportunities for sectarian strife. Against the Bill there had been urged difficulties which the Government were willing to endeavour to remove; and he thought that the solution proposed this evening was, on the whole, the best. He would, however, forbear from entering into a discussion on the subject on the present occasion.

I believe the going into Committee pro formâ and the subsequent reprinting of the Bill, with the Amendments, will be advantageous alike to the House and to the Government. I should be extremely sorry to be compelled to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate; but I do not see what other course I could take in the event of the Government not consenting to reprint the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed adverse to such a course; but it was surely to the advantage of the Government to have the Bill in their hands in its altered form, so that every new Amendment must proceed from other quarters. There is another point that strikes me as being one on which it is very important the Government should give us some information—namely, as to the projected change in the Revised Code. You are about to make changes which will affect some 12,000 schools, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and it is all important for the carrying on of the best part of the education of this country that we should know the position they are to be placed in under the new Revised Code. I do not mean to say that the Code is to be altered now; but I think the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Education Department here ought to put on paper what it is proposed to do in reference to the Revised Code next year. Speaking for myself, I came down here to assist practically in carrying out what I deemed to be the principle of the Government measure, although I am aware there are certain points which will have to be discussed at considerable length in Committee. It was with the same view that I abstained from speaking on the second reading; and now I shall be as brief as possible, because I desire to facilitate the passing of the Bill. I trust, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will give us two or three days to consider his proposals, instead of driving us into apparent opposition to the Bill, by rendering it necessary for us to vote in favour of the adjournment of the debate.

I do not think we have the slightest right to complain of the wish which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and by the other hon. Members who have asked for time to consider the change which has been proposed by my right hon. Friend. I do not deny that that change is an important one; but I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) rather exaggerated the effect of it when he described it as an entirely new Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) suggests that we should go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of having the Bill reprinted. Now, on the part of the Government, I am quite ready to assent to the postponement of the debate until Monday next; and it is entirely for the House to consider whether they would prefer going into Committee pro formâ or to have the Amendments laid on the Table. I would only remind hon. Members that if the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is adopted, the effect will be that all those Amendments which now stand on the Paper in their names will disappear. That would be an inconvenience. If the House approves, the new Amendments might be printed and in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. In point of length these Amendments will be slight, being simply the omission of three clauses and the addition of a few words to the 14th clause. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a detailed statement as to the relations which all the public elementary schools would in future bear to the Parliamentary Grant. In reply, I would observe that it is impossible for us until the Bill passes to say how that would be. I can only repeat the statement made by my right hon. Friend, that in framing the new Code we shall frame it on the principle of contemplating an additional grant of not more than 50 per cent. The precise mode in which it would be given it is impossible to state now, because we do not know what may be the alterations made in the present mode of distribution. We have been all along aware that as soon as the Bill passed the framing of the Code would be a most important matter, and I have every hope that when brought before Parliament next year it will receive the most attentive consideration. As to the Bill itself, I have no wish to enter into any defence of it on the present occasion; but I feel confident that those who take an interest in education, and whose object is the extension of the advantages of education to every child in the kingdom, will regard the Bill as being improved by the alterations in it which have been proposed to-night.

said, there was one reason not yet urged why the House should not vote the Speaker out of the Chair then. By doing so they would preclude themselves by the usages of the House from discussing the Bill upon its principles. Though not wishing to say a word against the proposals enunciated that night, they were so novel in their character, and they had been introduced so unprecedentedly, that he thought it most undesirable they should preclude themselves from discussing the principles of the Bill in connection with those proposals.

said, he saw no advantage in prolonging the discussion. But no person could for a moment dispute the fact that, considering the important statement they had heard that night and the changes proposed by the Government, common fairness required that both sides of the House should have time to consider those Amendments. The best plan, then, in his opinion, to adopt was to go into Committee pro formâ, to reprint the Amendments, and to proceed as soon as possible with the consideration of the Bill in its now shape. He thought Monday was too soon to fix for resuming this discussion, although he hoped that no time would be lost in the progress of the measure.

said, there was not the slightest objection on the part of the Government either to the adjournment of the debate or to the going into Committee pro formâ as had been suggested. The latter course was one which the Government themselves could not well propose, inasmuch as it would be the first step towards giving effect to their plan. With regard to the reprinting of the Bill, if they were to do so it would appear again exactly as it was, with the exception of three clauses, which would be omitted, and a short Amendment to the 14th clause. It it be the wish of the House, the Amendments already on the Paper might be reprinted. The proposals of the Government, so far from being complicated, could be written in three lines. The principal question, that with regard to formularies, could be contained in two lines, and in regard to voluntary schools, it was a transfer from the local Board of the function of administering to the wants of voluntary schools. He hoped that the Motion for adjournment would be withdrawn.

asked the Speaker in what position would hon. Members be who had Amendments on the Paper, in case they assented to the committal of the Bill pro formâ?

The hon. and learned Member will be in a much more advantageous position than that in which he is now placed; because at present, having moved the adjournment of the debate, he has exhausted his powers of speaking. If the House should go into Committee pro formâ, and the Bill should be reprinted, then every hon. Member will, at the re-commencement of the debate, be informed as to the main principles of the change proposed by the Prime Minister.

When the debate was recommenced, would every Member who had an Amendment on the Paper have a right to speak?

replied in the affirmative.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

suggested to hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper that they should replace them, or otherwise they would not have an opportunity of discussing them, should the House go into Committee pro formâ.

observed that, in respect to the proposal for recommital, every one of the 200 or 300 Amendments on the Notice Paper would be replaced at the cost of much time and trouble. He suggested that both Motions before the House should be withdrawn, and then let the Amendments that were really to be proceeded with be placed on the Table of the House.

considered it would be a great advantage if they got rid of all the Amendments on the Paper, so that they should be able to start with the consideration of those Amendments only that involved any material changes in the Bill.

asked if the Government would be prepared to put on the Paper their Amendments with regard to the school Boards, or the compulsory part of the question.

also wished to know if the Government would insert in the Bill a provision with reference to the extent and the amount of the Government grants, so as not to leave them to the caprice and whim of the Educational Department, more especially when they exercised such arbitrary and absolute powers?

said, it was absolutely impossible to put upon the Paper at present the new or additional Code, for reasons quite irrespective of the changes proposed by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They were unable then to form any opinion of the precise details of the provisions under which the annual grants should be made under the altered circumstances caused by the passing of this Bill. What had been said was, that the Government looked forward to additional grants to schools not exceed- ing 50 per cent. It was not the intention of the Government to place Amendments on the Paper with reference to the school Boards and compulsory education. Throughout the discussion there had been an unusual desire to anticipate discussion in Committee by arrangements beforehand; but the Government felt that these difficult questions must be left to be dealt with in Committee.

said, there was a very strong and prevalent feeling that that Bill should be a complete educational measure, in every sense of the word, and he felt certain that many hon. Members would give their support to any attempt to make it such. He suggested that, in order to make it so, the new Code should be incorporated, if possible, in the Bill, so that the minimum as well as the maximum amount of the grants should be known.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the advantages of Extradition Treaties were obvious. It was clear that a crime could be best investigated in the country where it was committed, and where the witnesses and the persons most interested in bringing the offender to justice resided. It was to the advantage of every country that its fugitive criminals should be surrendered to it, and it was no less to the advantage of every country to get rid of foreign criminals who had fled to it. They had criminals enough of their own without being troubled with criminals belonging to other countries, and it was somewhat remarkable that, of all civilized countries, England had received the least benefit from Extradition Treaties. France had now 53 Treaties of Extradition. The United States had nearly as many. Most of the Continental States had a great many. But at that moment England had only three. This was partly owing to jealousy, lest they might be required to surrender political offenders, and to violate the right of asylum always afforded here to political refugees, and partly because a separate Act of Parliament had been required for each treaty. The Bill was founded almost entirely upon the recommendations of the Select Committee, which considered this subject in July, 1868, and it provided that Her Majesty, after having made an arrangement with any foreign State, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, might direct by Order in Council that the Act should apply to the extradition of criminals between us and such State. The Bill was drawn upon the footing of reciprocity, according to the recommendations of the Committee; but he doubted very much whether it was well to insist upon this reciprocity. It seemed to him that the getting rid of a foreign criminal was a benefit, nor did there appear any reason why they should insist on continuing subject to the nuisance of keeping foreign criminals, because foreign countries chose to endure the nuisance of keeping theirs. The list of crimes was extended in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee; but it was still limited to the graver crimes, and to such crimes as had some common element in the legislation of the countries with which they agreed for the purposes of extradition. These were specified in the Schedule to the Bill. The Queen, however, was not bound in each case to put in force the whole Schedule, but might make a selection. The Schedule to the Bill set forth a number of offences, but it need not be adopted in toto by the Queen when entering into any arrangement with any foreign country; indeed, she might adopt only so much of the Schedule as might be thought convenient under the circumstances. It had been held by the Court of Queen's Bench that they ought not to surrender criminals if they had jurisdiction to try them; but that decision was arrived at by the Court against the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice; but now that that opinion had been generally adopted by the profession in England, and he understood in America, the Bill proposed to give effect to it, and to enable the Courts to surrender prisoners for certain offences, piracy for instance, even although we might have jurisdiction to try them here. It was right to state the safeguards by which the principle of extradition was surrounded in the Bill. First, there was a distinct provision that no criminal should be surrendered for any political offence. They had found it more difficult to define a political offence than to define the Ulster Custom, and they had finally given up the attempt, and had left the matter to the Courts. In addition to this, the Secretary of State for the Home Department might at anytime interfere to prevent the extradition of a criminal for any offence which he deemed to be of a political character. It was further provided that no person surrendered should be tried for any offence except that for which he was surrendered, without having been previously restored to liberty. This was to prevent a foreign country demanding a man—say, for manslaughter, and then trying him for a political offence. Further, it was provided that no criminal should be surrendered for what the French called par contumace—that of being convicted in his absence. The Committee further recommended that all extradition cases should be heard at Bow Street, and that recommendation had been adopted, subject to the exception that if a crime had been committed on the high seas it might be dealt with, to avoid delay, at the port at which the ship arrived, by a stipendiary magistrate in England, a chairman of quarter sessions in Ireland, and a sheriff in Scotland. At present proceedings were commenced by an order from the Home Secretary on a requisition from an Ambassador; but Sir Thomas Henry pointed out that this involved delay, which might allow a prisoner to escape; and therefore power was given to any magistrate to issue his warrant on such information, as he would do if the offence were committed in England; but no further proceedings were to be taken unless the usual order was given by the Home Secretary. Every person taken up under the provisions of the Act would have notice given him that 15 days were allowed to him to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus, in the event of his having reason to complain of his having been arrested, or reason to give why he should be set at liberty. The Act would apply to the Colonies, unless any were excepted by an Order in Council; and in the Colonies a requisition was to be made by a Consul or Vice Consul, and the Governor was to perform the duties which were here performed by the Secretary of State. There was a further provision that if Colonial Acts on the subject had been passed and were in force they were not to be interfered with, so that if the Colonies liked to deal with this question themselves they were at liberty to do so. He thought it would be found that this was a very important enactment, and that it would lead to the adoption of the principle of extradition to an extent which hitherto had been little thought of; and he trusted it would lead to a number of treaties with foreign countries. At the same time, he thought the principle was surrounded by such safeguards that the most timid persons need no longer fear the possibility of the extradition of criminals for political offences and other interferences with liberty, which hitherto had prevented them resorting to the principle of extradition.

said, he was Chairman of the Committee referred to, and, so far as he could then judge, the Bill appeared to be carefully and skilfully drawn in conformity with the Committee's Report. It would remove a defect in their criminal jurisprudence which was a disgrace to them as a civilized country; and it would place them on the same footing as the other civilized nations of Europe. Jealousies had arisen in consequence of the course they pursued with regard to political offenders, and also that each treaty had to be confirmed by Parliament. Those matters had created such great difficulties hitherto that nothing practical had been attempted to remedy them. He trusted the Bill would lead to a number of treaties that would enable them to get rid of many rogues who now went about this country with impunity.

took exception to the principle of the Bill, that of contracting with foreign countries, as unsound, and involving them in all sorts of difficulties and different agreements with different countries; and he maintained that the principle was to determine by what rule they should be guided themselves; and having determined their own municipal law, we should inform foreign countries, and ask them to extend to us advantages corresponding with those which our laws afforded them. In Committee he should move the rejection of that part of the Bill which rendered it necessary to make treaties with foreign countries on the subject. He thought, too, it would have been better to confine themselves to their own municipal law, and to have allowed those Colonies which had Legislatures of their own to legislate on this subject for themselves. This Bill would apply to Canada till Canada thought fit to render it inoperative as regards that Colony by legislation of its own. The fact that Canada was in advance of England in this matter rendered it the less necessary that we should include that Colony in our extradition arrangements with other States.

said, the Bill carried out two important recommendations of the Select Committee; one was, that after a fugitive was committed by a magistrate he should have 15 days to sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus; the other was an enlargement of the catalogue of offences so as to afford more protection to commercial interests. As a member of the Select Committee, he proposed that the Court of Queen's Bench should be the authority to decide what was and what was not a political crime. Two members of the Government who were on the Committee had undertaken to give the Committee a general definition on that subject; but subsequently they admitted that the task had baffled their powers. The Committee, by a majority of 1, recommended that the decision should be left to the Court of Queen's Bench; but he regretted that recommendation was not embodied in the Bill, because he thought the Secretary of State was the last person in whom the decision on such a point should be vested.

, as one who had practical experience of the glaring deficiencies in our criminal law with reference to fugitive criminals, was glad to express his opinion that this Bill was a step in the right direction. Any objection that had been made to it was as to particular clauses, and might be discussed in Committee. He wished to know why the word "arrangement" had been used instead of "convention" in one of the clauses?

, in reply, said, that the Secretary of State would not determine what was a political offence. The magistrate would determine that question subject to an appeal, in case of dispute, to the Court of Queen's Bench, or some other of the superior Courts. The Bill did empower the Secretary of State to interpose, if he should think the offence was a political one; but it did not give him authority to decide that it was. The word "arrangement" was used in order that an agreement might be come to without a formal treaty.

said, he had taken the opportunity of placing on the Notice Paper three Resolutions in relation to the inhabited house duty. It might seem an unusual thing to bring them up at such a time; but he thought that the subject had been treated in a somewhat unusual manner by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) thought that the duty fell more heavily upon houses as they descended in the social scale, whether they looked at the amount of rent paid, or the amount of income of the occupant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, said that there was not the slightest reason why the tax should be remitted. Small as was the boon he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) asked, if it were granted it would be a great concession to the general community. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lose a great opportunity of doing justice. He moved to insert the following clause:—

seconded the Motion, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have an opportunity of speaking. New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

said, the proposal was, that when a man possessed a house which was divided into separate tenements, for each of which the tenant was charged less than £20 a year, such house was to be exempt from the tax. Every shopkeeper who lived in a house of £20 a year had to pay house duty; but if a man happened to possess a house worth hundreds a year the hon. Member would exempt him from the tax, in the event of the house being let out to tenants each of whom paid less than £20 rent. His opinion was that the house duty ought to descend much lower than £20. It would be in the highest degree unjust for the House to accede to the Motion.

said, he had another clause to move with respect to the house tax. This one applied to houses used as temperance hotels and coffee-houses. At the present moment every house licensed for the sale of ale, wine, or spirituous liquors was liable to a house tax of 6d., whereas hotels not so licensed were treated as private houses, and had to pay 9d. in the pound. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following clause:—

apprehended the reason the clause was brought forward was that the law imposed a tax of 9d. in the pound on houses which were not used as shops, and 6d. in the pound upon those which were so used. In the case of public-houses and temperance hotels the line drawn was, perhaps, a somewhat thin line; but one reason why the charge on a public-house should be less was, that it already contributed in many ways to the Revenue. So far as he could see, it did not appear to him to be worth while to make the change proposed.

supported the Amendment.

said, one reason for not dividing the House was that it was the custom of the House to deal with the Budget proposals of the Government as a whole; to reject, or it might be to modify them, but not to introduce new proposals. Another reason was that the case as between the public-houses and the temperance hotels was not at the moment so much before the House as his hon. Friend seemed to think. Without speaking of the taxes on the articles consumed, the taxation on the public-house for licences was much heavier than on coffee-shops and temperance hotels. In the interests of temperance his hon. Friend would be very unwise indeed if he instituted a comparison between the taxation of public-houses and temperance hotels. He would remind the House that a large measure dealing with the licensing question generally had been undertaken by the Government, and that it was much more desirable that any changes which it might be found desirable to make should be made by its means rather than in a temporary and discursive manner. After a few words from Mr. MONTAGU CHAMBERS and Mr. ALDERMAN LUSK in support of, and Mr. PEASE against it,

said, there was another clause which he wished to submit to the House. Under the existing law premises used for purposes of trade were exempt from inhabited house duty although a servant resided there merely for purposes of protection. But the Inland Revenue Department held that if a solicitor, an architect, an engineer, or any professional man occupied offices in a block of buildings otherwise exempt, such occupation not being for the purposes of trade, rendered the whole block liable to duty. Under these circumstances solicitors and professional men would be driven out of the chambers they occupied if the house duty were to be imposed. In order to obviate all difficulty for the future he moved the insertion of the following clause:—

said, he would answer the clause instead of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, for the former he could understand, but the latter he could not. The clause, in effect, proposed that if a house were occupied by a professional man all day and by a servant at night—circumstances which constituted the strongest grounds for taxing it—it should, therefore, be exempt from duty. He was reminded by hon. Friends near him of the case of Box and Cox, which was very nearly that defined by the clause.

expressed surprise at the inability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to comprehend the meaning of the clause itself, which was framed in almost the same words as the clause of the Bill of last Session, which was evidently intended to relieve such houses from the inhabited house duty. The proposed clause was not new, except so far as it sought to interpret the existing law, and to put an end to the litigation and the annoyance occasioned by the sudden action of the Revenue authorities in exacting house duty in cases in which it had never been intended to be imposed.

considered that the clause went farther than was intended by the hon. Gentleman who had framed it, because it really said that by reason of a servant occupying a house at night such house should be exempt from the duty.

said, he was of opinion that the clause was drawn up by a man of business, and was perfectly intelligible. Was it right, he asked, that a house otherwise exempt from this duty should, from the fact of a policeman or other guardian being hired to protect it at night, be made liable to the inhabited house duty?

said, he would withdraw the Resolution. He might not have drawn it correctly; but he had proved a grievance, and he would leave the matter in the hands of the Government.

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, in 1868 two candidates of opposite politics stood for Sligo, and that Major Knox was returned; but, a Petition having been presented, Judge Keogh decided that the election was void on the ground of corrupt practices of which persons by name were guilty. The Judge reported that several persons not named had been in the habit of applying to Major Knox for money, in consideration of their agreeing to vote for him or refraining to vote for his opponent. The learned Judge said in his judgment—

"The measure of the corrupt practices of Sligo, I have no hesitation in saying, is full. In every description of corrupt practices, especially in intimidation, it appears to have attained a bad pre-eminence."

After that decision a Royal Commission was issued on the 23rd of June, 1869. Having made its inquiries it reported that at the last three elections corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in Sligo, and that the absence of corruption at the election of 1859 was due to the circumstance that one of the candidates had no money and that the other came forward reluctantly. At the election of 1860 three candidates came forward—Mr. M'Donogh, Lieutenant-Colonel Tennison, and Mr. Somers. Lieutenant - Colonel Tennison retired after the day of nomination, and Mr. Somers polled very few votes—so that Mr. M'Donogh was practically returned without opposition; but, notwithstanding this, corrupt practices extensively prevailed. That election cost Mr. M'Donogh £1,350, of which between £800 and £900 was spent in bribery, and after the election about £470 was distributed among about 14 voters. At the election of 1865 extensive bribery was reported to prevail; the names of the persons bribed were to be found in the Schedules to the Report, so far as they were discovered; and so in 1868, though the number of persons bribed appeared to be smaller than at previous elections. This, however, was not owing to the increase of electoral purity in the borough, but to the fact that, for obvious reasons, the usual practice in Sligo was not to pay money until some time after the election, and after the time for petitioning had expired. The Commissioners, indeed, reported that large numbers of persons were expecting money. The Government did not desire to make this a political question or a party one. They had introduced the Bill, because they felt that, if they had not done so, the sending of Commissioners to report on corrupt practices would in the case of Sligo and Cashel have been a mere mockery. With regard to the former borough, it might be urged that if they disfranchised it, the western sea board of Ireland, from Galway to Londonderry, so far as the towns were concerned, would be unrepresented. He was aware of that; but the more important the town the more necessary was it to make an example of that town where the corrupt practices were shown to have widely prevailed among the constituency. In the case of Cashel, it was only necessary for him to particularly refer to two elections—those of 1865 and 1868. In 1865, there were two candidates, Mr. O'Beirne, and Mr. Lanigan. The number of persons who voted was 109, and 32 of them were reported as having been guilty of corrupt practices. The last election held in the borough was in November, 1868, when the candidates were Mr. O'Beirne and Mr. Munster. Mr. O'Beirne was returned, but was unseated on Petition. The Judge reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. A Commission was issued, and the Report of the Commissioners was the foundation of these proceedings. The number of persons who voted at this election was 184, and of these 77 were reported as corrupt. The Report stated that the election was conducted in a corrupt manner on the part of both the candidates. In one shape or another—in one or other of the Schedules—fully one-half of the constituency was implicated in the corrupt practices, and the House might come to the conclusion that if the truth could have been fully elicited a considerable percentage of the remaining half would also have been added to the names in the Schedules. Under these circumstances the Government had only one duty to discharge, and that was to ask the House to read the Bill a second time.

protested against the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman. For the purpose of eon-fusing those listening to him, he jumbled together two matters perfectly distinct and separate from each other—the opinion of a Judge and the Report of a Commission—neither of which sepa- rately would justify the harsh and vindictive course he was directed to pursue in relation to the borough of Sligo. The statement of Mr. Justice Keogh related entirely to the intimidation proved before him to have been carried on at the last election for that town—"That in Sligo the cup of iniquity was full to the brim;" it had no relation to bribery, as but four cases had been brought under his notice. This sentence had been three times quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose stock of ammunition was not over abundant. Two of the Commissioners only signed the Report; the name of the Chairman was not attached to it. The conclusion, they arrived at was not borne out by the evidence—they reported as bribed persons those who contradicted on oath the charges against them. They reported one candidate to have declined standing, on being told that a sum of money to pay some voters would be necessary to secure his success. They did not examine this gentleman. He (Colonel French) was assured that this gentleman had left Sligo without making any communication to his committee, who felt certain of returning him—without any bribery—had he remained and gone to the poll. He did not rely on his own opinion as to the insufficiency of the evidence; he had spoken to several barristers ranking very high in their profession, who fully agreed with him. On an average, not 4 per cent of the 530 voters in Sligo were implicated; there was no precedent for the disfranchisement of a borough under such circumstances. In Norwich, where the report of bribery was far more extensive, it was not even thought of. Ireland, which in justice should have a large increase, was to be deprived of two votes by a Parliament professing, in words, a great regard for her interests, but taking the first opportunity of striking her a blow. How was Ireland dealt with in the last Reform Bill? Whilst a reduction of the franchise from £50 to £12 was given to England and Scotland, Ireland was refused a reduction of £4, although the late Sir Robert Peel declared her fully entitled to it. Scotland got seven additional Members. Ireland, since the meeting of the present Parliament, has been kept with three less than her number—two of whom, by this Bill, are proposed to be permanently swept away. By the Acts of 1866 and 1867, England had one representative for every 41,000 of population, Wales one for every 38,000, Scotland one for every 52,000, Ireland one for every 56,000. The English, counties had a Member for every 58,000, the Scotch one for 56,000, the Irish but one for every 78,000. Ireland returned but 64 Members for her 5,000,000 of inhabitants. Had these counties been in England they would return 86 Members. Ten counties in England returned six Members each; 13 English counties, with a population from 150,000 to 300,000, returned four each, while the largest of the Irish counties only sent to Parliament two Members each. He (Colonel French) attempted to remedy this state of affairs. The Liberals had a very large majority brought up to support the addition of seven Members for Scotland, and to keep her nomination counties. Sutherland, with their sanction, continues to send a representative for 300 electors; but, when Ireland required their assistance, no majority was to be had. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated the addition to the character of the Government under which he serves for honesty, impartiality, and firmness this Bill will bring them—the very reverse of this will be the case; they are now looked on with distrust—which they may manage to change to dislike, but no credit could they look for from any section or party in Ireland for their wanton attack on the only stirring trading community in the West of Ireland. Connaught, entitled to a fourth of the representation of Irelard—26 Members—now sends but 13, one of whom they sought to destroy—by numbers they might do so—but their victory would not be one for the Government to plume itself on. He asked leave to move the I Amendment of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Amendment. The Judge who tried the Petition of 1868 examined 80 witnesses, and reported that he had only been enabled to discover 15 electors who had been guilty of taking bribes; but that 40 others might have taken bribes if they had been offered. He thought it was only just to take into consideration the last election of 1868, and that alone, and that it would be unjust to disfranchise those persons who were not actually guilty of corrupt practices. Sligo was as great a borough in Ireland as Norwich was in England, yet the Government had not ventured to disfranchise Norwich. He demanded that the same principle should be applied to Sligo as had been applied to Norwich. They had, in fact, no right to disfranchise Sligo.

said, that having been at the head of the Commission which reported against Cashel, he did not intend to vote upon the question. Compared with other constituencies, he did not think that Sligo had been proved deeply tainted with corrupt practices, as far as bribery was concerned. He found that, in the case of Norwich, 14 per cent of the constituency had been proved to be guilty of bribery, and the bribers only were punished; in the case of Sligo 13 per cent of the constituency had been found guilty of bribery, and the whole borough was disfranchised. The Solicitor General for Ireland relied on the fact that 60 out of 91 corrupt electors in 1865 remained on the register; but it seemed to him that if these corrupt electors, or, rather, those still in the borough, had mended their ways, the result was rather in favour of lenient treatment of the case.

said, the distinction between the cases of Norwich and Sligo was a very simple one. In the latter case, it was reported by the Commissioners that at the last three elections corrupt practices extensively prevailed; whereas, in the case of Norwich, the Commissioners reported that such practices did not extensively prevail. That distinction was a very material one; and he thought the only course open in the case of Sligo was that of disfranchisement. The present case seemed to him to be entirely governed by former precedents. The hon. Member said that 14 per cent of the Norwich voters were found guilty of bribery; but the real number was 184 in a constituency of 12,000.

thought that the Government were scarcely justified in singling out for condemnation Sligo and Cashel, against which but few Petitions had been presented. He asked the House to consider that in Ireland there were 30 boroughs with a population of less than 70,000, returning 13 Members, and that they were asked to disfranchise a borough which contained 12,000 or 13,000, in which only 14 persons were reported to have been guilty of bribery. He thought the House should pause before disfranchising Sligo and Cashel—leaving Youghal and other boroughs, equally corrupt, unscathed.

said, he would answer several remarks which had been made about the unfortunate borough of Youghal. It was very hard that Youghal should always be picked out for animadversion. No one could show that Youghal was guilty of corruption at previous elections; and even at the last election it was found guilty, not of corrupt practices, but simply of a small trifle of treating. He must protest against the practice of crying down Youghal.

said, that he moved last year for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at Youghal, where £5,000 had been expended in treating. The circumstance of that Commission not being appointed was no reason why Cashel and Sligo should not be dealt with. He believed that all three boroughs were a disgrace to the representation of Ireland; and that the sooner they were disfranchised the better. If a Division was taken he should certainly vote with the Government.