asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has made any inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Norris, a magistrate for Oxfordshire; and, if so, whether it is true that Mr. Norris did refuse to grant a summons against a farmer for a violent assault upon a labourer; and, whether Mr. Norris insisted upon the labourer settling the case by receiving money from Mr. Garrett?

said, that having made inquiry into the case, he was bound to say that there appeared to be no foundation for the charges against Mr. Norris which were to be inferred from the Question. It appeared that a farmer of the name of Garrett having assaulted a labourer in his employ, the latter called upon Mr. Norris in order to obtain a summons against his master. In the meantime the farmer had an interview with Mr. Norris, had admitted the assault, and had expressed his readiness to make his servant any pecuniary compensation that the magistrate might think proper. Mr. Norris informed the labourer of this offer, at the same time telling him that if he preferred it he was perfectly willing to grant the summons, and that it was for him to determine whether he would accept or refuse the offer of compensation. He also informed him that in the event of a summons being granted, any fine which might be inflicted upon the farmer would go to the county fund and not to the injured person. The labourer at once joyfully accepted the offer. He was assured that the statement that Mr. Norris had refused to grant the summons in question, or had thrown any difficulty in the way of its being issued, was without foundation. He might mention that the Trades Union in the district had applied for a summons against Garrett under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of last year for attempting to coerce his servant into not joining their body.

, in moving, in line 16, after "parish," to insert—

"Including the power now vested in them by the second recited Act of sending, without payment of fees, such poor children of the parish as shall be recommended by them to any school under the management of the school board of the parish,"

said, he had no objection to the proposal.

said, he should like to know whether the result of accepting the proposal would not be to give the preference to board schools over denominational schools, which were outside the General Act—because, if that was so, they were asked to do in Scotland what Parliament had refused to do in England.

said, he could not admit that his proposal would affect the denominational schools in any way. Under the Act of 1803 the heritors, in consideration of the assessment they paid, had the right of sending poor—not pauper—children to the schools without payment of fees, and he proposed to continue that power to them, but to limit them to board or undenominational schools.

said, that by the proposed step they were going to enable the heritors to pay—that was, practically to remit to the parents of the children—the school fees of children who did not absolutely require such assistance; but to confine their attendance to the board schools; which was, in effect, refusing to give assistance of any kind to the children of poor Roman Catholics. It was the 25th clause of the English Act over again, and he objected strongly to the proposal.

said, the hon. and learned Member's opposition was capricious, for a clause was contained in the Bill—the 66th—which would enable the fees of all children whose parents were too poor to pay them, to be paid by the school board.

said, if that was so, he saw no reason for prejudging the question. Let them leave it for discussion and determination when the 66th clause was reached.

said, the question did not arise in the burgh schools, and therefore the hon. and learned Member for Boston need be under no alarm as far as the children of Roman Catholics were concerned. It was never attempted by the heritors to put children into any other than the parish schools in the country districts; so that the payment of the fees fell entirely upon the heritors themselves. This plan was adopted as being more convenient to the local authorities, and had been found to work well.

said, he thought the question was one of considerable importance to the ratepayers of Scotland. The heritors, it seemed, had power to send to the schools and pay the fees of children who were not paupers, but only poor—which was a relative term. He thought the ratepayers ought to consider carefully before consenting to a power of this kind being conferred upon the school board.

said, he would remind the hon. Member (Mr. Synan) that under the Bill the heritors were the only ratepayers who would be affected, and therefore no particular hardship could be inflicted upon the "ratepayers" by the adoption of the proposal.

said, that since his proposal was objected to, he would withdraw it.

said, he thought a more exhaustive inquiry than appeared to be contemplated by the Bill was required. He thought the inquiry should be made by the Board of Commissioners, instead of by a merely local Board.

said, the House had determined that the duty of seeing that a sufficient amount of accommodation in public schools was provided should be put upon the Department, with the usual Government responsibility to the House of Commons; so that during the three years immediately following the passing of the Act, they should be required to perform the duty through the medium of the Commissioners appointed in Scotland, who should be responsible to them, and for whom they should be responsible to the House. These clauses provided accordingly.

said, that as there was a danger of local Boards, in order to save the rates, expressing satisfaction with accommodation which was insufficient, he desired as much as possible to put the local Boards under the control of the central authority.

said, his desire had been to make provision very much in the sense of his hon. and learned Friend's remarks. The duty was put upon the local Board in the first instance, however, because they were on the spot, were immediately interested in the matter, and had the best means of making the necessary inquiries; but they were required to report the result of their investigations forthwith to the Education Department. The Report would be transmitted in the first instance to the Scotch Commissioners, who, if they were of opinion that the school accommodation was insufficient, were required to specify the amount and the nature of it. Their decision was then subject to review by the Department. That appeared to be exactly what his hon. and learned Friend desiderated.

said, he must object to the circumlocutory nature of these proposals. The inquiry was to be made by the local Boards, who were to forward the result of their investigations to the new Department in London, which in turn might, on the ground of want of local knowledge, re-transmit the document to the Commissioners in Edinburgh.

said, he would remind the noble Lord that the Report of the local Board would, in the first instance, be transmitted to the Commissioners in Edinburgh.

Not by this clause, which said that the Report was to be sent to the Scotch Education Department. The whole phraseology of the clause required to be altered in consequence of the change made by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the newly-constituted Board of Commissioners in Edinburgh.

said, the noble Lord, on looking at the clause he had prepared, would find that it directed all Reports made by local Boards on the subject of school accommodation to be sent, not to the new Education Department, but to the Commissioners.

was of opinion that this clause met all the necessities of the case.

thought that, with the view of making this clause harmonize with the new clause, the words, "or the Board of Commissioners" should be added after "Education Department."

said, that according to the English Act the local authority was to send to the Education Department returns containing such particulars respecting elementary schools and children requiring elementary education in their district as the Education Department might from time to time require. But, in examining this clause, the initiative seemed to him to rest wholly with the school boards, and he was afraid that, in consequence, the Returns would be found to differ very much, and just in the same ratio as the school boards had the wish to afford the desired information. The English Act was, in his opinion, far more convenient, and he wished to know whether the Bill as it now stood contained any provision giving a controlling power over those inquiries?

said, the most complete controlling power was given to the central authority in the phraseology of the clause now under consideration, for it had been already agreed that in Scotland a school board should be established in every parish and burgh, and therefore a statutory local authority was created to deal with this matter in the first instance. This was not so in England, and therefore it was necessary to obtain information for the central authority in another manner, in order to enable them to consider the advisability of establishing school boards in particular districts. He could assure the hon. Member that the intention of the Bill was to subject these local authorities completely to the control of the central authority in this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) would be satisfied with the assurance that, although he (the Lord Advocate) could not see how any difficulty could arise from the ambiguity of the phraseology as it stood, yet he was most willing to re-consider the point, and if, after readjusting the clause which constituted the Scotch Commissioners, it should be found necessary to add any words to it, he would undertake to do so.

said, he wished to make a few remarks on this clause which had reference to the transfer of schools to school boards. Many of the friends of existing schools in England looked with great jealousy on the transfer authorized by the Act, although such transfer was subject to certain limitations which were absent from the Bill under consideration. Then, again, the English Act only referred to elementary schools; whereas by the section referred to any school, however dignified, important, and venerable, might be transferred to the school board, so that the entire character of the teaching might be lowered. That was a point, however, for the consideration of Scotch rather than English Members. In the English section, too, there were various limitations and restrictions, which made the transfer of a school much more difficult than it would be under this Bill. There was, for instance, the right of audience before the Privy Council. He did not see any such right in this section. It was also required that when the need for doing certain things was recognized by the trustees two-thirds must agree. There was no such requirement in this Bill. He desired to protest against the present course being established as a precedent with regard to England, and would express an earnest hope that the limitations in the English Act would not be removed.

said, that at the present time some of the schoolmasters had something like fixity of tenure in their office. He felt extremely anxious that the fixity of tenure which had been guaranteed to them should not be interfered with by any subsequent arrangement, and would move an Amendment to that effect, and also providing that no school should be transferred except with the assent of two-thirds of the managers.

moved to insert words providing that all existing liabilities of managers in respect to contracts or engagements with teachers should be accepted by the school boards and implemented by them.

said, it was generally understood perfectly well that existing contracts could not be interfered with except by express words, and Parliament would certainly hesitate before it sanctioned any words to defeat existing contracts between employers and employed. Consequently, he thought it would be unnecessary to insert any words to say that no such interference should be implied from the language of the clause. If, however, his hon. Friend entertained any apprehension on this subject, and was not satisfied with his assurance, he should have no objection to insert words expressing that "Nothing in this clause contained shall interfere with any contract between a teacher and any body of school managers."

inquired whether in the case of the transfer of a school to the school board, and the schoolmasters did not receive what they considered proper treatment, their remedy would be against the old trustees, and against them only?

said, that the law on this matter was quite clear. A contract subsisted until it was legally terminated by the contracting parties, and, as a matter of course, no managers would transfer their school with its teachers without coming to a satisfactory arrangement with the school board. There was nothing in the clause compelling such transfer; but if the managers of a school who desired to transfer it were under existing liabilities towards their teachers, doubtless they would make satisfactory arrangements before concluding such transfer.

said, he should like to know whether the clause would apply to such schools as Madras College, St. Andrews?

said, he had considered the case of the Madras College at St. Andrews, and at the proper time he should move its omission from the schedule.

said, he was quite satisfied with the insertion of the words proposed by the Lord Advocate, and, accordingly, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, it was true that the 35th clause was couched in general terms; but Scotch Members knew very well what schools it applied to. It was intended to apply, and did, in truth, apply chiefly to the schools established by the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church. These were the schools which it was expected would be transferred in large numbers, and placed under the management of school boards. The effect of the change would, of course, be to substitute for the managers now appointed by the Free Church or the United Presbyterian Church the school boards appointed under the provisions of this Bill. These schools were undoubtedly established and maintained by funds derived from contributions and donations, and the contributors and donors of the funds resided all over Scotland—

"Frae Maidenkirk to John o'Groat's."

thought it would be sufficient to require the assent of a large majority—say two-thirds—of those who administered the trust.

said, that when there was an agreement between two local boards to combine their efforts in order to secure a higher grade of education wherever they might think it necessary, they ought to obtain the consent of the Education Department. He would, therefore, move the insertion of the words "with the consent of the Scotch Education Department."

said, he did not himself think it necessary to impose his control on the local authorities; but if his hon. and learned Friend desired the insertion of the words proposed, he should offer no opposition to the Amendment.

said, he must complain that the clause did not confer on the central authority power to force parishes to combine, in the event of their refusing to do so from parsimonious motives. He thought the introduction of the Amendment was wholly unnecessary, as it was injudicious, in his opinion, to give the school boards greater powers than they now possessed under the clause.

also thought it would be better to allow the clause to remain as it stood.

said, he should support the Amendment, for it would enable a rather better description of education to be given in populous parishes and boroughs, when they chose to combine for that purpose. The use of a central department frequently was to inform the local authorities of what was being done elsewhere, and to assist and advise them as to the best mode of doing it.

said, he should also support the Amendment, on the ground that it would prevent a difficulty being experienced in Scotland, which had been the occasion of much disappointment in England under the Act of 1870.

said, he wished to suggest that the whole of the Parliamentary Grants and fees to schoolmasters should go to the schoolmasters themselves. That had been the invariable practice in Scotland hitherto.

said, he thought the question as to the proper mode of remunerating the schoolmasters might be more conveniently and satisfactorily discussed on Clauses 50, 51, and 62. If it were the opinion of the Committee that the whole of the Parliamentary Grant, or of the fees, or of both, should go to the schoolmasters, he would make the provisions of the Bill conform to such opinion.

said, that after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman he should withdraw the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

moved, at end of clause, to add the words—

"And the school rate shall in all cases be levied and collected in the same manner as poor's assessment, and the laws applicable for the time to the imposition and collection and recovery of poor's assessment shall be applicable to the school rate."

said, he should like to know whether the residences which were exempt from poor rate would not be liable for school rate?

said, that the school rate was directed to be imposed upon all tenants of the annual value of not less than £4.

, in moving, in page 16, line 39, the omission of the words "the school fund," said, that fund ought not to be pledged as a security for the raising of money. The fees out of which the fund partly arose would in almost all cases be payable to the masters, or be otherwise specially appropriated, and the pledging the Parliamentary Grant would likewise prejudice the right of the schoolmasters. Moreover, the English Act had been strictly followed in this case.

said, he should be sorry if the Bill interfered as his hon. and learned Friend appeared to think this clause would, with the rights of teachers. He thought, however, that a reference to Clause 40 would satisfy his hon. and learned Friend that it would not. If the Parliamentary Grant or the school fees were specially appropriated to the teachers, no creditors would, of course, lend money on such security. Nothing should be wanting on his part to secure to the teachers whatever the House in its wisdom destined for them.

said, it ought to be made clear that the children's pence could not be made a security for a loan. The Parliamentary Grant to the schools could scarcely be considered a security, as it might cease any day; indeed, he thought no one would be so unwise as to lend money on so fluctuating a security.

said, the Parliamentary Grant could scarcely be considered a security, as it would fluctuate in amount, or might not be earned by a schoolmaster through incompetence, or Parliament might change its mind. He would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and the following words inserted:—"other than the Parliamentary Grant and school fees."

said, there appeared to be some misconception on this subject. The school boards could only borrow in respect of the wants of the schools under their administration, and for that purpose they were authorized to pledge the income of their own schools. The language of the clause was precisely in conformity with that of the English Act, Clause 57, which enabled the school board to borrow for a term of years, not exceeding 50, on the security of the school funds and local rates. The whole of the Parliamentary Grant must go to the maintenance of the school, but it might be necessary to borrow a larger sum; and in doing so, he would take care that the rights of the schoolmasters were not interfered with.

said, he would suggest that, as in the case of the English Act, the consent of the Education Department should be obtained in the case of raising funds under the clause.

said, that as he could see no objection to such a condition, he should be perfectly willing to insert it.

moved, in page 17, line 24, to leave out the words—

"And the town council of every burgh shall at the time of Martinmas yearly pay to the school board thereof such sum as it has been the custom of such burgh prior to the passing of this Act to contribute to the burgh school out of the common good of the burgh, and the same shall be applied and administered by the said board in conformity with said custom."

said, he was sorry to be under the necessity of opposing his hon. Friend's Amendment; but he really had no other option in the case under notice. The "common good," as the Committee were doubtless aware, consisted of property held by the magistrates as trustees for the community, to be administered for certain purposes, and one of those purposes was the education of the children of the community. Now, in some burghs, the trustees—the magistrates—had contributed with something approaching to liberality to the cause of education. In others they had contributed very little in that direction. Now, it had seemed to him that the most proper and reasonable way of dealing with this trust money in the present Bill was not to raise any question about the past, nor to leave it to the discretion of the magistrates in time to come—but to fix the future contributions at the same amount as had hitherto been so applied. It was not in the nature of a rate; it was the administration of trust property held for particular purposes, and he could not agree to give those contributions up.

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain on what principle he gave up the sums paid by the heritors for the maintenance of schools, while he insisted on the contributions out of the burgh funds?

considered that the principle enunciated by the Lord Advocate was a sound one.

said, he thought that the burgh funds would be augmented generally by the alteration which had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish). In the smaller burghs, whose funds had been mostly jobbed away, they would relieve themselves of the £50 or so which they now paid to the schoolmaster, and place it on the rates—and as to the large burghs, what they contributed to education at present was the merest trifle, apart from the endowments and special funds.

said, that the amount of money which burghs contributed to secondary education in Scotland was extremely trifling—amounting only to about £5,000 a-year—and, therefore, if the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) had been, by omitting these words, to supply a proper aid to burgh schools by rate, he would gladly have co-operated with him. But Clause 61 provided that the higher burgh schools of the kingdom should receive no aid from the school funds. If, therefore, they took away that small sum from the common good, they still more impoverished the burgh schools than at the present moment.

said, it appeared to him that in this matter burghs and heritors must stand or fall together. The Bill would take away the management of the parish schools from the heritors, and in consideration of doing that, they had relieved them from their old payment. They were in like manner taking away the management of the burgh schools from the magistrates and town councils, and in consideration of so doing, they ought to relieve them likewise of the contribution they had hitherto paid out of the common good.

said, he entirely concurred in the view of his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson).

said, the question of relieving the heritors stood for discussion at a later stage. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) asked him to state the distinction between the contributions to burgh schools out of the "common good" of burghs and the school rates paid by heritors. With respect to the burgh schools, many of them, according to the scheme of the Bill, were not to receive any support from rates or Parliamentary Grants. Take the case of Glasgow. Undoubtedly, there would be a very large quantity of schools there under the Bill, should it become law, to be supported by rates and Parliamentary Grants; but the Burgh School of Glasgow would not be one of them, for the Burgh School of Glasgow was not a rate-supported school—and no burgh school was at the present moment. In future, these burgh schools, which were of a class very much inferior to the Burgh School of Glasgow, would, like other elementary schools, be rate-supported, but were not so now; and the Burgh School of Glasgow, like the High School of Edinburgh and other burgh schools of a high class, would not be in the future more rate-supported than they were in the past. He should be glad if Parliament were disposed to do for Scotland what it had declined to do for England—namely, to allow a local tax to be imposed for supporting the higher class schools; but he confessed he was not hopeful in that matter, and he could not therefore consent by any provision in the Bill to forego in regard to the higher class schools which now existed the interest that they had in these funds, estates, and revenues which were conveyed to the Royal Burghs of Scotland by charters, with this as one of the trust purposes for which the conveyances were made. The rates imposed upon the heritors were taxes imposed upon the heritors of parishes for the purpose of maintaining rate schools. He trusted that his hon. Friend would perceive from this explanation the distinction between rate support, which consisted of taxes for supporting rate schools, and trust-money given for the support of schools which were not rate schools at all.

said, he should be sorry to be a party to depriving any school in Scotland of one shilling of the money it now received—he was disposed to increase their emoluments rather than diminish them; but he thought the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had overlooked one thing, and that was, that in two-thirds of the burgh schools of Scotland the children began at the very beginning, and went through a course of the most elementary teaching.

said, they were all agreed that the benefits of higher class schools were very much required, and they would be happy to see assistance afforded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but after the expressions which fell from the right hon. Gentleman on a recent occasion, he feared they had little hope of obtaining aid in that quarter. Moreover, the question of a rate for the purpose seemed to be excluded under the Bill. The elementary schools would, of course, be supported by means of the rate; and as the contributions payable from the common good of the burghs were a fund applicable generally towards the support of higher schools, he thought it would be desirable that all contributions paid to the school boards out of the common good should be applied to the support of the higher schools. They would thus have, to a certain extent, assistance in setting up higher education in some of the schools. He proposed, in line 29, after "board," to insert these words, "for the purpose of promoting higher instruction."

said, it struck him that this was an extraordinary Amendment to put into the Bill. Its effect would be that the funds which were now given for the benefit of the rich and poor alike was to be given to those only who were educated in the higher subjects.

said, that that was a misapprehension, for the higher education which was now provided in schools was given alike to the rich and poor.

feared that the effect would be in small towns to deprive the poorer classes of that which they at present enjoyed.

did not think that the Amendment would abstract money from the poor, the object being to carry out what was peculiarly a characteristic of Scotch education—namely, that a higher class education was so provided as to be applicable to poor children.

, in moving, in page 17, line 29, after "custom," the insertion of words to the effect that the town council in a burgh should, when required by the school board, provide funds as heretofore out of the common good for the maintaining and renewing the buildings of such burgh school in an efficient state, said, that it was not his intention to persevere with the Amendment; but he took that opportunity of asking the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate how the burgh schools were in future to be maintained and enlarged without the imposition of a rate, or some other means which did not appear on the face of the Bill?

said, that if he rightly understood the question it was how the burgh schools should be kept in repair, and be enlarged as occasion might require. The burgh schools, according to the provisions of the Bill, were of two classes; they were the higher class burgh schools, which were separately provided for; and the burgh schools generally, which were provided for in the Bill. With respect to the latter class, they were not in a different position in respect to their maintenance and repair than any other public schools under the Bill. The rate-supported schools would be resorted to in order to maintain a sufficient number required by the population; while the higher class schools had already sufficient revenues to enable them to give a much higher class of education. In such cases, for instance, as that of the Glasgow Burgh School, it would be kept in repair out of its revenue; and if that revenue fell short, there would be no other source than that derived from endowments or from any funds which the liberality of the inhabitants of the district placed at its disposal. That remark would equally apply in the case of the High School at Edinburgh. In point of fact, they would stand upon their old footing; and while he should be sorry if it was proved that the liberality of the future inhabitants should not prove equal to such a charge—a calamity in no way foreshadowed by the conduct of the existing ones—he could not hold out any hope that they would receive contributions from the public money.

said, he had not suggested that any money should be asked from the public Exchequer, but when they came to Clause 61, dealing with the higher schools, he should propose that the districts should be allowed to rate themselves when they voluntarily desired it, for it was absurd to suppose that the endowments, which were of small amount, would suffice to maintain in repair and enlarge those schools. He would, therefore, withdraw his present Amendment, and raise the question again on Clause 61.

moved the insertion, in line 30, of the words "with the sanction of the Education Department," after "to time."

moved, in page 19, line 23, after the word "schools," to insert the following words, "subject in case of complaint by any person having interest to an appeal to the Board of Education."

said, he could not consent to the Board of Education being made a Court of Appeal in any case where parents might complain of the school fees.

, in moving, in line 25, to leave out from "paid" to end of clause, and insert—

"Payable to the principal schoolmaster or schoolmistress in charge of the school; but where there is more than one teacher subject to such division as may be made by the school board, with a right of appeal by anyone having interest, to the Board of Education; and the school board shall pay out of the school fund to each schoolmaster or schoolmistress an annual salary, to be fixed on the occasion of each appointment, of an amount (unless the Board of Education shall in any case otherwise determine) not less than fifty pounds nor more than one hundred pounds in the case of a schoolmaster in a burgh school, and not less than thirty-five pounds nor more than eighty pounds in the case of a school in a landward parish, and not less than twenty-five nor more than fifty pounds in the case of any schoolmistress. The schoolmaster or schoolmistress shall likewise be entitled to the interest or annual produce of any bequest or endowment for his or her behoof, and to any Parliamentary Grant which may be earned in respect of the school under his or her charge, under deduction of payments to pupil teachers, if any: Provided, That the salaries and scales of fees of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses appointed before the passing of this Act under the recited Acts, or any of them, shall not be reduced; and that the school board may, if they think fit, from time to time raise the salary of any schoolmaster or schoolmistress, so that the amount thereof shall not exceed the maximum here in before provided,"

said, he would at once admit that this was a very important question, involving as it did the liability of the people to pay rates to provide the salaries under discussion. A calculation had been made by which it had been shown that the cost would amount to nearly £400,000 a-year, a bonus which, if granted, would probably result in the schoolmasters of England and Ireland demanding the like liberality. Not only that, but the hon. and learned Gentleman could scarcely have calculated the amount which masters would receive in the shape of fees and Parliamentary Grants, especially in schools with from 300 to 1,000 children. If a master received £300 a-year from these sources, would his hon. and learned Friend still award him a statutory salary out of the rates? Such a course had never been dreamt of in England; and were the Scotch so rich and so indisposed to liberality, and even to justice, that it was to be applied to them? It was all very well to fix the minimum of £35 for rural parishes, where there was only one school, but the Amendment would apply to hundreds of schools. He would, moreover, remind the House that no Amendment that they could make would affect the amount of the fee, and it was proposed to be given in proportion to the efficiency of those who attended. He must also say that he could not approve of the Amendment, because it threw on the inhabitants of the district the expense of erecting and maintaining buildings out of the local rates. The matter really stood thus—by the Bill schools would be established wherever they were needed, and they must be of a certain class, and maintained up to a certain standard at least. Every school must have a certificated master, and his qualifications might be as much higher as the district pleased or required. The people of every district were thus encouraged to have the schools made as good as possible, for in proportion to their excellence would the Parliamentary Grant be distributed, and that was an encouragement to the ratepayers to equip the schools well, so as to entitle them to the receipt of Government aid. But it was for the managers to make their bargain with the teachers, and if they desired a higher education than was required by the Government Grant, they would have the right to demand a higher qualification. Every inducement was therefore offered to the school board districts to appoint well-qualified teachers, capable of giving the children a good education. In short, the people of Scotland desired to give their children a good education, and the Bill would give them all the necessary machinery for gratifying that desire; all the Government insisted on was that these qualifications should not descend below a certain point. He, therefore, thought there should be no interference with the bargains to be made by the boards and their teachers. Could not the teachers take care of themselves? Good teachers must be had, and good teachers would find their price; and if an efficient teacher were giving a good education in a school, and obtaining for it the largest amount of Parliamentary Grant that could be obtained, would it not be necessary to pay him high terms in order to retain him? The eyes of school boards, who would be pecuniarily interested in such matters, would be turned towards him, and he would be taken away if there were not sufficient inducement to him to remain. In short, the demand for his services when required would follow the natural operation of the law as regarded supply. The fact was, there was a field opened up to teachers by the Bill which had never existed in Scotland before; and why, then, should not they be left to make their own bargain, like the schoolmasters in England? The notion that they ought to have both the fees and the Parliamentary Grant proceeded upon a mistake, for what the Government said to the school boards was precisely what it said to the school managers. It encouraged them to provide and equip schools of the best description, and to employ schoolmasters, who would give a good education to the children by contributing money, in the shape of Parliamentary Grants, according to results. He did not see how it was possible to apply the fees and the Parliamentary Grant in the manner now proposed. There would be something like 300 schools to be provided in Glasgow alone. Now, the expense of providing a school for 300 children would be about £1,500—£5 a child being the ordinary estimate. A school to accommodate 1,000 children would cost £5,000. The schools, too, would have to be upheld, and the resort to the borrowing powers to raise money in order to provide school buildings would be very extensive. The money invested in ground and buildings would be of large amount, and part of the fees and the Parliamentary Grants would be required to enable the managers to meet the interest and pay off the debt, besides meeting the expense of the equipments and the staff. There would, therefore, no doubt, be a large amount of money to be borrowed on the security of the school fund, and was there to be no relief out of the Parliamentary Grant and the fees? He ventured to say that such a proposal was extravagant and almost ridiculous, and yet the Scotch schoolmasters had by their importunity induced Scotch Members to advocate the proposal, and had tried to make it appear that they were ill-used by the Bill, and so had obtained a large amount of unfounded sympathy. But he would ask not only Scotch, but also English and Irish Members, to consider that if Parliament consented to give Scotch schoolmasters all fees and all Imperial grants, and a fixed salary in addition, to be paid out of local taxation, how long it would be before the schoolmasters of England and Ireland would demand to be placed on the same footing? Why should they be dealt with differently? With what justice, with what sense of fair dealing, could they refuse to England and Ireland that which had been granted to Scotland? For those reasons, he strongly opposed the Amendment, and he did so in the belief that schoolmasters were, as regarded their remuneration, treated in the Bill justly and liberally.

said, he would recommend his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gordon) to withdraw his Amendment, because a portion of it was embraced in the Amendment to be moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan). He had no complaint to make against the speech of the right hon. and learned Lord, except that it was an answer by anticipation to the speeches which his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and he meant to deliver on a subsequent Amendment.

observed, that the good education of Scotland hitherto was owing to the high qualifications of the teacher, and the liberal manner in which he had been treated. There was no point to which the people of Scotland attached such importance as the proper payment of the schoolmaster; but what the Lord Advocate wanted was cheap education.

said, he would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Playfair), and withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow on Clause 52.

moved in page 19, line 27, after "and" to leave out to end of clause, and insert—

"The schoolmaster, schoolmistress, and teachers of a school shall be entitled to receive from the school board the full amount of the fees received by the board in respect of such school, and, when there is more than one teacher, the said amount shall be divided and distributed among them as the school board shall determine."

bore his testimony to the immense advantage of retaining the present system of fees in Scotland. Speaking from his experience of a large agricultural district in Scotland, he believed that to do away with the interest which teachers had in the fees would be to inflict a serious blow on education, and reduce it to the dead level of mediocrity.

said, that the proposal before the Committee did not carry out the intention of the hon. Gentleman, for there was nothing in the words of the Amendment to compel the school boards to give the fees. It was desirable that the schoolmaster should to some extent be paid by results, and therefore he would not compel the school boards to give the whole of the fees, but only a part.

said, that although he was anxious not to interfere with the Scotch system of education by means of English opinions, still he wished the Committee to bear in mind conditions which appeared to apply to Scotland as well as to England. In Scotland as well as in England they were imposing this duty upon every district—that the education of every child should be provided for. In Scotland they had the enormous advantage of that principle having been acknowledged centuries ago, whereas in England it was comparatively new. But still it was necessary to extend the principle over the whole of Scotland, so that in every parish the ratepayers would be responsible for the education of every child, however poor. When they imposed on the ratepayers that duty it seemed but common sense to leave them entirely unfettered both as to the men they were to employ and the mode in which they were to pay them—in short, to allow the matter to be regulated by the action of supply and demand. If the fees were to be given as now proposed, all the influence of the schoolmaster—and that was not slight—might be brought to bear in order to have high fees. ["No!"] Assuredly, if he was to have the fees, his interest would be to have them as high as possible. And, secondly, the schoolmaster might try to fill the school with children who were able to pay the high fees. But what was especially important in poor districts and in large towns was that the children of the poorest parents should be encouraged in every possible way to come to school.

said, he thought that the school boards would in most cases make arrangements that the schoolmasters should have the fees; but it would be better not to compel parishes which might be peculiarly situated.

said, that although he should support the Amendment, yet he thought there was a twofold risk in the matter—that the school boards would not be of high quality, and lest they should starve the schoolmasters. Though at present the feeling in Scotland was very strong in favour of education, yet it was possible when the school boards found out their power they might try to cut down the income of the schoolmasters, and for that reason he hoped before the Bill passed through Committee they would be able to procure a somewhat larger provision for them.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for the Univerity of Edinburgh was not right in stating that his Amendment was taken from the Government Bill of last year, for the fact was that it was not contained in that Bill. However, having since consulted some gentlemen of great experience upon the question, he had now come to the conclusion that a modified form of it would be very advantageous, for it was undoubtedly true that the Amendment proceeded upon the custom of Scotland in the parish schools, which was, that the schoolmaster should receive the fees. That, however, was not the most convenient arrangement, and he preferred to leave it to the option of boards and schoolmasters to stipulate that the latter might take their chance of the fees, so far as they went. There were many cases in which that arrangement might conveniently be made; but there were others in which it might not be expedient, for a master might prefer to have a fixed salary, and let the fees go into the school fund. There were cases, too, in which it would be quite wrong to compel a school board to hand over all the fees to a teacher. Was it not better to leave everything connected with emoluments open to arrangement between the parties? He regarded it rather as a matter of detail than one of vital importance, and would prefer that arrangements should be made according to the circumstances of each case and the district in which it arose.

said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Lord would not depart from the great courtesy and kindness he had exhibited towards Scotch Members, and that he would adopt the course desired, for the opinion of the Scotch people was decidedly favourable to the Amendment, which was only to continue a system that had existed in Scotland for hundreds of years. It was not to the interest of a schoolmaster to have high fees and but few children in his school, and therefore the fears of the Vice President were groundless. The proposal, moreover, was, that a schoolmaster should have what he earned, and who else ought to have it? He submitted that the Government ought to accept the proposal.

said, he believed there would be heart-burnings in many minds if a share of the fees was not given to the schoolmasters. He hoped, therefore, the Government would give way.

said, that in the Amendment which he had put on the Paper he had copied the words of the Lord Advocate's Bill of last year. He thought the Government should yield, and spare the Committee the necessity for a division upon the point.

said, he would believe that Scotch Members were in favour of this proposal, when he saw the Division List, but not till then. He thought that to alter the Bill would be to injure it, and should therefore support the proposal of the Government, and trusted they would stick to it.

, in rising to bring under the consideration of the House the claims for compensation of the officers of the five Batteries of the Royal Horse Artillery suddenly ordered home from India early in 1871, with a view of reducing the force of Royal Artillery on the Indian establishment, by which they suffered pecuniary loss, said he had to complain of the short notice given in this case—in no case less than a fortnight—the usual notice being a twelvemonth, and the usual notice of moves of regiments had been issued for a considerable time and they were not included in it, and according to a scheme which had been drawn up applicable only to the Artillery they would not have been relieved for above a year. They were, however, telegraphed for to return to this country, and the only reason for that urgency was, that the Indian Exchequer might be saved the expense of those 700 men. In this country it would be a great expense and inconvenience to be removed suddenly; but there was much more when a removal was ordered from India to England, more especially when it was remembered that they were stationed in the Upper Provinces of India and were not relieved by other batteries who would have taken over their horses and stores at a valuation; and he therefore submitted that the officers were entitled to some remuneration for the loss they had sustained by the sale of their horses and furniture, and on account of the stores, a supply of which they were obliged to keep up. In two similar cases compensation bad been granted, and he hoped that in this instance an assurance would be given to the House that some remuneration would be given to the officers who had so materially suffered.

said, he should be unwilling to cast unnecessary expense upon the Indian Government, but that was a case in which very sudden notice was given, and the officers had been losers by that sudden notice, and their property had to be realized suddenly, and at whatever price they could obtain. It was an unfair system, especially when they considered it had been the custom heretofore to give several months' notice of removal, to order a regiment home on such unforeseen notice.

said, he must admit that the case cited—that of the two Hussar regiments summoned home in 1870, was, although not on all fours with the one which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel North) had just brought forward, sufficiently like it to be reasonably cited. The Hussars had, however, to leave at even shorter notice, and the Secretary of State in Council determined, as was mentioned some weeks ago, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Charles Wingfield)—first, that in their very exceptional case some indulgence might be granted; and, secondly, that that indulgence should not be allowed to make a precedent. Of the five batteries none had less, some had more than a fortnight's notice, whereas one Hussar regiment had only 10 days' and the other had only about 48 hours' notice. The Motion, therefore, went far to prove that in making the concession the Government did make to the Hussars they acted with doubtful wisdom. "Hard cases made bad law," and the moment a rule was relaxed in one case, others were brought forward, which came so near it that it was very difficult to show how they differed; for if a notice of 48 hours deserved consideration, then a notice of 10 days was pressed as deserving consideration; if that was admitted, then a fortnight's notice was put forward; then one of three weeks, and so it went on, till the rule disappeared altogether. After the Secretary of State in Council had, in compliance with the earnest recommendation of certain of the military authorities in this country, given compensation to the Hussar regiments, the Government of India pointed out very strongly the objection to what had been done as forming a dangerous precedent, and experience has proved that it was right. That being so, he trusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press the Indian authorities to go further, as he must see how incompatible was the course suggested with all military usage in this country, and, indeed, with all received principles of military administration. Moreover, the officers concerned were quite aware that the exigencies of the public service might at any moment compel them to make a considerable pecuniary sacrifice, if they were suddenly ordered to leave the place where they were stationed, and the unusually high pay of India must surely, in part, be set against the risk of such sacrifice. A well-known French author had written a book called Servitude et Grandeur Militaires. The liability to be sent now here, now there, with scant regard to personal convenience, was part of the darker side of a soldier's life—part of the servitude militaire. The soldier received much honour from and owed much consideration to the State, even to the Exchequer of the State. He must however say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made the most of the case, for if the batteries had not come home when they did, they must have come in the hot weather, unless kept in India nearly a year; and would that have been a smaller inconvenience? Then, as to the horses, even if they had been brought home—a thing which had never been allowed—they would have fetched but small prices here, and nothing was commoner than for officers leaving India in a hurry, to leave their horses to be sold afterwards. No one, he maintained, would think of pressing such claims as those upon the War Office, nor would the House support such a claim on our own Treasury; and we should not ask from India what we should despair of getting from the guardians of the public purse at home. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must know very well that questions of this kind were not decided directly by the Executive Government. They were decided by the Secretary of State and the Council of India—a body created by Parliament for the express purpose of defending the finances of India. That body was never so exactly fulfilling the functions for which Parliament called it into execution as when it was protecting the Indian Exchequer against pressure from powerful interests in this country, and it had surely a right to ask the House to support it on such an occasion as this.

said, that the question before the House formed a military grievance, and he thought that some military authority representing the Government ought to offer some explanation upon it. The argument of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India was a quibbling argument, which would not satisfy officers in the Army. There ought to be some explanation as to why the habitual notice in time of peace was not given in this case.

said, he could not help expressing his regret at the decision which the Under Secretary of State for India had announced as having been arrived at in the matter. Considering the small amount of compensation asked, it would, he believed, be only dignified and just to accede to the claim made.

said, he should be glad to learn what absolute necessity there was for giving such short notice to these five batteries in India. He was of opinion, that, if these batteries had received short notice simply to suit the convenience of the Government, and not because of absolute necessity, the Government was bound to compensate them.

said, that changes oftentimes, and, indeed, generally, involved a certain amount of inconvenience; but it would be a very dangerous precedent to set up, that on such occasions claims should be sent in for compensation. The regiments of cavalry differed in their circumstances from the batteries of artillery in this— that while the regiments were stationed close together, so that it was found extremely difficult to dispose of their horses and effects, the batteries of artillery were quartered at stations widely apart where there was no such difficulty. The notice given in the case of the batteries, too, was much longer than that given to the cavalry. The matter had received the attention of the Secretary of State for India in Council, and the decision complained of had not been arrived at without due consideration.