said, he would, in deference to the wishes of several hon. Members, postpone his Motion on the Business of the House until the following day; but he would appeal to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) to allow him to proceed with his Motion before they brought on the Motions of which they had given Notice, as that course would be most convenient.

said, his Motion would occupy only a short time, but he would give way to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce this Session any measure for filling up the vacancies in the Representation of Ireland, caused by the disfranchisement of the boroughs of Cashel and Sligo?

, in reply, said, he could not hold out any hope that the Government would deal with the question this Session.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the custody of the Parochial Registers of Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials which were kept by the Clergy of the late Established Church in Ireland; and, whether it is the intention of the Government, now that the connection of that Church with the State has ceased, to take any and what steps to provide for the future guardianship of these important records?

, in reply, said, that the matter was under the consideration of the Government, and he hoped that in a short time some conclusion would be arrived at. He must, however, add that the matter was one of very considerable difficulty. He would be glad privately to give the hon. Member any information he possessed on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to ascertain the truth of the allegations which are contained in a Petition signed by upwards of 9,000 old Indian emigrants in the Mauritius; and, whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table the Correspondence relative to the proposed expulsion from the island of M. De Plevity, the author of a pamphlet on the subject?

The best answer which I can give to the hon. Gentleman is the statement that a Commission has, at the request of the Mauritius planters, been appointed to inquire into the condition of the Indian labourers employed in Mauritius, and into the allegations contained in the pamphlet mentioned. Mr. Frere, who lately presided with so much ability upon the Demerara Commission, and Mr. "Williamson, of the Northern Circuit. will form this Commission, and will start for Mauritius next month. It is only right I should add that, although it is believed that amendments in detail are required in the existing laws at Mauritius, the Governor has expressed his belief in the general well-being and good treatment of the labourers. Pending the inquiry, I think it would hardly be desirable to present to Parliament any such ex parte statement as would be involved in the publication of the Correspondence in question.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would state to the House the considerations which influenced the Treasury in withholding aid to the Expedition about to be sent out in search of that distinguished Traveller, Dr. Livingstone?

I hope the Question of the hon. Gentleman will not be considered as a precedent that every Minister is bound to state to the House, at the demand of any hon. Member, all the considerations that are in his mind and influence particular decisions. I must say that would be, in my opinion, a very inconvenient course of proceeding. In this instance, however, I have not the slightest objection to reply to the Question put by the hon. Gentleman. Now, in the first place we subscribed £1,000 for the relief of Dr. Livingstone at a time when he was in a place called Ujiji. The money subscribed never reached him, and he was not benefited by it at all. Secondly, we are in profound ignorance of the locality in which Dr. Livingstone is at the present time. I am sorry to say we have entirely lost sight of him, and the expedition about to go out is to be sent out for the purpose of finding out where he is, and when he is found—which I hope he will be—to relieve him. It appeared to me that this is an object which, although it may very properly be undertaken, is hardly one in which it would be proper for the Government to embark. Perhaps the brave men who engage in it may themselves be involved in the difficulties, whatever those difficulties have been, which have overtaken Dr. Livingstone, and we might therefore be committed to a series of expeditions. A third consideration is that there is now, under the command of an English gentleman, a large armed force from the establishment at Gondokoro, at the head of the navigation of the Nile, which is probably now engaged in exploring the region of the two great lakes, the Albert and the Victoria Nyanza. By far the best chance for Dr. Livingstone is that he should hear of this, what I may call, extraordinary event—the presence, I mean, of this large, well-armed force in Africa; and that, having become acquainted with the fact, he may turn his steps in their direction. It is from those armed men that Dr. Livingstone would be most likely to receive relief; but, so far as I am able to form an opinion, I think it is exceedingly undesirable that the Government should enter upon the practice of giving subscriptions to objects placed in private hands, and forwarded by private means, however meritorious those objects may be. Parliament has not, in its wisdom, chosen to set aside any sum for this purpose in its provision for the year, and the Government must, therefore, take on themselves the responsibility of judging whether or not it will subscribe for such an object without any indication of the pleasure of this House. All Governments might be sufficiently ready to gain a little popularity for themselves if they could by being facile in these matters. Another consideration—and it appears to be a serious one—is that when the Government does subscribe the public money, it is not altogether right in losing control over that money; and if a case can be made out for the Government giving a subscription, a still better case might be made out for the Government undertaking the enterprize itself. Further, it is quite a false analogy to treat the Government as we do a wealthy individual, and to say that the same reason which makes it right for a rich man to subscribe towards a particular object would make it right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do the same. The difference between the two cases is perfectly manifest, because the private individual holds his money for his own benefit, and can do what he likes with it, whereas the Government holds the public money as a trustee. Moreover, the money with which the Government is intrusted is contributed not by the rich only, but by poor and rich alike. These are the considerations which influenced the Government in not subscribing.

asked, If he might remind the right hon. Gentleman that Dr. Livingstone was Consul General of Her Majesty in that part of the world?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is correct, as reported in the newspapers, that two Naval Officers who had volunteered to join the Expedition in search of Dr. Livingstone, the African Explorer, had been put on half-pay?

, in reply, said, that the Question of his hon. Friend appeared to rest on a misconception that the Admiralty had, by some special act, placed the two officers referred to on half-pay. That was not so. One was on half-pay, and the other had completed the peried of active service in which he had been engaged. The question, therefore, which the Admiralty had to consider was, whether the Government ought to place those gentlemen on full pay during the expedition. A request to that effect was made to the Admiralty, and instructions were given to ascertain whether there was a precedent for such a course, and he had been informed that there was none. It was not active service, and except on active service on behalf of Her Majesty, no officer had ever been placed on full pay. The nearest case to the present was that of Sir Leopold M'Clintock, when he undertook the Arctic Expedition; he was considered to be on active service, but it was by special Order in Council that the time occupied was allowed to count as time on service. With every desire, therefore, to promote the objects of the expedition, the Admiralty was unable to place the officers on full pay, they not being on active service.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it be the intention of the Government to propose any measure with the object of having Private Bills dealt with in Dublin?

It is the intention of the Government to make proposals, as I hope in the present Session, with a view to facilitate the progress of such business as is usually dealt with by Private Bills in the case of Ireland, not upon the ground that there is anything in the case of Ireland which is in principle distinct from the case of the other portions of the United Kingdom, but on the ground that it is extremely desirable to lighten, wherever it can unobjectionably be done, the hands of this House, and to promote and expedite the transaction of business. I am not prepared to say how far it will be in the power of my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to carry his measure, because the subject is one which goes into a good deal of detail, and I do not wish to raise any premature or excessive expectations. But it is not proposed to proceed until my hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Dodson) has given effect to the pledge which he has entered into with the House of Commons—namely, that he will, on a very early day, raise the whole subject of private business for consideration and discussion in this House. After that has been done, we think it will be possible for us to see our way in this matter better than at present; but until then we shall not arrive at any positive decision as to the mode of proceeding.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he has received information of a riotous mob at Buckie, in the parish of Rathven, on the 6th instant, by which the meeting of the Parochial Board was prevented, and some members of it injured; and, whether he has taken any steps to punish the rioters, and to insure safety to members of the Board who may desire to attend its future meetings?

, in reply, said, he had not received official information of the riotous mob referred to, but having, in consequence of the Notice of that Question, caused inquiries to be made, he had learnt that several persons were in custody on account of those proceedings, which were in course of investigation by the local authorities.

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that by fixing the discussion of his Resolutions on this subject for to-morrow, he would seriously interfere with the privileges of private Members—a proceeding not well calculated to expedite business. With a view to remedy that injustice, he trusted that the Resolutions would be taken on some Government night.

said, he should be sorry to encroach on the domain of private Members, but his Motion for to-morrow would be postponed until the House had disposed of all the Motions of private Members, with the exception of those of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who had kindly given way.

said, he would willingly postpone the Motion which stood in his name until that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been disposed of. That Motion had been suggested to him by the state of the Public Business at the close of the last Session. But one circumstance weighed with him very much, and that was the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and he was unwilling that the subject should come forward until that right hon. Gentleman was present, who had had a share in bringing the Committee of last year to some of the Resolutions it had come to. He, therefore, would not urge the Government to proceed to-morrow with this subject.

said, that under any circumstances he would go on with his Motion to-morrow, whatever course the Chancellor of the Exchequer might think proper to take. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman went on to-morrow he would yield him precedence.

rose amid cries of "Order."

said, that the House was now engaged upon "Questions," and the observations of the last two speakers had exceeded the limits of Questions. There being no Question before the House that discussion was irregular.

, on moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had hoped the House would have taken that course without interruption, in order that they might take up its consideration at the point where they stopped last Session; but he understood that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) intended to move that it be read the second time that day six months, and he would rather reserve his observations on the measure until he had heard the objections of his hon. and learned Friend.

said, he had not seen that Bill till last Saturday, and he had now come down to the House intending to move its rejection in the strongest manner open to him. He took that course for the reason that he thought the House should be made aware of what was the character of the first Bill set down for their consideration that Session, and he would venture to say that it was such a measure as had never yet been laid on the Table of an English Parliament. What was the nature of that measure which referred to the regulation of the Parks? Professing to regulate the Royal Parks, it made an attack, of which they could find neither example nor precedent, upon the liberties of the subject. The Bill first of all referred to certain persons called park-keepers, who, although he had not time to inform himself specifically on the subject, he imagined were appointed to look after the Parks by the Ranger. He believed they were not generally ex officio police constables. The Bill was divided into two parts; in the first part of which Section 4 said that persons doing certain acts should, on conviction by a Court of summary jurisdiction, be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5; and then came a remarkable clause, providing that any park-keeper, and any persons whom he might call to his assistance, might take into custody, without a warrant, offenders in the Park where such park-keeper had jurisdiction, provided the offender's name or residence was unknown to him. That was a different thing from the case of a man being called on to give his address, and refusing to give it. Although the person might offer him his address, yet if the park-keeper did not know it he might arrest him without warrant, which was a very great and striking departure from the ordinary course of English law. The power of arresting Her Majesty's subjects without a warrant was a very serious power to be allowed to be exercised in this country. The general rule of law in former times was that no police constable could arrest a man unless an act of a very serious character was done in his presence, or unless he had some information that a felony was about to be committed. It had been the custom in later Acts to extend—he was not sure wisely to extend—the powers of the police, and to give them, under strict limitations, authority to arrest without warrant. But those powers were not at all of the same character as those contained in this Bill. They were not given to people like park-keepers, but were strictly limited with reference to offences defined by Parliament. He would now call attention to the character of the offences for which these exorbitant powers were to be exercised. The Bill itself did not profess to define the offences for which Her Majesty's subjects were to be arrested; but it left to the Ranger of the Park for the time being to draw up such regulations—and such regulations might be of the most extravagant nature, for there was no public responsibility—as he might think fit, for the breach of which Her Majesty's subjects were to be treated as though they were felons, vagabonds, or—what were regarded as worse in this country—poachers. In his opinion it was most improper to give such powers to the Ranger as the Bill proposed to invest him with, and he defied any Member of that House to produce a precedent for a Bill of this description. There was to be a power to arrest, without warrant, persons who offended against regulations which were not defined in the Bill, and which regulations were to be framed by the Ranger, who was an officer of the Crown. For such a thing there was no precedent. No doubt in the Police Act there was power to arrest for certain offences: but the offences were defined in the statute. He was also aware that under Clause 12 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, power was given to arrest without warrant, under regulations to be subsequently made; but those powers were infinitely more restricted than those proposed to be given under the present Bill. He begged to draw the attention of the House to the character of the regulations for the breach of which people were to be arrested without warrant. Under one of these regulations any person might be arrested without warrant who should disturb any animal grazing in any Park, or which might be in the waters thereof,; so that if a person were to disturb the sheep in going across the Park, or who might catch a minnow in the Serpentine, would be liable to be arrested without warrant. Certainly, if he were to put a worm upon his hook for the purpose of fishing, he would come within the terms of that regulation. The rules of a Park were defined to be such rules as might, in relation to any matters within the jurisdiction of the Ranger of the Park, be from time to time made by the Ranger, or as concerned other matters, by the Commissioners of Works. The Ranger, to whom this despotic power was given, as he had said before, was not a Parliamentary officer, neither was he subject to Parliamentary control, he was a mere nominee of the Crown; and he had yet to learn that the House of Commons was inclined to give to a nominee of the Crown power to make regulations under which Her Majesty's subjects might be arrested without warrant. He was aware that the clause went on to state that any such rules should be "under the common seal of the said Commissioners;" but he was not going to trust even the right hon. Gentleman himself to define rules for which people were to be treated as vagrants and poachers. It might be asked what could be the motive of the Government for bringing in such a Bill as this; but the answer to that question was to found in the 8th Regulation, which propoosed to enact that—

"No person shall deliver, or invite any person to deliver, any public address in a Park, except in accordance with the rules of the Park."

That was what the Bill was meant for. What was "an address" in a Park? He supposed that by "deliver an address" was meant "make a speech," and it was a pity that it was not so said. The rules of the Park were not made, but were to be thereafter made, and the offences were to be in accordance with the rules which the Ranger should choose to make. Now, he objected to legislation of that kind. He supposed that as the Ranger of the Park was to frame the rules, he would also have power to determine what sentiments should or should not he uttered in the Parks under his control. Again, by Regulation 11, no person was to be allowed to use any water in a Park for fishing or for any other purpose; and by the 12th to bring any dog into the Park, except in accordance with the rules of the Park. Talk of the Six Acts of Lord Castlereagh, or of General Warrants, why they were nothing to the provisions of that Bill, and he could not conceive that the House of Commons would sanction such legislation as that. He was aware that the measure had been sent in the course of last Session before a Select Committee of the House, and that it had been returned in its present form; but he thought he was correct when he observed that on that Committee there was no lawyer, except the right hon. Gentleman who was the Chairman, who had been so long an absolute monarch that he had forgotten the first principles of law. For his part, it passed his understanding how anybody could recommend a Bill, founded upon such principles as the one before them, and he saw no necessity for interfering with the Parks at all. Englishmen were a very well-conducted, law-abiding set of people, and there was no necessity for irritating, provoking—and he had almost said—insulting them, by legislation such as was proposed by this Bill. Why not leave the Parks and the people alone? If this question of the Parks were to be raised at all, legislation of a very different character would be required to that of the enactments contained in the Schedule of the Bill. It would not do to legislate so as to make the Parks the exclusive preserve for one class of society. The law, with regard to our Parks, was different from that of any other country in the world, because it excluded from them all but carriage folks. ["No, no!"] Yes; no carriage but a private one was allowed to enter the Parks; but in Paris there was no restriction upon any person driving upon the Champs Elysee or the Bois de Boulogne; and there was no despotic country in the world where persons who had not a carriage of their own were refused access to the Parks. They might depend upon it that that Bill would not settle the question in a way that would be satisfactory to the public opinion of the country. Regulation 16 of the Bill proposed to enact that no person should wilfully interfere with or annoy any other person using or enjoying the Park, or any part thereof, in accordance with the regulations of the Park, or otherwise using or enjoying the same in any lawful manner. What a definition of an offence for which a man could be arrested without warrant! One man did not like tobacco, and another might interfere with his enjoying the Park by smoking, and for this he might be arrested without warrant. It would be a discredit to the House of Commons to entertain that Bill for a moment after they had ascertained its real character; and, therefore, there was no stage of the Bill at which he would not offer it every opposition in his power, and he should certainly give his vote against the second reading.

said, that having been a Member of the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred to last Session, he felt bound to protest against the exaggerated, the ad captandum, and the romantic description of the Bill which had been given by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Vernon Harcourt). No doubt the measure might be amended in Committee, but the attempt to regard it as an infraction of Magna Charta, or the Bill of Eights was ridiculous in the extreme. All that Her Majesty's Government desired to do by this Bill was to make such rules and regulations as would secure the greatest enjoyment of the Parks to the greatest number of Her Majesty's subjects, and to restrain those whose greatest delight was to annoy other people. The Select Committee in dealing with the Bill had, irrespective of party views, endeavoured to make it as efficacious as possible, and it had been again introduced into that House in the exact form in which they had framed it. He must inform the House that in drawing up the regulations in the Bill—which some people might, perhaps, regard as being rather stringent—the Committee had before them the regulations in force in a large number of Parks which had been formed either by corporations or by the liberality of private individuals, which were as a rule even more stringent than those contained in the Bill. Thus, by the regulations in force in Finsbury Park, in Southwark Park, in Aston Park, Birmingham, in Lock Park, Barnsley, in the People's Park, Halifax, and in other public Parks, public meetings and addresses were illegal, and in the metropolitan Parks, under a penalty of 40s. It might be politic or impolitic to prohibit the delivery of addresses and speeches and sermons in the public Parks, but in proposing to insert such a regulation in the Bill the Committee had not been acting without those numerous precedents. The language of the clause might be capable of amendment, but the thing it proposed to do was not a novelty, and to treat it as being one would be to raise a false issue. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had in his most superb way ridiculed the idea of any interference with the disturbing an animal, but did he desire that dumb animals might be worried out of their lives at the good pleasure of a number of "roughs?" It was impossible in framing an Act of Parliament to use other than general words, and a great deal must of course be left to the discretion of the magistrate before whom persons charged with having committed a breach of the regulations were brought, and from what was known of the conduct of the "roughs" whom the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken under his protection for that night only, the dumb portion of animated nature would fare very ill unless something was done for their protection. If the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the language of the Bill, let him find words that would define exactly the weight of the stone that might be thrown at a sheep, or the thickness of the stick that might be used to strike them. As the hon. and learned Gentleman's invidious reference to the use of the Parks by "carriage folks," he might observe that Regent's Park, Victoria Park, St. James's Park, and the west side of Hyde Park were cab Parks. The Bill was simply intended to regulate those magnificent institutions their Royal Parks, which, existing nominally as appanages to the Crown, were in reality maintained for the enjoyment of the public, and he therefore trusted that the House would not be led away from that view of the matter, but would read it a second time.

said, he should also support the Bill, which could easily be perfected in Committee. He would not go into the details of the matter, but as regarded the general principle of there being rules for the regulation of the Parks, he, speaking with the experience which he had as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, maintained that it was absolutely essential and necessary that the Parks should have judicious regulations. There were carefully-framed regulations for Finsbury and Southwark Parks, and because the Board were not able to frame by-laws for the Thames Embankment, the public had been very much inconvenienced. Last year, however, the Board applied to the Government to put into their Bill a clause to enable the framing of regulations for the Thames Embankment. As to Hampstead Heath and Blackheath, the Board had been diligently employed in framing regulations, although they had to meet serious difficulties. He might mention, as an instance proving the necessity for some regulations, that the seats which had been placed in the Parks for the public convenience were often entirely occupied by persons lying at full length upon them. He should heartily support the Bill, which he hoped would be read a second time.

said, he was of opinion that the Bill went no further than was necessary to preserve the Parks for the recreation of the general public, and while glad that Her Majesty's Government had brought in a measure for regulating them, was afraid that, as they had done in former instances, they had rather bungled over their work. They should have made their rules in the first place, and then have drawn up the Bills applying them. Whatever the rules might be, the public ought to know their nature; and he particularly objected to power being given to the Ranger to make regulations of so arbitrary a character. But whatever the faults of the Bill might be, they could be easily amended in Committee, and therefore he should vote for the second reading of the measure. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) had been, very eloquent on the subject of the preservation of the Parks for one class of society solely, but the only times when he had seen them appropriated by one class only were when they had been invaded by "roughs" and large mobs. The people generally were entitled to the enjoyments of the Parks, and they ought to be protected in the legitimate use of them.

said, that the Bill seemed to him to be drawn up in a way that was not very unusual with Liberal Governments—that was, it totally disregarded the liberty of the subject. A person was to be liable to be arrested and kept in confinement—it was not said for how long—simply because a park-keeper did not know him; and if he refused his address he might be fined £5 in addition. He did not refer to the parties who were to be empowered under it to make the arrest, because they might be very proper persons to discharge the duties of park-keepers, but he objected to any person being liable to be arrested and kept in confinement because the park-keeper did not happen to know him. Now that was a pretty Algerine kind of legislation. And the most serious objection was, that there were no provisions for making public the regulations under which persons were to be subject to such heavy penalties. He believed that out of the offences named in the Schedule there were at least ten that were to depend upon legislation to be made by the Park authorities. He thought that, in common justice, there should be some security that the regulations should be made known to the public, for how otherwise could people know whether they were committing an offence. He could quite understand that a Bill of this kind might be necessary, but he never saw a Bill that was drawn with so little regard to the liberty of persons. A man who committed a trespass upon your ground might be arrested, but you were bound to take him as quickly as possible before a magistrate; but here a park-keeper might arrest a man on Saturday night, and he might be kept locked up until Monday morning for a comparatively trifling offence. If they must legislate upon this matter, it was very desirable that offences should be defined. What, for instance, was meant by "furious riding?" He thought that some legislation of the kind might be necessary; but he also thought that the Bill was drawn with very little regard except for one thing—that was, to have power to carry out any regulations which might be made by the Ranger, or by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner himself, however arbitrary or improper they might be, without notice to the public of them in any way.

said, he must regret that the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt), after such sentiments as he had expressed, had not concluded with the usual Motion, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, inasmuch as by so doing he would have afforded the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner the opportunity of explaining his reasons for asking the House to assent to the second reading of the Bill.

explained that he had acted under a misapprehension, for he had expected the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner to speak immediately after himself, deeming this the most convenient course. To enable the right hon. Gentleman to take part in the debate, he would now move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

, remarking that the object he had in view was answered by the Amendment, said it might at first sight appear strange that the regulations were not included in the Bill, but he presumed that it would be impossible to frame regulations applicable to all the Parks dealt with by the measure. Recent experience had demonstrated the necessity of conferring powers on properly-constituted authorities, and though the phraseology of the clauses might require amendment, the House could scarcely refuse a second reading to a measure which came before it not only with the sanction of a Liberal Government, but also with the sanction of a Select Committee, which had given considerable attention to the subject.

observed that there was a great inconsistency in the Bill, inasmuch as whilst it prohibited addresses being delivered in the public Parks, there was no clause in it to prevent public meetings—such, for example, as were being constantly held in Hyde Park and other Parks. It appeared to him that if there were one abuse greater than another, it was the disturbance by public meetings in those Parks of a violent political character of the peace and tranquillity of the inhabitants of the surrounding neighbourhood. There was no doubt much in the Bill that was good, but he thought that a distinct clause should be introduced into it prohibiting such meetings accompanied by processions of a lawless and seditious character. He was by no means opposed to freedom of discussion. Nevertheless, he was in favour of prohibiting large gatherings of people in Hyde or other Parks on Sundays for the purpose of discussing political questions, as he was of opinion that such gatherings were a nuisance which interfered with the tranquillity and enjoyment of well-disposed people, and as such they should be suppressed.

said, he hoped the Bill would be withdrawn. Everybody admitted that the people of the metropolis should have some place where they could meet and discuss public topics, for in countries where such gatherings were prohibited the alternative was conspiracy, and Primrose Hill had sometimes been suggested for this purpose, yet the Bill excluded both that and every other available place. He presumed, from the restriction of the Bill to England, that the Government regarded the Irish as entitled to hold meetings in Phoenix Park, while to the English the privilege could not be safely intrusted.

, as a Member of the Committee responsible for the clause to which exception had mainly been taken, stated that the majority of the Committee deemed it absurd, while stringently protecting the sheep and wild fowl, to leave untouched the monster grievance of the metropolis. That grievance was, that at the beck of a few irresponsible and ambitious demagogues the main thoroughfares of the West End and Hyde Park were given over to mob law, necessitating the withdrawal of police from other parts of the metropolis for the purpose of preventing mischief. Hitherto the law regulating admission to the Parks had been in an unsettled state, but after the consideration of the whole question by a Select Committee, and the introduction of a Bill upon it in two successive Sessions, the rejection of this clause would imply the sanction by the House of those lawless proceedings. The object of such assemblages was not to express opinions which could be expressed in plenty of other and more suitable places, but to overawe Members of the Legislature and of the Government by marching through St. James's Street and Pall Mall. Till of late there might have been some justification for these meetings; a few Peers and wealthy men returning a great part of the House, and the public at large having no voice in public affairs, but those barbarous times had passed away. He called on the House to do away with these assemblages as a relic of barbarism akin to the show of hands at elections, and to require mob law to give way to Parliamentary law.

said, while not opposing the second reading, he regarded with some jealousy the large powers which were to be conferred on the Rangers of the Parks, and believed the Bill would require considerable modification. The regulations to be hereafter issued might, of course, be unobjectionable, but, if otherwise, there would be no means of rescinding them except by an Act of Parliament.

said, he must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works on the omission of a clause forming part of last year's Bill, which left no option to a magistrate in dealing with an unfortunate urchin who happened to be brought before him by a park-keeper for knocking down a horsechesnut, or hooking a minnow, but required him to impose a fine of at least 5s., and it might be £5. The keepers were virtually police, and were entitled to no greater powers within the Parks than the police had outside them. It behoved the Government to be cautious in trenching on the enjoyment of the lowest class of the people, who were glad to leave their miserable homes and breathe the fresh air. Under the Bill a person whose name happened to be Smith or Brown would be consigned to the station-house for the night by a keeper who was not satisfied of the genuineness of the name, and who would be put in a position of authority over men clad in flannel or corduroy, but in the receipt of higher wages than himself. It was impossible to tell what regulations might hereafter be issued. Sixty or seventy years ago livery servants, workmen, and persons carrying parcels were excluded from Kensington Gardens. He was not aware that the flowers had been destroyed, or any disorder practised which called for legislation, and if the object of the Government was to put a stop to public meetings—a question which he would not now go into—it should be openly avowed. Hon. Members who enjoyed the Parks in the season should remember that the mass of the people were confined to London all the year round. If the Parks were made so "proper" as for these people to be driven out, could order be expected to prevail if distress happened to exist? At present the metropolis, with its 3,000,000 of inhabitants, gave less anxiety to the Government than almost any manufacturing town in the country; drunkenness, moreover, being admittedly on the decrease, though in the North it was increasing. The Bill must have been brought in by the advice of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they could not have given the right hon. Gentleman better advice for their own interests, for the measure tended to bring him a degree of unpopularity he was little aware of.

said, that while listening to his hon. and learned Friend's (Mr. Vernon Harcourt's) description of the Bill, he had been unable to identify—he could not say the Bill itself, but his own intentions in submitting it to the judgment of the House. He had been astonished at the transcendental tone assumed by his hon. and learned Friend, with the view of prejudicing the Bill in the eyes of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. It had been intimated, too, by the worthy Alderman who had just spoken (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) that the Bill must have been suggested by hon. Members opposite, and that it would endanger his popularity. Now, he felt bound to inform the House that he had not consulted a single Member on the opposite side with respect to the Bill, and that his sole object had been to ensure the comfort and enjoyment of the inhabitants of the metropolis in the use of the Royal Parks. The position he occupied had made him so sensible of the annoyance to which well-disposed people were subject in the use of the Parks, that he had felt himself bound to protect them from persons who, unfortunately, existed in a great metropolis like this, and who could not use anything without abusing it. He hoped, then, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, and any others who were disposed to share his sentiments, would dismiss from their minds all such extraordinary impressions as the statement of the hon. Gentleman conveyed. Another assertion which had been made for the purpose of prejudicing the Bill was, that the Government had framed it with a sinister design of suppressing public meetings.

said, he did not say that that was the design of the Government, but that it was the design of the Bill.

said, that if such was the design of the Bill, it must be his own design, he having introduced it and being responsible for its details. Now, the fact was that in the Bill as originally introduced by him, Clause 8 did not appear, it being afterwards inserted by a vote in the Committee against his wish. That clause seemed to him unnecessary, for reasons which he would explain, but its insertion was no reason for not proceeding with the Bill. That was not the first time that public Parks had engaged the attention of the Legislature, and it was a mere accident that the Royal Parks had not been treated by Parliament like other Parks. For some years Acts had been passed for providing Parks and places of recreation for large towns, in all of which the local or other authority was empowered to make rules for the use and enjoyment of these places, the Metropolitan Board of Works being the authority in the case of the metropolitan Parks established by local arrangement, and having power to make rules of a very comprehensive character. Why had not the Royal Parks been similarly treated? He believed that originally they were under the administration of an officer of the Crown, who had absolute authority over them, and that on several new Parks being established they had been placed under the control of the Office of Works or the Commissioners of Woods, in order to their being treated as Royal Parks. It was supposed, therefore, that the Parks under his own administration would be subject to whatever control the officer of the Crown might think fit to exercise. Now, the Royal Parks were in point of law the property of the Crown in the same way that any private enclosed park was the property of its owner, the Crown, or those who exercised its authority, having the same power as the owner of any private park. In the case of a private park it was perfectly easy for the owner to control the management of it. A private park had usually one, or perhaps two or three gates, and the owner could prescribe such rules as he might think necessary to prevent his property being injured, and to enable persons to recreate themselves without doing injury. He could easily enforce his regulations by turning out those persons who did not comply with them. The Crown, of course, could do the same thing, but for very serious practical difficulties. The Royal Parks had a great many gates, and, as far as he could, he was causing additional gates to be made in them, so as to give new facilities to the public to enter these Parks. The gates of the Royal Parks were kept open, and it was perfectly idle to say that you could enforce the powers of the Crown in the same way as the owner of a private park could exercise his powers with regard to his park. That being the case, the question was, ought the Royal Parks to be placed on a different footing from every other Park that had been established by the authority of Parliament? Ought they to be deprived of those regulations which Parliament had declared to be absolutely necessary for every other Park that it had sanctioned? It was for those who opposed the Bill to show that there was some peculiarity about the Royal Parks to exempt them from those regulations which Parliament had so often declared were essential for the advantageous enjoyment of Parks by the public. He quite agreed with the observation that the people of the metropolis were essentially friends of order and well-conducted; but among the 3,000,000 inhabitants of the metropolis there was a small percentage of ill-conducted and ill-conditioned people. A percentage of 10,000 among 3,000,000 might be regarded as very small; but if 10,000 people were to enter a park and be guilty of improprieties, and have no respect for property, he must say that the rest of the 3,000,000 would be deprived of the enjoyment of the park, which they were entitled to receive. The Government had found that that was practically the ease. Persons had been known to drive what was called a "trap" amongst peaceable equestrians without the possibility of interfering with them. And, again, much annoyance and many accidents had happened from dogs barking at horses. In fact, it was not long since that a lady was killed in Rotten Row from a mishap of that kind. He did not for a moment intend to confine the misbehaviour complained of to those who were called "roughs," because there was frequently great misconduct practised by those who wore superfine cloth coats. His wish was to be able to restrain those who misbehaved themselves, so that others might really be able to enjoy themselves without fear and annoyance. It was a mistake to suppose that the Bill had been introduced for the benefit of those who rode in carriages, because the carriage drive required, perhaps, the least protection of all. If in Victoria Park persons were playing at cricket in the open spaces, there was nothing to prevent a person from going into the middle and stopping the game. All that could be done would be to politely ask him to go away, and if he did not all that could now be done was to put him outside the Park, and having done that there was nothing to prevent his returning and repeating his conduct. No punishment could be inflicted upon him for his misbehaviour. Those instances of annoyance to those who were peaceably enjoying themselves in the Parks could be multiplied if necessary, showing the necessity for the clauses contained in the Bill, and in answer to those hon. Members who had raised objections as to its want of detail, he would remind them that the peculiarity of the Bill compared with general legislation was, that, whereas in the case of all other parks, the managers had absolute power to make rules for their regulation in order to guard against any abuse of authority on the part of the Crown, the Bill had been drawn so as to give only a limited and definite power to make rules for the Royal Parks. It was impossible to put all the details in the Act, and the object of giving power to make regulations was to give effect to that which was inserted in the Schedules. In practice, public convenience might require those rules and regulations to be changed or modified, but no rule could be made without the knowledge and assent of the Chief Commissioner of Works, who had a seat in Parliament, and was responsible to that House. It was an error to suppose that the Ranger had any power to make rules, and rules to be of any effect must bear the official seal of the Board of Works, and that House had power to question any rule so made. The power proposed to be given in the Bill to the park-keeper to take persons into custody was formed on the basis of that contained in the Metropolitan Police Act. It was immaterial to him whether or not the Committee altered it, so long as they retained power to the Park-keeper to take into custody persons who were guilty of acts of misconduct in their presence, which prevented the enjoyment of the Parks by others, the same as the police of the metropolis interfered with those who obstructed the paths and streets of the metropolis. Those were questions that would more properly arise for discussion in Committee than on the second reading. His answer to what had been said was, that the Bill was only intended to have a limited and qualified application of the principle that had been applied to every other park in the country, except the Royal Parks. At present, they were obliged to have a large force on the look-out to preserve order and prevent injury to the flowers and shrubs, for at present it was doubtful whether or not a person could be punished for plucking flowers in the Parks. Besides that, iron railings had to be placed in all directions about the Parks to prevent injury to the grass by persons riding and walking over it, and for the same reason. He introduced the Bill originally without any words relating to public meetings. He was quite content to leave the rights of the Crown in that respect to be exercised in accordance with the general law of the land. Well, hon. Members in Committee introduced a clause as to public meetings. That gave rise to discussion, and he thought he had better not proceed with the Bill, but that he should bring it in this Session, when hon. Members might consider what was proper to be done with reference to that subject. His hon. and learned Friend had stated that the Bill would put down public meetings in the Parks. It would do nothing of the kind. The Bill did not say that public meetings should not be held in the Parks. It said they should not be held except according to the rules laid down. For instance, a public meeting would not be permitted to be held in the midst of a road or thoroughfare. He did not see any reason why meetings should not be allowed as heretofore so long as they did not interfere with the enjoyment of the Parks. So little did he care for public meetings being held in the Park, that he had received notice of a meeting to be held in the Park for the purpose of reprobating his authority, and had taken no steps to prevent it. As he had taken no steps to prevent a meeting being held for the purpose of abusing himself, he thought the House might be assured that he would not interfere unnecessarily with the holding of public meetings for other purposes. He hoped the Bill would pass. He would endeavour to improve it in Committee. There were four metropolitan Members besides himself on the Committee that considered the Bill, and instead of discovering in it the terrible things described by his hon. and learned Friend they were of opinion that it was to the interest of the inhabitants of the metropolis that the Bill should pass.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the regulation of Mines, said, he regretted the delay of a measure so important as the one under notice, which had been in the possession of the House for two successive Sessions, and might have been proceeded with, had it not been the will and pleasure of the House to devote its attention to questions of greater political importance; at the same time, he hoped that the delay would be compensated for by the improved provisions of the Bill tending to secure the lives of the persons coming under them. For the last five years, from the date of the Report of the Select Committee on Mines, and the subject of accidents occurring in them, Parliament had been engaged, under two different Administrations, on great political subjects; it was to be hoped that they were now entering upon a cycle of questions of social importance of a narrower but of very great interest. The present Bill he thought an instalment in that direction. It would be unnecessary, and, indeed, unpardonable in him, who had twice had the task of introducing this measure to the notice of the House, to recapitulate provisions which were well understood by every hon. Member who took an interest in the question. He would, therefore, content himself at present by bringing under the notice of the House those changes in the Bill which he thought it his duty to propose. The end of last Session left the Notice Book very full of Amendments suggested by hon. Members of great knowledge and experience in the art and processes of mining. Since that time also, the workmen, who were specially concerned in the matter, had held frequent meetings, at which they had discussed the Bill as it had been laid before the House, and other measures which they held to be conducive to their own safety and advantage. He had given the most careful attention to all that been suggested, and had embodied in the present Bill all the improvements of which he believed the subject susceptible. Its scope was somewhat larger than that of the former measure, including as it did not only coal and ironstone mines, but also stratified iron mines, shale mines, and, at the express recommendation of the Inspectors, mines of fire-clay. With respect to the employment of boys, he left the Bill in the same position as that of last year, with the single exception that he proposed to apply, as far as possible, to mines the principle of the provisions of the Factory Acts. Last year he proposed that boys of 10 years of age should be employed on the half-time principle, or that they should be allowed to work only a limited number of days in the week; but he thought it better now to introduce a more elastic system, and offer the alternative of six half-day's work, where it could be usefully adopted. With respect to children under 13 years, the day's work was reduced from 12 hours in the last Bill to 10 hours in the present. With regard to education, the provisions of the former Bill remained practically unaltered. Many questions had been raised on the subject of the payment of wages; but while retaining some provisions with reference to the payment of weekly wages and of deductions, he thought it better that the many incidental questions which had been raised upon the subject should be dealt with in a Bill which would be shortly introduced by the Government for the amendment of the Truck Act. There were was one important alteration which he had made, not without great hesitation, but the united voices of the workmen were in favour of the change. Hon. Members who had sat with him on the Select Committee would recollect how strongly it was urged by the workmen who lived in districts where the coal was measured, instead of being weighed, that there should be one uniform system. There was much, no doubt, to recommend the proposed alteration; but the objection to it was, that in some places it would involve great expense and many difficulties in carrying it out. In Lord Ellesmere's mines, for example, it was shown that if the system were changed, it could only be done at an amount of expense which it would be hardly fair to impose. The Bill, therefore, proposed generally that weighing should be adopted; but wherever special inconvenience and exceptional expense would be involved in the substitution of the new system, the Secretary of State, on the report of the Inspector, might allow an exception to be made. He had also adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Lancaster), that there should be one uniform ton, and he had decided that in every colliery the standard should be the imperial ton; and he did so in the belief that it would tend to do away with many inducements to fraud which prevailed under the existing system. The next point was with respect to double shafts. Of course, wherever coal was worked two shafts were sunk; but the question was, what constituted the communication between them? The communication kept up between the shafts was, in many cases, very nearly illusory. It was now proposed that this communication should be at least 4 feet wide and 3 feet high. He now came to a point to which he attached very great importance—the provisions of the Bill relating to accidents. Every year the average of deaths in the year amounted to 1,000, besides casualties of more or less gravity, which were four or five times that number. Any hon. Member who had carefully scrutinized those accidents, the prevalence of which they all deplored, would see that they arose for the most part, not, as was commonly supposed, from explosions, which depended more on the system of ventilation adopted, and, therefore, upon the action of the manager and his agent, but from other causes, which were more under the control of the men themselves, and that these accidents arose in great part from the absence of proper discipline. He saw the other day stated in a newspaper, that it was notorious that the most fatal accidents were caused by explosions arising from insufficient ventilation, which was entirely owing to the ignorance of the managers. Such a statement was not only a falsification of fact, but was calculated injuriously to mislead, as it might distract the attention of persons occupied on the question from the real point on which the law might receive amendment. These explosions led, no doubt, to very fatal consequences, but the average of deaths produced in that way was only about one-fourth of the whole that occurred in collieries. In 1870 the number of deaths from all causes was 991, and of these only 185 were due to the effect of explosions. While the general average was somewhat about 22 per cent, in some years deaths from this cause did not exceed 10 per cent, while in one year, an exceptional one however, the deaths rose as high as 43 per cent. The greater proportion of accidents in mines, however, was owing to the want of a vigorous discipline throughout the works. Last year there were 411 deaths, besides innumerable accidents of a very grave character, arising from the falling in of the coal and masses of stone in the process of working. It might be said that the only protection from those accidents must be found in the care and discretion of the colliers themselves; but that was not so, for if the colliery were properly overlooked by those who had the management of it, the colliers would be forced to take precautions for their own preservation. It was the opinion of the Inspectors, moreover, that if a greater degree of responsibility were thrown on those who had the management of the collieries, a great saving of life would be effected. He would ask hon. Members to reflect what was the ground for the interference of Parliament with the question. As a general fact Parliament was very loth to interfere with the mode in which any trader conducted his business; but when there was a business which necessarily involved great danger from loss of life, then Parliament thought proper—and he thought it was justified in so doing—to step in and see that proper precautions were adopted. He did not believe that even if the utmost care was taken by the best and most liberal owners, the most skilful managers, and the most careful workmen, accidents could be entirely prevented. At the same time, he held that there was a certain amount of life capable of being saved, and Parliament would think it its duty to provide that the operations of mining should be conducted with as many precautions and as much security as the nature of the occupation permitted. It was well, therefore, that certain general rules should be laid down, and that owners and agents should be held responsible for seeing that these rules were carried out. He would propose in the Bill that in every colliery a manager should be appointed by the owner—of course, if so desirous, the owner might appoint himself—whose name must be registered. At present any breach of duty of which a manager might be guilty was punished by a fine of a very small amount, which was almost invariably paid by the master. Neglect of duty by a manager, which led to any accident short of death, was not punishable by law at all. Many managers had been found guilty of manslaughter by coroners' inquests, but almost invariably the Bills had been thrown out by the grand jury, and he doubted, however gross and patent the negligence, whether in such a case there was a single instance in which a true bill for manslaughter had been returned. The law, therefore, provided very little security for life as far as the manager was concerned; and yet of all the officers connected with the colliery, he was the most important. Now, what steps would be taken to secure a more careful discharge of duty, so that the responsibility might be real instead of nugatory, as experience had shown it to be? He proposed, as he had stated, that every owner of a colliery should name a manager, who should be registered, and by that means vested with real responsibility; and, further, that every manager who had not entered upon his duties before the passing of the Act should be subjected to examination. He did not propose that the present managers should be examined, but that all those were acting as managers before the 1st of January, 1872, and up to the passing of this Act, or who had so acted at any time within five years for not less than a twelvemonth, should be obliged to take out a certificate. The examination of future managers would be locally conducted, and would be of a strictly practical character. But though he did not propose that the present managers of collieries should have to undergo examination; yet, in the event of any charge being brought against them of incompetency, drunkenness, or gross negligence, they would be liable to lose their certificates altagether, or for a limited time. If charges of a serious nature were brought against a manager, it might be in the power of the Secretary of State, as in the case of the misconduct of the captain of a vessel or a railway official it was in the power of the President of the Board of Trade, to order an inquiry to be conducted by competent persons. The Bill provided that an inquiry might be conducted by competent persons, such as a stipendiary magistrate, a county Court Judge, or a barrister named by the Secretary of State; and the Court might decide that, in consequence of misconduct, the manager might be deprived of his certificate altogether, or suspended for a limited time. [Mr. LIDDELL asked if the Bill constituted an examining Board.] The examining Board would be constituted by the Secretary of State. It would be a Local Board, composed generally of an Inspector and some person practically acquainted with the mining of the district, and especially with the duties expected from a manager. It seemed to him that colliers had the same right to protection as travellers by railway or by ships. He now came to the general rules, which he would submit to the acceptance of the House. The first of these was with respect to the roofs and sidings of the roadways and working places. He proposed, for the first time, that the obligation should be thrown on the owner, agent, and manager, that the working places should be kept in proper condition. He was aware that there was a great variety of opinion on this subject; but he knew himself that in some places the owners did take care that the workings were kept in a proper state of stability, and wherever the owners had taken the matter into their own hands there had been a reduction in the loss of life and the number of accidents. He was therefore of opinion that a great step would be taken towards the saving of life, if this responsibility were thrown on the owners, for what was good for one part of the country in that respect, must be equally good for the others. Another rule, introduced for the first time, involved restrictions in the use of gunpowder. There was no cause of late years which had led to more explosions of gas than the misuse of gunpowder; in fact, a very large proportion of deaths was due to the rash use of gunpowder by incompetent persons. The use of gunpowder facilitated the working of coal; but, on the other hand, it presented the coal in a very shattered and inferior condition. It was not, however, for mercantile or economical reasons, but with a view to the safety of life, that he proposed in the first place that no powder should be used, except in cartridges; and that none should be used, even in cartridges, in mines in which, under the special or general rules, the use of the safety-lamp was proscribed. It might be used in those mines for blasting rocks, but not unless under the direction of competent persons. Another general rule, embodying the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Sir David Wedderburn) required the ventilation of the mine to be inspected every day before the work began, and in every well-managed colliery that was now done. Another general rule which he would propose was based upon a suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and would provide for the inspection of every part of the colliery, as well as of the ventilation, once in every 24 hours. Another duty of the manager would be to see that, in case of apprehended danger, the men whose safety was imperilled should be at once warned and withdrawn from the mine. It was further provided that the persons employed in a mine, might, from time to time, or once a month, at their own cost, employ two of their number to inspect the mine, accompanied by any one the manager might choose to name, and that they should be empowered to examine every portion of the works, and satisfy themselves that these works were in a safe condition. A practice similar to this was already in force in the best conducted mines in his own neighbourhood; indeed, the men who undertook the inspection were paid for it by the masters; and, if they detected any source of danger in the workings, instead of being blamed they were rewarded by a payment of money. All that the Bill said was, that the inspection should be made if the men thought it desirable. He had also adopted another suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, that there should always be some one in attendance at the shaft to raise up those who were in the mine, because accidents had happened in mines when there had been no one at the pit-head, and those who were in the mine were thus exposed to danger from which they might have been more promptly rescued; at the same time, there was a provision for the more efficient covering of the men, when ascending or descending the shaft. He was afraid the next proposal he would name would excite opposition, in spite of all he could say for it. When he introduced the Bill at first, in 1870, he adopted the recommendation of the Select Committee that in the general rule requiring owners, managers, and agents to provide such ventilation as would render the mines safe, the words "under ordinary circumstances" should be omitted. It was objected on the part of the employers that the omission of the words would place them in a different position from any of their fellow-subjects, and would put it upon them to prove a negative which, it was said, was incapable of proof. That was the reason why the words were inserted. But, in fact, all rules alike were capable of being enforced only "under ordinary circumstances." For instance, it was required that an abandoned part of a mine should be securely fenced off. Suppose, on an owner or an agent being summoned, it was shown that the fence was not secure, but had been broken, it would always be open to them to show that the defect was owing to no fault of theirs, that there had been a sudden fall of rock, or that the fence had been interfered with by a mischievous person. It was said that the case was different when an explosion occurred, because an explosion was so violent in its character, and shattered everything so completely, that all evidence of the cause of an accident often disappeared, and it became impossible to say whether at the time of the explosion the ventilation was or was not sufficient for the mine "under ordinary circumstances." In his opinion, this view of the case was untenable. It would be open to the employer in this case, as in others, to say that the ordinary state of his mine was a state of sufficient ventilation, and, when he had shown that, it would be deemed a sufficient defence. He would not be driven, as had been asserted by many coal-owners, to prove what were the causes of the accident. If he could show that the general supply of ventilation was sufficient, then no court would convict him, and it would be assumed, as a matter of course, that the accident must have been due to some temporary derangement of the workings over which the master had no control. They knew that all collieries were subject to these temporary derangements, which were not under the control of the master; and he had the best legal authority for saying that in these cases all the masters would have to do would be to show that the general ventilation of the colliery at the time of the accident was in a satisfactory condition. That being the case, it seemed to him to be important that the words "under ordinary circumstances" should be removed, because they imposed on the prosecutor the duty of showing that "ordinary circumstances" existed at the time of the explosion. From the occurrence of an explosion it ought to be assumed that there was deficient ventilation, and then it was for the owner to prove that he had taken all reasonable means to secure sufficient ventilation. There were probably as many fatalities upon roadways in collieries as there were from explosions; and in the opinion of the Inspectors, the precautions hitherto taken to prevent accidents on these roadways were insufficient, such accidents often arising from attempts to cross from one side of the roadway to the other, in order to reach a man-hole, the man-holes being not always on the same side of a tramway: the Bill, therefore, proposed that in future all manholes should be on one side of the roadway only where the trucks are moved by an engine. Another general rule would require guides and signals in every shaft more than 20 yards in depth. He might add that it was the opinion of the Inspectors that, when the Bill passed, new special rules should be issued at all collieries; and the Bill provided for this. The inspection of mines, again, was a matter of great interest, and one which the House must be prepared to deal with. Originally but one Inspector was appointed. In 1855, when the number of mines had considerably increased, the number of Inspectors was raised to six, and there were now 12. Even that number was utterly insufficient to inspect the collieries as the factories were now inspected; but it never was the intention of Parliament that they should be so inspected. Colliery Inspectors were intended to be consulted in cases of danger, to proceed to pits which were reported to be ill-conducted, and to attend the investigations that followed accidents, and to secure generally the observance of rules that were imposed; but it was obvious it never was intended that the state of every mine should be minutely examined by an Inspector. Whether the number of Inspectors was sufficient or not was a fair question for argument, even adopting the theory upon which inspection had hitherto proceeded; but many colliers asked for such an extension of inspection that every mine would be thoroughly examined and reported upon once a quarter, and that there should be a Minister of Mines to attend to these reports, and generally to control the mines of the country. It was utterly impossible to adopt that suggestion, unless the Government were to take upon them the responsibility for the management of the mines; and such a proposition was not only opposed to the policy of Parliament, but was really opposed to the interests of the men themselves. What was wanted was constant, vigilant, daily, and almost hourly inspection by the persons most interested in the safety of a mine—that was, the men, the agents, and the masters, to whom an accident brought loss or ruin. The Bill, however, did make some provision for the enforcement of such inspection. It created in the manager a new and responsible officer; it made his future career dependent entirely upon vigilance and continued attention; it enabled the workmen to appoint men to examine the state of the works. Such self-acting machinery was infinitely preferable to any other machinery. Suppose there were, as proposed, quarterly inspection by Inspectors, between one inspection and another causes of danger might be multiplied. Accumulations of gas, and similar dangerous circumstances arose in far less time than three months, and the safety of a colliery depended, not upon examination once a quarter, but upon daily and hourly examination by responsible persons; and such examination this Bill proposed to give. With all deference to those who proposed to carry inspection further—who were entitled to be listened to, and who were right in proposing the adoption of that which they thought most conducive to safety—he honestly believed that in this respect they were mistaken, and that the course recommended by the Government would be more advantageous to the men than the inspection which they asked for. He would not, at present, state what extension of official inspection the Government were prepared to propose; but they were prepared to make the number of Inspectors more proportionate to the number of collieries; but he must say that they were altogether opposed to transferring the responsibility of the colliery owners and managers to the State. It was unnecessary to go into other portions of the Bill, which, in points of detail, would be found more complete than former Bills; and, with these explanations, he would conclude by asking leave to introduce it.

said, that he had listened to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman with great attention, and he was bound to acknowledge that he appeared to have taken very great pains with the Bill. At the same time, everyone must admit that a vast deal of new matter had been introduced into the measure, and, indeed, matter which had not been before Parliament before. With respect to that portion of the Bill, he must reserve to himself due time for consideration before he would attempt to make any observations upon it. At the same time, there were two main features in respect to which he would make some remarks—namely, with reference to two great causes which seemed to constitute the main evils from which arose the enormous loss of life that occurred in mines, and which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to—the accidents on the roads, and the loss of life resulting from the use of gunpowder. He was very much afraid that the remedy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, that wherever it was possible the use of gunpowder should be entirely prohibited, would not operate beneficially. In point of fact, he apprehended, in many cases, such a provision would be extremely mischievous. It had been laid down as a principle that gunpowder should never be used where the safety lamp was in use, and he was very much afraid that the operation of such a provision would be that the men would use naked lights in order to enable them to have the use of gunpowder, and thus the very provision preventing the use of gunpowder in parts of the mine where the safety lamp was now in use would have the effect of causing accidents. He would press that point earnestly on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. He had been connected with the management of mines for upwards of 30 years, and he had invariably directed that in every colliery where there was the slightest chance of explosion from the accumulation of gas the men should never neglect the precaution of using the safety lamp. He believed, therefore, that this very provision, preventing the use of gunpowder, would actually increase the danger. He spoke with great confidence on the point, and he believed that his view would be endorsed by every practical miner in the country. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the indiscriminate use of gunpowder was a serious evil, and caused the loss of a great many more lives than was supposed, and he had often been called in to accidents where it appeared to him that the use of the naked light had been adopted for the sake of economy. He believed that in process of time some improvement would be hit upon which would obviate the indiscriminate use of gunpowder, and the consequence would be that there would not be nearly so many explosions. But, however that might be, he had, from long experience, come to the conclusion that there would be no safety from accidents so long as naked lights were used. Whether gunpowder were used or not, they would always be a source of danger. Then he came to the second point: the number of accidents which took place on the roads. In speaking of the use of timber, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the great bulk of the accidents arose from it. Now, in the North of England they had practised persons who placed the timber, and afterwards carefully removed it; but in other parts, and especially in Wales, every workman put in his own timber, very often in an unskilful and unworkmanlike manner, and what he said was, that if proper means were taken to place and take away the timber, much greater safety would ensue. He would not occupy the House with respect to minor questions, such as weight, and so on; but he must say that in the North of England the weights and measures had been found to be uniformly just. He quite admitted that at present there was some inconvenience in respect to the tribunals which existed, but there would be much greater in those to which the right hon. Gentleman proposed that owners and managers should submit. There could be no question that if the men were to be permitted to inspect the mines, there must be some guarantee with respect to their fitness, ability, and character. That, however, was a matter of detail which might be arranged; and it was perfectly true that occasionally the most useful men in the mines were illiterate, and the manager of one of the mines in the Aberdare district had told him that some of the best of his men were those who could neither read nor write. He thought that the examination of the mine by the men themselves could do little harm, and might be productive of good. There was, however, one provision which would be extremely objectionable, and that was, that the men might appoint two or more among themselves, if desirous of so doing, for inspecting the mine. They must be very careful how they interfered in the discipline of the mines. They must remember that often they had to direct 500 or 600 men and boys who were out of sight and control, and if men were placed in such a position that they had to decide questions of price, there would be considerable danger. He did not wish to say a hard word of anyone; but it very often happened that collieries were endangered through the operations of the men. While there might be some things in the Bill which would need alteration, still they would be modified in Committee in a manner that would be acceptable to the country.

, while admitting that there was much in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which he fully concurred, protested against the attempt made by the right hon. Gentleman to throw on the House the responsibility of the measure not having passed last Session. Many hon. Members, in common with himself, for the last two or three Sessions, had been most anxious that such a Bill should have been proceeded with, and, after all that had passed, he thought it rather unfair that it should be thrown in their teeth that the House was responsible for the delay which had occurred. The right hon. Gentleman had been urged by public appeals, in private interviews, and in every possible way, to proceed with the Bill, or to withdraw it and have it introduced in the House of Lords; but he was unwilling to take that course, hoping still to be able to go on with it. He was glad, however, to hear from the right hon. Gentleman an admission that if last Session had been taken up with sensational measures, the Government were now determined to press forward practical and useful measures—they were to have a cycle of measures of social reform, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman. No one would rejoice at that more than he did. He must say that the provisions of this Bill showed that the right hon. Gentleman had given his mind to the subject in as practical a manner as possible. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman intended to commence the cycle with so practicable a measure, and though the Bill might be open to improvement in some particulars, still there was much in it which would meet with universal acceptance and give great satisfaction. One of the improvements made, as to which there could be no dispute, was in regard to measure versus gauge; and it was also, he thought, most important that, with regard to weight, imperial measures should be established as the standard. With regard to managers of coal pits, he was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh. He believed as much good would arise from their examination as from the examination of captains on board ships. He entirely approved the provisions of the Bill with regard to ventilation. In lieu of a force of Inspectors to guarantee the personal inspection of the mines—on which the miners had strongly insisted in Committee—the proposition had been accepted that there should be a sort of record kept open to the Inspectors of the daily state of the mines, and he had put an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had omitted the words which used to be in former Bills, "under ordinary circumstances." Other words, which he did not exactly recollect, had been agreed upon by the representatives of the mine owners and of the miners; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would think it advisable to introduce these words in the Bill. He did not exactly gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman what number of hours a boy might be made to work per week.

If he worked throe days a-week, the hours would be 10 hours a-day; if six days a-week, he would work six hours a-day, or 36 hours a-week.

presumed there would be provisions in the Bill relating to education.

Yes; up to a certain age.

said, he apprehended, with regard to the question of penalties, that the manager would be the person who was responsible, and a question had been raised as to the equality of the penalties between the mine owner and the miner—that they should both be liable to the same description of penalty. It would be manifestly unfair that the owner of a mine who might be in Rome should be held responsible for an accident in his mine in England. The person held responsible should be the responsible manager, named by the owner, and that was a provision which he should like to see introduced into the Bill.

said, he wished to take the earliest opportunity of expressing his satisfaction that the Government had lost no time in producing this most important measure, in view of the state of public feeling on this question, and he knew from a telegram which he had received that afternoon that the large body of the coal owners in the North of England shared in that satisfaction. With regard to that public feeling he only wished that, in treating this very difficult, intricate, and technical matter, the amount of public knowledge was equal to the amount of public feeling on the subject. As representing a most important mining district, he knew the great difficulties of the question, and he could assure the Government every assistance that could be fairly expected would be given with a view to make the measure as perfect as possible. The coal owners of the North of England were not only willing, but anxious to assist in passing a reasonable measure; but, as there was a considerable amount of new and important matter in the Bill—while there was no wish for delay—it was necessary that the new matter should be carefully sifted, and therefore he hoped reasonable time would be given for considering it. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department intended to travel in the old road of inspection, and that he had banished the wild idea of interfering with the responsibility of owners to the extent of appointing sub-Inspectors, which really meant inferior men. So long as the selection of Inspectors rested on the responsibility of the Government the greatest pains would be taken to select the best and most competent men, but the number of Inspectors was simply a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. There was nothing in the existing law to prevent any additions to the present staff that might be necessary, if only the Treasury would sanction such increase. One matter which would require careful attention was the new proposal about examining managers. It was quite clear that the responsibility of selecting managers ought to rest on the owners of the mine, and he was not prepared to say that the responsibility should be diminished, but at all events the mine owners should have a voice in the composition of the examining Boards.

said, he was unwilling that all the approbation of this Bill should come from the other side of the House, and he must therefore thank his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the great care with which he had considered this measure. It was rarely the case that delay produced such improvements as justified the temporary neglect of the evils to be remedied, but in this case it had. He might mention one or two points of improvement. There was the sharpness with which responsibility attached to the owners and managers of mines, and the definite responsibility of the registered manager. He was glad that the Home Secretary did not intend largely to increase inspectors, for had he done so he would have diminished the responsibility which he now sought to create. He was very glad that his right hon. Friend had seen his way to adopt the suggestion he had made two years ago with regard to the certificates of managers. Objections were made to the certificates of merchant captains, but their examination had been found most beneficial, and led to a great saving of life and property, and he had no doubt a similar result would follow in this case. He approved of omitting the words "under ordinary circumstances." They were dangerous words, which might lead to great neglect of duty on the part of managers. For example, it was well known that explosive gases came more freely out of coal in a low state of the barometer, and, in such a case, increased ventilation was necessary. Would, however, a sudden fall of the barometer be characterized as an extraordinary circumstance? A manager of a mine, like a ship captain, was of no use unless he could adapt his management to circumstances which cease to be "ordinary." In short, so far as they had the Bill before them, it was a great improvement on the measure of last year, and likely to contribute largely to the safety of life and property.

said, he wished to know when the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Gentlemen, and whether its provisions would recognize the difference between the Durham and Yorkshire seams of coal? Provisions which would suit the thick seams of Durham would not be quite so well adapted for the thin seams of Yorkshire.

hoped that the responsibility of the mine owner would not be diminished in any way. No doubt there were some owners who would spare no expense to secure safety, but there were others whose responsibility rested on them so lightly that to save themselves from a small and necessary outlay they would expose the lives of a couple of hundred men to imminent peril. He was in a pit some time ago where an underground manager was employed at a salary of 25s. per week. Of course such a man was without the technical knowledge necessary for the right discharge of his duties, and was employed to save a more expensive man, and the result was that there was an explosion afterwards in the pit, and nearly 200 men, most of them the fathers of families, lost their lives. How was such a case to be met? He quite admitted it would require a large staff of surveyors to go into every pit, but a number of sub-surveyors might be appointed under their control, and when an application was made by a given number of men employed in any particular mine, it should be the duty of the district surveyor to make an inspection of the mine. He hoped a power would be reserved to the miners to apply to the Government Inspector to have their mine surveyed whenever they believed it to be in a dangerous condition.

, with reference to the case last put by his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), said, it would certainly be the duty of the district Inspector, on the representation that a particular mine was in a dangerous condition, to visit it and ascertain whether the representation was correct or otherwise. If he did not, he would be guilty of a neglect of duty. "With regard to the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) he hoped the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Gentlemen in a few days, and it would then be found that children employed between the ages of 10 and 13 years could only be employed on the half-time system. One observation he would make in reply to his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). He seemed to think it very hard that the owner of a mine should be held responsible for accidents, because he might be at a distance. He could see no difference whether the owner were at home or at a distance; but if it came out with reference to a special case on investigation that preventive measures were pressed on the owner over and over again without success, he and not the manager should be held responsible.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and extend the provisions of the Law of Scotland on the subject of Education, said, that he did not anticipate any objection to his Motion, and should, therefore, have contented himself with formally moving it, leaving the details of the measure to be explained and defended when the Bill itself should be in the hands of hon. Members, but that, considering the interest which attached to the subject, he was persuaded he should disappoint the reasonable expectations of many hon. Members of the House, and of a much larger number of persons out-of-doors, if he omitted to avail himself of the present opportunity to explain the spirit in which the Government addressed themselves to the work of legislation on the subject, the principles on which they proceeded in framing the measure, and to give the general import of the provisions which the House was asked to assent to. By doing so he thought he should very greatly assist hon. Members in understanding the provisions of the measure. He would not detain the House by any mere generalities on the importance of the subject—for all were agreed that it was important—nor should he enlarge on the deficiencies, either in quantity or quality, of the existing provision for education in Scotland. On that point copious details had been furnished by the Report of the Education Commissioners, and he believed that there was a general concurrence of opinion to the effect that the general deficiency was such that some legislative remedy was necessary. He was aware that in the progress of the Bill he now asked leave to introduce he should be met with many difficulties, and some of them, he did not disguise from himself, of a serious character; but he did not anticipate that any objection would be made on the ground that any legislation on the subject was superfluous, and that the matter had better be left alone. Scotchmen had been accustomed to regard with pardonable pride—he trusted with pardonable pride—the fact of the existence in their country, for centuries past, of a legal provision for the education of the people. In every parish there had been at least one, and in many parishes more than one parish school, established by Act of Parliament, placed under public management, and supported by public rates. In every burgh there was, according to the customary law of the country, a burgh school, which the community of the burgh was bound to maintain as a public school. These public schools were all indeed elementary; but it would be an error to suppose that they were exclusively elementary, either as to their legal constitution, or, generally speaking, as a matter of fact. On the contrary, the burgh schools were not even chiefly elementary, but were rather grammar schools, in which elementary instruction was given along with education in higher branches. In the parish schools it was otherwise, not from any difference in the law, but from the necessity of the case. These were chiefly, and very many of them were altogether, elementary schools; but it was nevertheless true that, with respect to all or most of them, the teachers were competent to give instruction in the higher branches of education, and, in fact, most of them did so to such pupils as were able and willing to receive it. Whether at any time this system of public schools was sufficient to overtake the education of the people in past times was at least doubtful; but there could be no doubt that at the present period its insufficiency was very great indeed. The system had so failed to keep pace with the growth of the population, that when the Commissioners reported, its power was found by them to be limited to providing education for only one-fourth of the children actually attending school, the remaining three-fourths of the school-going children being provided for in schools furnished by voluntary effort or by private adventure, and 92,000 children were left without any means of education at all. This was a painful and startling revelation to Scotchmen, who were priding themselves in the notion that all was well, and that Scotland still retained her pre-eminence for her educational system. Yet the Commissioners had declared that of the children of Scotland attending schools only one-fourth were attending the public schools, and that of these schools 20 per cent, or one-fifth, were positively or relatively bad; that the other three-fourths were being educated at schools maintained by voluntary effort or in private adventure schools, of which the same proportion was bad; and that upwards of 90,000 children were not being educated at all. It was now five years since that revelation was made, and the question arose, why had they been so tardy in applying a remedy? The answer that they must give to themselves and to the world was that they had been fighting over the religious difficulty and the political principle, and had not been able to recognize that the education of the people was a matter of sufficient urgency and importance to induce them to leave off that struggle. If there be any case in which union for a common object might be obtained without concessions and compromises, this certainly was not one, for it related to a subject on which men differed widely and greatly. Unless, therefore, men could be induced to think that the battle over the religious difficulty and the political principle had been fought long enough, and that the children who were growing to be men and women were worthy of consideration, he thought the common object of driving ignorance from the land was of sufficient magnitude and urgency to induce them to make concessions, on one side and the other, necessary to that compromise which was the condition of union. If it were not so, and they had a renewal of those fierce discussions as to the best mode of teaching religion to those children, he feared they would leave the children a prey to that gross ignorance which was the direst enemy of all religion. "Godless education" was a favourite expression with many good and religious men; but he never heard that expression without feeling how inapplicable the epithet "godless" was to education, and how applicable it was to ignorance. The expression "godless education" sounded to him as harsh and incongruous as the phrases "godless honesty," "godless virtue," "godless truth;" and he had often wished that those who used the expression would realize the fact that ignorance, with its inseparable companions, irreligion, crime, and poverty, had thriven, grown, and multiplied under their denunciations of "godless education"—godless, they call it, because it is not permeated with religion. He would, with all humility, address a similar remonstrance to those who, with equal conscientiousness and zeal—he might almost say vehemence—maintained the opposite side in this struggle, by which the education of the people had been hindered and delayed for so many years. He believed in his conscience it would have been for the advantage, not only of the material and temporal interests of the people, but also for their religious interests, if either side—no matter which—in this struggle had long since yielded absolutely and entirely to the other, for in that case they would now have had for many years in operation a system of education infinitely more extended and efficient than the present. While those who took the one side asserted it as an important political principle that religious teaching in national schools should not to the slightest extent be paid for out of the Imperial funds or local rates, they hold that if children should be taught religion in these schools for even the shortest time, an objectionable principle is involved. But those who hold these principles should remember the comparative importance of the consequences involved. In the one case is involved the political principle referred to—in the other, the practical fact of providing actually, and, in fact, the means of education for a multitude of children who are now left without any education secular or religious. He had endeavoured humbly, but earnestly and laboriously, to devise a measure such as would provide for this matter as far as Scotland was concerned; and with the approbation of the Government he now submitted it to the House. In his humble judgment a general measure of education did not afford a proper opportunity for coming to a decision on the question of religious endowments or establishments; but, on the contrary, he thought that for the all-important purpose of such a measure it was becoming to make those concessions, on the one side and on the other, which might be necessary to give the people a sufficient system of education in such a manner as they might desire to have it or be willing to receive it. He had accordingly directed his efforts to avoid raising any of those religious or political questions which might form the ground for a trial of strength, either here or "elsewhere," and had regard only to the interests of the people of Scotland in this matter. As he had already explained, the existing system operated chiefly in country districts, where alone the parish schools existed, for they did not extend to towns; the legal provision for education in towns was, indeed, very slender and unsatisfactory. He had also stated that the legal character of the parish schools in Scotland was that of being established by Act of Parliament, conducted under public management, and supported by public money. But it was also true that parish schools had been popularly though erroneously regarded as denominational schools of the Established Church—an error which was probably attributable to this, that for a long period after their institution their connection with the Established Church—then the only Church in the country—was very intimate indeed. The clergymen of the district had of necessity great power; it was a necessary qualification of the teacher that he should be a member of the Established Church, and his possession of that qualification was ascertained by a religious test. The parish minister was, indeed, the only official manager and head of the schools, and he still continued to have practically the chief power in the management. But, in 1861, these schools were formally thrown open to the teachers of other denominations by the qualified abolition of the religious test. This, however, was more in appearance than reality, for the parochial clergyman continued to have the chief voice in the management. So that the Established Church did in point of fact continue to regard all public or rate-supported schools as schools belonging to the Church, practically under the management of her clergy, and taught only by teachers of her communion. The denominational party were naturally unwilling that the Church should lose the hold over the schools that she now possessed, or that any change should be made which would have the effect of making them in fact what they really were, and had always been in their legal character—national as distinct from denominational schools. They were so averse to a national system that they objected strongly even to the void which at present existed being filled up with national schools. They would prefer that the present system should be left alone, and that a period of grace should be allowed for the void to be filled up by voluntary denominational effort, duly stimulated by the promise of a largely increased Parliamentary grant, to be accompanied by a school board and a school rate in the event of failure. Their argument was, of course, the superiority of a denominational over a national system. But there were two particular arguments or positions on which they relied, the one being that parish schools were so admirable that it would be unwise to interfere with them—the other, that under the English Education Act there was no interference with the denominational schools of the Church of England and of the other religious bodies, and that justice required that the same abstinence should be observed with respect to the denominational schools of Scotland. The Government were not prepared to adopt that course, for their opinion was that the great majority of the people of Scotland desired the national, as distinguished from the denominational system of education. What the Government desired was that the existing national schools, established by Act of Parliament, and supported by rates imposed and levied by the authority of the Government, should not only be made thoroughly and in effect national, but should be improved and made useful in every possible respect. What, under these circumstances, was proposed in the Bill was, that there should be established in every parish and in every burgh in Scotland a school board, to be elected by the people themselves, and which would represent their feelings and interests on the subject of education. In order to extend the system of education proposed, and to supply the deficiencies admitted to exist, it would be necessary to increase the present educational rate, and that it was proposed to do by rendering liable to it the owners and occupiers of all the real property, according to the existing value. The constituents of the school boards, which he desired to make as far as possible representative of the true wishes of the people, would be all those by whom the rate was paid. Under their management it was proposed to place, to begin with, the public schools now in existence—for in that light both the parish and the burgh schools were regarded. It would be the duty of the boards to extend the system of public schools, which would be thus put under their management, so far as it might be deemed necessary to do so, in order to meet the educational requirements of the various districts. But no distinction with respect to management or otherwise would be made between the existing public schools to be immediately placed under the control of the school boards, and those schools which they might provide after their establishment in order to supply a deficiency. The Government could not consent to look upon the existing parish schools in the same light, and as of the same character, as the denominational schools of the Church of England. They were, in point of fact, quite different; for the Church of England schools were not established by Act of Parliament, but by voluntary effort, and were not maintained by statutory rates levied on the owners and occupiers of land, but by means of voluntary contributions. The parish schools of Scotland were, on the contrary, public legal institutions. There were, it was true, in Scotland schools occupying a position analogous to the schools of the Church of England—such as the schools of the Church—sometimes called General Assembly schools, or Church of Scotland schools. They were established by the proceeds of voluntary contributions, and no proposal was therefore made to legislate with respect to them, further than was necessary to enable them to put themselves under the operation of the national system proposed to be established should they be so disposed. The schools of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian schools were placed in the same category. It became, in the next place, requisite to consider what the powers of the school boards should be with reference to the schools which would be placed under their management, or which they might hereafter establish or otherwise acquire. Upon that point he might, without entering into details, state that it was proposed to give the school boards all the powers necessary for the efficient management of the schools. They would have the appointment of the teachers, and generally the same authority now possessed by the existing managers of public schools. A good deal had been said in Scotland as to the necessity that the members of the boards should be elected by persons having pecuniary or educational interests in their well-doing; and the Government Bill made, he thought, proper provision for securing that object. A good deal had also been said as to the necessity of putting the school boards under the control of a Government Board, to be established in Edinburgh. That was a step, however, which it was not, in his opinion, desirable to take. Let him suppose, for example, that the people of Glasgow elected a school board and selected the best men, in their opinion, to discharge its duties; those men would be thoroughly conversant with the wishes and feelings of their constituents on the subject. It would, in his opinion, be no advantage to subject a board so composed to the supervision and control in all matters of management of a Government Board sitting in Edinburgh. Nor was it likely that such a board would submit to have its opinions over-ruled in that way. The same remark applied to the school boards representing other districts in Scotland. Considerable misconception, he might add, existed with regard to the powers which it was proposed to give by the Bill to what was known as the Scotch Department of the Privy Council for Education. It was not proposed to give to that department any control over the school boards in the management of the schools, except so far as the money supplied by the State was concerned. The funds by means of which education was to be provided in the various districts were to be derived chiefly from three sources—in the first place—and that was in Scotland a large source—from the fees as paid in the schools; secondly, from contributions from the money granted by Parliament; and, thirdly, from the local rates. Now, it was obvious that the amount of the rate must depend on the deficiency which was left after the other two sources had been taken into account. It would, under this Bill, be for each board to regulate its own expenditure, and to impose on their several constituencies a rate necessary to meet any deficiency which might exist. The Education Department of the Privy Council dealt with the administration of the money immediately voted by Parliament, which was distributed in England according to rules contained in Minutes or Codes which the Committee of Council prepared. Now, it appeared to the Government that it would be advisable, and that it could not be otherwise than acceptable to the people of Scotland, that a distinct Committee should be appointed for Scotland, whose special duty it should be to deal with education questions arising in Scotland, in compliance with the wishes of the great masses of the people, and in compliance with the rules laid down for the application of the educational grants from the State. It was therefore proposed by this Bill—as was proposed by the Bill of last Session—that a special Committee should be appointed for Scotland, who should discharge the same duties in respect of Scotland as were now discharged by the Committee of Council in respect of England. That proposal, however, had reference to the administration of the Imperial grant only, and it was not meant that the Committee should in any way interfere with the boards elected in the various districts in the management of the schools. It was urged, he might add, by way of objection to intrusting the administration of the Imperial grants to a Committee of the Privy Council, that they would be likely to make the qualifications required in order to obtain a certificate of competency in the case of the teachers too low. All he could say in answer to that objection was, that the people of Scotland might make the standard of qualification for their teachers as high as they pleased. All that the Education Department would have to do in that respect would simply extend to the fixing of a minimum standard, without which they would not recognize a school as being entitled to participate in the grant. But if any school board should desire to have a teacher with higher qualifications, there would be in the Bill no provision which would preclude them from carrying their wishes in that respect into effect. He was, indeed, of opinion that the Scotch Department of the Privy Council, having regard to the wishes of the Scotch people on the subject, would be willing to raise the standard to any point that might be deemed desirable, although it was probable that the people themselves would not be anxious to ask them to raise the conditions on which they were to receive the Imperial money. Now, there was another matter to which he wished very briefly to advert. He had already spoken of the parish schools not as being legally elementary schools, though they were so in point of fact; but in the case of the burgh schools they were chiefly devoted to the higher class of teaching, with an admixture of the elementary. It was not, he might add, generally in accordance with the views of the House to grant Imperial money or to authorize local taxation in order to provide for the higher class of education, and it could therefore be provided for only otherwise than pecuniarily in the Bill. Of course, so far as parish schools were concerned, there would be no difference made in their legal character. The schoolmasters in them would, if the people chose—and he had no doubt they would choose if left to themselves—continue to give instruction in the higher branches of knowledge—in Greek and Latin, for instance—to those who might be willing to receive it. He hoped, however, for this improvement in the future—that whereas in the past that advantage had been purchased at the sacrifice of the interests of those whose education was confined to the elementary subjects of reading, writing, and arithmetic, such would not be the case in the future. A schoolmaster, teaching the higher branches of knowledge to some of his scholars, must necessarily pay so much the less attention to the elementary instruction given in his school. It was not in contemplation, and he had no apprehension that it would be the fact, that in the future, as in the past, the education in the parish schools would be otherwise than this:—elementary instruction would be given to the overwhelming majority; but there would be teachers to give instruction in the higher branches to those who were willing to receive it. Each division would be so arranged that one would not interfere with the other. The one thing, in short, might be done under the Bill, while the other need not be left undone, and he had no apprehension that the people of Scotland, having the matter entirely in their own hands, would fail to deal with it in the manner they approved. He was, he might add, very anxious to make some provision for fostering the higher class of education in the burgh schools as well as in some of the parish schools where the education was at present exceptionally high. He, therefore, proposed that such burgh school as should be found to give instruction in the higher branches of education to such an extent that it could not be reasonably looked upon as an elementary school might be dealt with as a higher class school, to be managed with a view to promote higher education. There were provisions in the Bill on this subject, which he need not now enter upon in detail. Another subject which had been very much discussed was that relating to religion. He did not ignore the religious difficulty by any means. He quite admitted its existence as a matter of fact, and that it must be dealt with. Now, there were only three modes of dealing with it so far as he was aware. The first was to prohibit the teaching of all religion within the national schools; the second to enjoin the teaching of it; and the third to leave it alone so far as the Legislature was concerned. As matters stood at present, so far as the Legislature was concerned, it was left alone in the public schools in Scotland—that was to say, there was no legislative provision on the subject. Religion might be taught in a school or not, according to the disposition of the several masters and managers. No religious teaching was, he believed, given in several burgh schools; while in all the parish schools it was taught, he understood, in point of fact, though not because of any legal requirement. It was left to the managers of schools, and it was taught. He had been at the pains to ascertain how the present system worked in respect of time, and he gathered, as the result of the Report of the Education Commission, that the time during which religious teaching was given ranged from half-an-hour to three-quarters of an hour at a time; while the result of his own inquiries would lead him to put it at from ten minutes to half-an-hour. Instruction was given from the Bible or the Shorter Catechism, which was much the same as the Catechism of all the Presbyterian Churches, during about half-an-hour in the day. When it was said that there had been no religious difficulty in Scotland, what was meant was that the parents of all the children attending these public schools were quite content with the present system, and that no heartburnings existed upon this point. So much was this the case, that even in parishes where there were Roman Catholic children attending the schools they were by no means invariably withdrawn during the half-hour in which there was religious teaching; the parents were quite satisfied that they should partake of the religious teaching. Eighty-six per cent of those sending their children to school were Presbyterians—Presbyterians, no doubt, of many varieties—and it was hard for strangers to detect some of the points of difference, which were, in fact, invisible; but they were all Protestant Presbyterians, and they were all agreed on this point—that there should be religious teaching in the schools, and with the remaining 14 per cent, comprising Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, who attended these schools, there was no religious difficulty whatever. But because it was expected from some of his utterances that the Government would decline to enjoin by a statutory requirement the teaching of religion in the national schools, there was a great outcry, and it was said that the religious feelings of the people would be violated. His answer was, first, that no such requirement existed now; and, secondly, that it was somewhat strange to be accused of violating the religious feelings of the people in the matter of religious instruction in the schools if you proposed to leave that matter to the people themselves. That was the actual proposal in the Bill. The matter would be left to the people themselves by the simple expedient of saying nothing about it. To be sure, there was in the present Bill, as in the Bill of last year, a Time Table Conscience Clause. Such a clause might be superfluous; but it was only, after all, a statutory provision that that should be done in the future which had invariably been done in the past, and for doing which the existing school managers most justly claimed credit; for if it had not been so in the past, there would have been what he had just stated there had not been—the religious difficulty. The religious difficulty had been avoided by having the religious teaching in 99 out of 100 cases before the secular teaching of the day began, the first half hour of the school-day being devoted to the Scriptures and the Shorter Catechism; and the Time Table Conscience Clause merely enjoined that religious teaching should hereafter be given, as now, either at the beginning or at the end of the school-time. With that single exception, which merely expressed in the Act that which was now in point of fact done without any expression at all, the matter would be left to the people themselves. He did not suppose that Parliament would propose to prohibit the teaching of religion in the national schools, for he believed that such a prohibition would do violence to the wishes of a large majority of the people of Scotland. He quite saw that by an arithmetical process you might detect in such a system a violation of political principle. You might find out the proportion of the teacher's salary which belonged to the ten minutes or half hour occupied by the religious teaching, and which would come out of the rates; and to this extent there might be a sacrifice of principle. But the object was to give to the vast majority of the Scotch people a system of education which they would accept and approve; and was not this object worth the sacrifice he had mentioned? Were you to say—"Let the children grow up in ignorance; we must settle the matter on sound political principles, and until we so settle it the people shall have no education whatever?" He did not know what changes might come hereafter. Parties were being "educated," and might improve in political knowledge and wisdom; but at present he was persuaded that any system prohibiting the teaching of religion in the national schools would be so distasteful to the people of Scotland that it would be difficult to get it received and acted upon. Rejecting, then, alike the proposal to exclude and the proposal to enforce the teaching of religion, he would leave the matter to the people themselves, not doubting that they would exercise this liberty through the popularly elected school board exactly as they had exercised it heretofore. He had now only one word to say with respect to the schoolmasters. He had already stated that the school boards would have the election of them, and therefore the determination of the qualifications which were required. It had been urged very strongly that a minimum salary should be fixed by Act of Parliament, because, it was said, the people did not desire to deal liberally to the schoolmasters, and therefore a liberal minimum salary ought to be fixed by Act of Parliament. But a minimum suitable to one district would appear ludicrously small to another; and why should not the question of salary also be left to the school boards, who were elected by the people? They desired schoolmasters with excellent qualifications. Well, they could get such men by paying for them, and they might give them any salaries they might think proper suited to their attainments. They were now going to have men of very high attainments—higher than were required by the Education Department for England; the demand for the fixing of a minimum salary seemed to mean that the people distrusted their own liberality; if not—there was no reason why they should not give liberal salaries. Therefore he proposed that the question of fixing the remuneration of the teachers should be left to be settled between the teachers and the representatives of the people. He believed the teachers were quite able to look after themselves, and that the people, through their representative body—namely, the school boards—were able to look after themselves. They were interested in keeping down the rates, on the one hand; but they were interested more nearly and more strongly in the promotion of good education in their several districts, on the other hand; and they were told, and again he said they were truly told, that that was the desire of the people. One word more upon one other subject, and he had done; the subject of compulsory attendance. In the present Bill he had introduced clauses on that subject which he hoped would meet with the approbation of the House. In the Bill of last year the clauses of the English Bill were substantially transferred to the Scotch Bill. In the Bill which he now asked leave to lay upon the Table of the House there were several clauses as strong and stringent, with a view to compel the education of all the children of the country, as he thought would be practically workable. Such, then, was the character and general scope of the provisions of the education measure for Scotland which he now asked leave to introduce, and he could only, in conclusion, express the hope that it would be more fortunate than its predecessors, and pass into law in the course of the present Session. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, that on the previous occasion he had offered some remarks upon the course adopted with regard to education in Scotland, and he now wished to offer to the House some explanations on the subject of the proposed Bill—not so much with the view of enlightening the people of Scotland—because he believed them to be fully enlightened upon, and to take a most intelligent interest in, the subject—as of laying before hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom what was, in his opinion, the position of the question, and endeavouring to satisfy them that it was proposed to introduce, by means of this Bill, principles which would considerably affect the application of similar principles in other parts of the country. The people of Scotland had been in the enjoyment for about 300 years of a system of national education—that was to say, provision had been made by legislative enactment that there should be schools in every village for the education of the young, and that in those schools, both by legislative enactment and by invariable custom, the Christian religion had invariably been taught. They were, therefore, dealing with a system which was peculiar and unrivalled—one which had obtained the admiration of men the best qualified to form opinions on the subject. Lord Macaulay and Lord Brougham had passed high eulogiums upon the system, and MM. Guizot and Cousin agreed in the opinion that the system of national education which prevailed in the parish schools of Scotland was the best that had come under their notice. The system was, in short, one which had lasted long, had worked well, had enjoyed the respect of all Scotchmen, and he would venture to say had been to a great extent the envy of those who reside south of the Tweed. It had, in fact, always been held forth that what we should seek to establish for England was what had been established in Scotland for centuries. He would not trouble the House at any length with proofs that the schools were intended to be, and were, in fact, religious schools, further than to mention that they were first suggested by John Knox, who declared that—

"It was most necessary that the State should be careful for the virtuous education and godly upbringing of the youth of this realm,"

and further that in 1567, the first Act relating to the schools declared—

"Forasmuch as for all laws and circumstances, it is provided that youth be brought up and instructed in the fear of God and to God's honour, and as it would be injurious to their bodies and souls if they be not taught God's Word, therefore provision is made that there shall be a school established in every burgh and land (that is county parish) throughout the kingdom,"

and those schools, therefore, were placed under the supervision of the Church. At that there was considerable dissent in Scotland, for it was immediately after the Roman Catholic religion had been disestablished. In 1633, a definite provision was made on the subject of the pecuniary amount to be paid to the schoolmasters;—at that time the Established Church was Episcopal. In 1646 it was Presbyterian, and then again provision was made for masters. Further enactments of a similar character were made in 1662 and 1696, the minimum salary of schoolmasters being fixed at £100 merks, and the maximum at £200 merks. These schools provided sufficient instruction for the people for a long time; up to the present day, in fact, they provided sufficiently for the educational requirements of the great majority of country parishes, the want being found to exist mainly in parishes where mining operations and the establishment of manufactures had caused the population to increase so rapidly as to exceed the means provided by the old Scotch Act of 1696. In 1803, accordingly, it became necessary to increase the amount of provision for the schoolmasters, and a larger minimum and also a larger maximum was fixed; and again it was expressly recognized that the schoolmaster should be examined in religious subjects—showing that to impart religious instruction was a necessary part of his duty. There were other statutes with which he need not trouble the House; but in 1861 another statute was passed increasing the maximum and minimum allowance of the schoolmasters, and while it was no longer required that the schoolmaster should be a member of the Established Church he was expressly bound to conform to the religious teaching existing in the Church—which was to say that he was prohibited emphatically from teaching anything inconsistent with the doctrines of the Bible or the Shorter Catechism. He therefore again asserted that it was according to the custom which had prevailed in Scotland for 300 years, and which had received the greatest weight of Scottish law, that religious instruction should be a necessary part of the schoolmaster's duty. They were now, therefore, landed in 1872; and now that they were about to legislate on this subject, these two circumstances must steadily be borne in mind—in the first place, it had been the custom, confirmed by repeated legislative enactments, that religious instruction should invariably be given in those schools; and, secondly, that it was in accordance with the feelings of the people of Scotland. He was also justified in adding here that there never had been a single grievance arising from the practice. There had been a most searching examination instituted by a Royal Commission, and the Commissioners reported that no single charge of proselytizing had ever been brought home to a schoolmaster at any of the schools, although they were attended indifferently by children belonging to all denominations. Free Church schools were attended by children belonging to the Established Church and vice versâ, while, as a matter of fact, there were more Roman Catholic children attending the parish schools than were to be found in all the Roman Catholic schools in Scotland. It was clear, therefore, that there was no religious difficulty in Scotland with regard to this question of education—let that fact be carefully borne in mind. So much for the history of the question. As his right hon. and learned Friend had stated, the Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject, and they reported in 1868. It would be well for the House to remember that among the gentlemen composing that Commission were his Grace the Duke of Argyll, Lord Belhaven, Lord Polwarth, and Lord Dunfermline, who were all well acquainted with Scottish wants and feelings:—there were also three gentlemen who had held the office of Lord Advocate of Scotland, Mr. Murray Dunlop, well-known for the interest he always took in all matters connected with the Church and education in Scotland, and other distinguished men, to the number of 18 in all, who had taken the deepest interest in the Church and educational matters in the country. His right hon. and learned Friend said it was melancholy that no measure had been passed founded upon the recommendations of the Commission, and that the House had allowed four years to be consumed in squabbling about religious questions. This might or might not represent the facts of the case quite accurately; but he ventured at any rate to say that the hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House were not responsible for the delay. In 1868, when the Commissioners made their Report, he (Mr. Gordon) submitted to the Cabinet a measure founded upon it. That measure would have been brought before the House; but, unfortunately for the people of Scotland, the question of the Irish Church was raised, and, with the Scotch Reform Bill, occupied the whole time of the Session. In 1869 the present Government, speaking through the Duke of Argyll, introduced into the House of Lords a Bill which was altogether founded upon the Report of the Commissioners. That Bill passed the Upper House, and was sent down to the House of Commons certainly not later than the beginning of June. But what became of that important measure at a time when, as they had been told that night, 92,000 children were perishing in Scotland for lack of knowledge? The Bill was not proceeded with until the month of August, and then after occupying the attention of the House by fits and starts at Morning Sittings, it was sent back to the House of Lords practically a new Bill as far as details were concerned, on the day when Parliament was prorogued, and their Lordships were asked to pass it in that form at an hour's notice. The House of Lords thought this an unreasonable demand to make, and declined to comply with it—a resolution which had his approval, and was, he believed, generally approved by the country at large. In 1870 there was no Bill. In 1871 a Bill was brought in in February, and he (Mr. Gordon) really began to think that they saw land on this question of Scotch Education; but what took place? Instead of the Government taking up and proceeding with their measure of Scotch Education, they introduced, late in the Session, a Ballot Bill, and that measure absorbed the whole time of Parliament for the remainder of the Session. They were, however, told by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that a Scotch Education Bill could be passed if they—the Scotch Members—were only unanimous. If that were so, he did not at all wonder at the Bill not being taken up. Great interest was taken in the Bill in Scotland, many Amendments were given Notice of, and a great many Petitions were presented. Some were in favour of it, some against it, and some prayed that certain alterations might be made in it; but all agreed that religious instruction should be given as hitherto, and that there should be a Scottish Board of Management, and that the interests of the schoolmasters should be attended to. Under these circumstances he certainly had expected the Bill of this evening would represent the feeling of the people of Scotland. If, however, he understood his right hon. and learned Friend correctly, this Bill was little better than a repetition of the Bill of 1871. He was glad to hear his right hon. and learned Friend intended to do something for borough schools; but he disapproved the proposal as regards parochial schools. The Commissioners proposed to continue the arrangement by which these schools were supported because the heritors, upon whom the burden fell, did not object to it, and because the land had always hitherto been bought and sold with this burden resting upon it. The Bill now submitted to the House took the management out of the hands of the heritors and gave it to the ratepayers, and divided the duty of supporting the schools between the owners, proprietors, and occupiers of property. The heritors had never grudged the schools their contributions; they had been very liberal to the schoolmasters of the Free Church, as well as the Established Church. Not only did the Commissioners deprecate any change calculated to lower the character of the parish schools, but the Professors endorsed their views—Professors who were not wedded to the system from national feelings, but Professors from English Universities. It was not, therefore, the Church party only which asked that the parish schools might be maintained, but everyone who was most competent to form an opinion on the matter. As regards religious instruction, the Bill of 1871 proposed the repeal of all former laws and usages; he feared that the present Bill would do the same; but he assured the House that if matters were left as at present in regard to religious instruction, there would be no religious difficulty at all in connection with Scotch education. With regard to the superior control of the system, the people of Scotland had thought very carefully on the subject, and saw no reason whatever why they should depart from their almost unanimous resolution expressed last year, that the education of Scotland should be placed under the management of a Board in Scotland. He doubted whether his right hon. and learned Friend would be able to obtain the support even of his own side of the House upon this part of the Bill. The House was told that there would be a Committee of the Privy Council to manage the Scotch system. He thought the duties of the Scotch Education Department, which he regarded as very serious and onerous, ought to be separated from the English Education office, because they had a different system of education in Scotland from that which prevailed in England. In England the system was strictly elementary; whereas in Scotland they had to a certain extent secondary education for the advantage of clever boys. Again, by centralizing the systems of the two countries in one department, if an error was committed they would go on in the same groove, and it would be difficult to get out of it. Let them have an opportunity of trying their hand in Scotland with their own system, and see if they could not suggest improvements. Ireland was intrusted with the management of her own education, and he thought Scotland ought not to receive worse treatment in that respect. With regard to religious education, the people of Scotland were determined that the system of religious instruction which had hitherto existed there should not be taken away from them if they could help it. They thought that they ought to have—and he hoped they would have—religious instruction in their schools, and given by their schoolmasters. He knew that some persons said religious instruction should be left to parents and clergymen. First as to the parents. Now, it was represented that the parents of 92,000 children—though that was rather an extravagant estimate—neglected their duty to provide secular education for their offspring; and he thought it was quite in accordance with what John Knox said, that people should be compelled to send their children to school. But did they expect that those parents, many of whom belonged to no Church, could give their children religious instruction? Then as to the clergy, they had already too many calls upon their time to be able to attend to the religious education of the children; and the result would be that if they did not get religious instruction in the schools those children would be brought up without any religious instruction whatever. There was no religious difficulty in Scotland, unless they chose to create it by their legislation. His right hon. and learned Friend said that while he did not prescribe, neither did he proscribe religious instruction. But why should they send a question which they did not think proper to determine to be fought over in the local Boards? Let Parliament itself manfully declare what it thought was necessary for the religious instruction of the children, and then the local Boards would be relieved from distressing conflicts. How many schools were there in operation as rate-aided schools in England under the Act of 1870? He might be wrong, but he doubted whether there were any. They did not know how the system would work, although it might do so better in London than in smaller places. In small parishes differences of opinion and bitterness would be engendered, and defeat would not be borne so readily in them as it might be by those who opposed the decision of the London School Board. Therefore what ought to be done was to preserve that system which they were told was in accordance with the opinions of the great majority of the Scotch people. Then they would have a system in the working of which he believed there would be no heartburning, and which would offer a satisfactory solution of what was called the religious difficulty—a difficulty which in Scotland was entirely of a theoretical and political character.

said, he would not take up much of the time of the House, but he wished to say a few words in reference to the religious difficulty. He agreed in the remark of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gordon), who said he disapproved of relegating the question of the religious difficulty to the decision of the local school boards. Everyone in the House must agree that whatever was done on the subject should be done by that House. That which was done in England ought to be done in Scotland. They distinctly forbad all religious formularies and catechisms being taught in the national schools in England. He admitted at once that it had been customary to teach the Assembly Catechism in all the parish schools in Scotland, and it was an admirable compendium of Christian knowledge; but he denied the statement of the Lord Advocate, that there was a great preponderance in favour of teaching catechisms and formularies in these schools—opinion he thought was growing in the opposite direction. He had only that day received a letter from a minister of the Free Church—a body supposed by many to be all in favour of teaching the catechisms—containing a resolution of the Free Church Presbytery of Dumbarton. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that we ought to keep up the parish schools, and not sweep them away. There was no intention of sweeping them away by this Bill. They would exist after this Bill passed as they existed before; but they would be placed under better management. He denied that these schools were to be regarded as an appendage of the Church of Scotland, or that it was intended that the parish minister should have a preponderating interest in the management, that the Scriptures alone should be taught, and taught by the schoolmaster, or by any other person in the schools who was duly qualified. No doubt, the ministers of the Church of Scotland possessed great influence with the heritors who sat at the board, and who managed the schools; but so far from there being any preponderating influence on the part of the parish clergyman, the Act of 1803, which was a compendium of all the Acts referred to, especially enacted that although the minister of the parish should sit at the board with the heritors, he should never take the chair as president of the meeting, and therefore could not have the casting vote; and therefore could not have a preponderating influence:—but he granted, from the large number of proprietors being absentees, that he in some cases practically managed the school. That was a great abuse. Then, again, as to the heritors; this small body of men managed those schools. It was by the Act of 1803 that the management was limited to the small body of men who were the owners of land which in the reign of Charles II. was rated at £100 Scots. He was rejoiced to hear that that body was to be opened: it was a sign of the times. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew that the tenant was liable to half the rate. Well, the Bill would give to persons really interested in education a voice, because it would give a vote to everyone resident in the parish who was rated. Now, with reference to the religious difficulty and the assumption that all parties were satisfied with the present system, he would like to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the fact that the United Presbyterians, who had about 500 congregations in Scotland, had passed resolutions in their synod meetings declaring that they were against all denominational distinctions. Whether that was right or wrong, it was a fact, and the Lord Advocate had no right to assume that all parties were satisfied. The Independents, Baptists, and other bodies did not agree with the denominational system. Then the Free Church was, practically speaking, against it, and he believed that of late the idea was making rapid progress, that it was not necessary to require the teaching of the Catechism—the obligatory reading of the Bible being thought sufficient in the new national schools. Under those circumstances, it was assuming too much to say that there was no difference in Scotland on that subject. With reference to the Government Board, he thought that the people of Scotland would like to have a Scotch Educational Board; but he was bound to say that for himself he was not in favour of it. He did not understand what the local board could do except put its finger in the public purse, and that it had certainly no right to do. If the parish board wanted to have a new school erected, or to enlarge an old one, it could do it; but once establish a General Board in Edinburgh, and everything would have to be reported to that Board. It would he a buffer between the parish and the Privy Council, and it would be a source of delay, and annoyance, and irritation. He would have every parish to manage its own affairs, and they would manage them best without such a Board. With regard to a Conscience Clause, he knew there existed a general minute of the Church of Scotland, made more than 50 years ago, in which a Conscience Clause was referred to, not as a thing enacted, but as a thing in use. A Time Table Clause seemed to him to be necessary, because everything must be done in order. They must inevitably appoint some time for teaching religion, as they did for the teaching of everything else. As to the 90,000 children alleged to be without education in Scotland, he did not believe a word of it. The report was contradictory. There were four different sets of figures given, beginning with 90,000 and coming down to less than 50,000; and they got at those figures in this way—they assumed that a certain number of children ought to be at school—say 1 in 6 of the population. They divided the population, and they deducted from the product the number of children actually at school, and thus they arrived at the number of children who they said were not receiving any education. Now if there were any common rule as to the age at which all the children should leave school, that would be a very good way; but there was no such rule. The Commissioners assumed that every child should be 10 years at school—that was from 3 to 14 years of age. It might well happen that a child had been only five years at school; but they were all set down by this mode of calculation as if they had not been to school at all. With regard to the heritors, they had been required since 1692 to pay for the proper support of the school in each parish. They had from time to time advanced the salaries of schoolmasters; but those advances had been far from proportionate to the times. The Act of Parliament limited the salary to £5 12s. 6d. The masters got £50 or £60 now; but the rent of the land had risen enormously beyond that proportion. Since the time of Charles II. rents had increased forty-fourfold; but the salary of the schoolmaster had been increased only tenfold. The burden on the landowner had been constantly diminishing, and they had not done nearly enough for the parish schools. The parish schools were originally free from all charges—there were no school fees charged—he could not find a trace of school fees for more than a century after the schools were established—but in consequence of the heritors not finding the funds to pay for a good teacher, fees came to be charged, and by the Act of 1803 the fees were made regularly chargeable. Mr. Milne Home of Wedderburn was reported to have said, and afterwards confirmed, that as an heritor he now paid £184 for the support of schools, and by the Bill of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would have to pay only £40, and the result of the Bill would be that the difference would have to be paid by the poorer classes, who were at present exempted, in that and all similar cases. That he held to be a great injustice, and for his part he should offer the most strenuous opposition to such an enactment.

said, during the time he had been a Member of the House he had been present at the birth and obsequies of a great many Bills for the improvement of education in Scotland. The Royal Commission which had inquired into the subject seemed to have found a way out of the difficulties that beset it; and he should have thought that the Lord Advocate, taught by the experience of the Bill of last year, which had received the general disapproval of Scotland, would have brought in a Bill more in consonance with the Report of the Commissioners, and likely to give more satisfaction. He was sorry especially that it was not proposed to place the parish schools in the same position as that in which the schools belonging to the Established Church of England were placed by the Act of 1870. He felt sure that the establishment of local hoards would give rise to local bickerings in very many parts of Scotland.

said, he believed that the Bill, as it had been sketched out by the Lord Advocate, would meet with the acceptance of the great majority of the people of Scotland. He thought the mode he had adopted of getting over the difficulties which stood in the way of education was the best which the circumstances of the case would admit of. There was only one way of getting over the stumbling-block of an Education Bill without violating political principles—that was, by having a purely secular system. If they had a rate-aided education, they must have boards throughout the country; but he did not think many persons would desire to see such agitation in Scotland as had arisen from the absence of local boards in certain parts of England. He, personally, on religious grounds, preferred a secular system, because he believed it to be the only one consistent with the principles of our religion. If those who held the opposite opinion persisted in throwing this obstacle in the way, it would not be possible to pass any measure which would be acceptable to the people of Scotland. It was only the rate that created the difficulty. The moment a man paid rates he had a right to have his religious principles consulted. As regarded the religious difficulty in other aspects, the Lord Advocate had done the only thing possible to escape the difficulty. He knew that the children of the people of Scotland would be religiously educated without any Act of Parliament to enforce it, and so did not think it necessary to provide that the parish schoolmaster should teach religion; nor did he hold that the clergyman was necessarily the fittest person to teach it. Did any man suppose that the people of Scotland were going to neglect the religious education of their children because the schoolmaster or the clergyman was permitted to undertake it. Was it not the duty of every Christian man to see to the religious teaching of their children and the children of their neighbours? Therefore, to provide for the religious education of children by the State was wholly unnecessary. In making such provision they were putting a stumbling-block in the way of their Nonconformist brethren, who, on the other hand, should not insist that their own views as to secular education should be inserted in the Bill. The Lord Advocate had adopted the only way out of the dilemma. He had elected to leave the religious teaching to the people of Scotland themselves, and he had provided a Time Table Conscience Clause. He had no doubt that in Committee they should be able to induce, or, if not, to compel, the Lord Advocate to provide for the exclusion from the schools of those catechisms which, whatever their excellence, contained nothing that might not equally be taught from the Bible. "With these general remarks, he would give his unhesitating and hearty support to the measure.

would ask, if the Government, the Scotch Members, and the Opposition were in favour of the Bill as it stood, what chance was there that a small body of men in England who were in favour of secular education could place any great obstacles in the way of the settlement of the question? He congratulated the people of Scotland on their having a chance of getting school boards established in every district, and getting the parish schools placed under the management of those school boards. He was glad also to know that in Scotland a stronger measure of compulsion was to be adopted than in England. At the same time, he demurred to the principle laid down by the Lord Advocate that, while he was himself in favour of secular education, he still thought it advisable that complete power should be conferred upon the school boards to provide whatever religious instruction they might choose, even to the introduction of the Shorter Catechism, on the ground that it was the wish of the people of Scotland. His (Mr. Dixon's) reason for objecting to that principle was, that he felt the religious difficulty was one of those questions which ought to be considered rather as an Imperial than a merely local or Scotch question. It appeared that Scotland was to have a little more latitude than England. If, however, they were to give the people of Scotland the right to impose a larger amount of sectarian instruction than was done in England, how could they refuse any demand from Ireland to give the people of that country a still more complete control over religious instruction there? On such a question they ought to seek to legislate for the country as a whole, and if they deviated from that clear and admirable rule, they would get into a great variety of difficulties.