asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Minute of the Board of Supervision, dated the 8th May last, relating to Inspectors of Poor in Scotland, has or has not been found to be in excess of the statutory powers conferred upon the Board by the Act of the 8th and 9th Vic. c. 83; and, whether, in the event of this being the case, it is his intention to instruct the Board of Supervision to cancel the Minute referred to?

In answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I may say that in reply to an inquiry addressed to me by the Board of Education in Scotland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informed them that, in his opinion, the Minute issued by the Board of Supervision was beyond their powers, and that, so long as the Inspectors of the poor performed their duties "faithfully and efficiently," they had n power to deprive them of their appointments. In reply to the second Question, he begged to say that the Secretary of State had no power to instruct the Board of Supervision to cancel the Minute.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it be not the fact that the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland has been absent from duty about fifteen months out of the last thirty; and, if not, how many; and whether, during all that absence, he was allowed to draw command allowance and table allowance, while the duties and expenses for which these allowances are made devolved on others?

In order to answer the Question which has been put by the hon. Gentleman it has been necessary for the Adjutant General to refer to the general officer commanding in Dublin, and as soon as a reply is received from him I shall be in a position to give the information asked for.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to take measures to avert the imminent danger to Edinburgh, Leith, and neighbourhood, arising from the shipment of gunpowder at Newhaven Pier, and from the transmission of it from the manufactory to the pier, as now carried on, and as brought out in the Report of Major Majendie to the Government; and, if so, whether he is prepared to state what the measures are?

Major Majendie's Report, which was very full and elaborate, was received at the Home Office on the 26th of May, and forwarded to the Leith Harbour Commissioners on the:30th. The Report contained several recommendations for the purpose of diminishing the risk now incurred both in the conveyance of powder and its shipment. These are now under the consideration of the Commissioners. With respect to any danger which may arise from the conveyance of gunpowder in disregard of the provisions of the Gunpowder Act, it is the duty of the local authorities, not of the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps for enforcing the law.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether, under the provisions of "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872," a parent would be rendered a pauper by having his child or children provided with Elementary Education under the sixty-ninth section of that Act; and, if there is any dubiety as to this, whether he will take such measures as to make it clear for the guidance of parochial boards?

My attention has been called to the paragraph in the Minute of the Board of Education in Scotland which I presume has suggested the Question. When the Scotch Education Bill was under consideration in this House it was stated more than once that the payment of school fees under the clause referred to would not have the effect of rendering the parents of the child paupers. I expressed that opinion unhesitatingly, and I have expressed it to the Board of Education.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can give an assurance that, as a general rule, proprietors of, or public bodies interested in, lands ex adverse of the sea shore where Salmon Fishings belonging to the Crown are situate, shall have the refusal, of such Salmon Fishings; and, where exceptional circumstances appear to warrant a departure from such rule, that such proprietors or public bodies shall have full opportunity for representing their case to the proper department?

Sir, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests inform me that it would be inconsistent with their duty to give such an absolute assurance as my hon. Friend seems to desire; but they will give every consideration to ap- plications of proprietors of lands ex adverso of the sea shore wherever Salmon Fishings belonging to the Crown are to be let.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether at a recent examination of a school in Wiltshire the Government Inspector refused to allow the children to sing "God save the Queen," as being contrary to the principles of the 7th section of "The Elementary Education Act, 1870;" and, if so, whether such refusal has the sanction of the Committee of Council on Education?

Sir, in consequence of the information given to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I made inquiries in regard to this ease, which I had not previously heard of. I found that the Government Inspector did think it his duty to prohibit the singing of the National Anthem during the hours for secular education, as being contrary to the Education Act. I need not say that he, like every other Inspector, would, from feelings of loyalty, have had great pleasure in hearing the Anthem sung, but he thought its singing under the circumstances contrary to the Act. The opinion of the Department, however, is that it is not so, and we have informed the Inspector that he laboured under a mistake.

who had given Notice of his intention to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question with reference to a Return as to Recruits, said, In asking the right hon. Gentleman the Question that stands in my name, I am anxious it should not be assumed that any suspicion exists in my mind that the right hon. Gentleman personally gave any instructions to those who made these Returns that any Return should be made other than what was strictly conformable to the truth. I beg to ask the Secretary of' State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from Colonel Anson in the "Times" of the 24th instant, in which Colonel Anson states, with reference to a "Return of the age and chest-measurement of Recruits since July, 1870," presented to the House of Lords on the Motion of' the Duke of Richmond, that

"when the forms sent down to the various regiments to be filled up from their records were sent back, the Returns in some cases disclosed the fact that a certain laxity existed somewhere, and that men had been enlisted under regulation measurement. Where this was found to be the case, the Returns were sent back from the War Office with orders to the commanding officers to transfer the men enlisted under the regulation measurement from a column in the Return noting that fact to a column which showed them to be over the regulation measurement, and in such altered form was the Return presented;"

and, whether this statement is true; and, if so, what explanation can be given of the orders so sent to commanding officers to alter the figures with which they had filled up the column for chest-measurement in the Return?

Sir, when I saw the letter in The Times, I sent to the Adjutant General's Department for information upon the subject, and I am informed that the following are the circumstances of the case:—Under the Queen's Regulations the Commanding Officer of the regiment is bound to ascertain the chest-measurement of every recruit he passes, and no recruit is accepted who is below the regulation measurement without the special permission of His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. When the Duke of Richmond's Return was moved for, it appeared that in some regiments recruits had been accepted, without any application for that special permission, who were below the regulation measurement. When this became known at the Horse Guards, the following Memorandum was issued:—

said, with reference to the answer of the Secretary of State for War just given on this subject, he would ask, Whether, if an Officer connected with the War Office directed that false Returns should be sent in, he was merely to be told not to do so again?

; Sir, that is a Question which the hon. and gallant Member had better put upon the Paper, if he wishes to ask it. I have already stated how this error—and it is a grave error—occurred, and that steps have been taken to prevent its recurrence.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he will arrange to introduce his Irish Licensing Act Amendment Bill at an hour when it can be fully discussed, seeing that the honourable Member for Oxford has given Notice of an Amendment calculated to raise a Debate on the whole Licensing system?

in reply, said, he feared it would be impossible that his Motion could come on in time to enable the House to have a full discussion of the subject, and he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt) to re-consider his intention to raise the whole question of Licensing upon the Motion. Certain practical defects had been found in the working of the Licensing Act in Ireland which did not in any way touch the principle of the measure, and it was extremely desirable to remedy those defects; but if the Bill for this purpose was to be made the means of re-opening the whole policy of the Licensing Acts, he feared he should have no opportunity of proceeding with it.

said, if the Government would give him any other opportunity of raising the question of amending the English Licensing Act, he should be very happy to give the noble Marquess every facility for proceeding with the Bill; but if they could not hold out any hope of that kind, he was afraid he must persist in raising that question on the Motion of which the noble Marquess had given Notice.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that relations have been broken off with the Khan of Kalat, and that the roads in the direction of Quetta are stopped?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that no information has as yet reached us with respect to the alleged rupture with Kalat.

asked the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, Whether it is his intention to proceed with the Motion for the nomination of the Committee on the Zanzibar Mail Contract which stands amongst the Orders of the Day?

in reply, said, that the last time the question was before the House it came on in an extraordinary way, and at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, when there was no time to discuss it properly. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) thought that the Committee to be named should be named not in the ordinary way, but by the Committee of Selection, and subsequently it was proposed that the debate be adjourned. Now, he (Mr. Bouverie) knew that if an adjournment took place, he had no command of the time of the House, and therefore he had no possible chance of bringing it on again, and he stated then that he should give up the whole question; but since then the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, seeing that the question must be settled somehow, had given him precedence that night, when he hoped the question would come on in the ordinary way.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that the "Eleanor," one of the ships condemned as unseaworthy by the Board of Trade, has been sold to Norwegian owners, and has sailed away with British seamen on board?

in reply, said, it was true that the ship Eleanor, which had been declared by the Board of Trade to be unseaworthy, was sold to Norwegian owners, and she either had sailed or was about to sail away under the Norwegian flag. Whether she had British sailors on board or not he did not know; but if that were the fact, it would not give the Board of Trade power to stop her now that she was in her new hands. But he had communicated with the Foreign Office for the purpose of informing the Norwegian Government as to the history of the ship.

gave Notice that he would on that day week ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he had considered the advisability of introducing a clause into the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Bill to prevent the recurrence of such a transaction?

That clause is already in the Bill.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any Royal Warrant or Horse Guards General Order depriving certain Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Army who, by length of service become entitled to promotion and increased pay, of the privilege of reckoning the additional year's service towards pay and pension, granted to them by Her Majesty for service in connection with the relief of Lucknow, under Horse Guards General Order dated June 2nd, 1862, when the additional year's service, if allowed to reckon, would bring with it increased pay; if there is no such Royal Warrant or General Order, whether he will state to the House why it is that Officers have not been allowed to reap the advantages to be derived from this additional year's service; and, whether he will read to the House the Horse Guards General Order of the 2nd June, 1862 (Lucknow, 1, 1862,) granting this boon?

In reply, Sir, to my hon. and gallant Friend's first Question, I have to say that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no such Royal Warrant or Horse Guards General Order; but the question whether there is or is not is more properly one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's second Question, I have to say that I am not aware that any Officers have been deprived of any benefits with respect to the year's service to which he alludes, granted to them by Royal Warrant or Horse Guards General Order. In reply to his third Question, I shall have much pleasure in complying with his request to read the Horse Guards General Order of the 2nd June, 1862, of which I have obtained a Copy from the War Office; but before doing so I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that that document could have no sort of bearing on the Officers of the Indian Army who were at Luck-now, but only on those Officers of the British Army who happened to be there, except in so far as it may have been made specially applicable to the Officers of the Indian Army by the Government of India. This is the document—

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to an Institution called "The Cheque Bank;" and, whether he is of opinion that this Institution, if successful, will not tend to infringe the principle of the Bank Act?

Sir, the nature of these banks seems to be this:—They receive money on deposit, and against that deposit issue cheques which cannot be filled up with a greater value than-£10. These cheques are drawn payable either to the drawer or to the order of the drawer. My hon. Friend asks me whether I consider that such an institution interferes with the principles of the Bank Act. Now, Sir, the only principle clearly laid down with which I can think it would interfere is Section 11 of the 7 & 8 Vic., which says that bankers shall not issue bills, promissory notes, or Bank Notes payable on demand. These cheques, however, are not payable on demand; they are payable to the drawer or his order, and do not, therefore, come within the words of the section. They are, in fact, in the nature of Bills of Exchange which have not been accepted, and payment is coupled with the condition that there should be assets to meet them. It is not everything which economizes or dispenses with currency which contravenes the Bank Act, otherwise it might be objected that the general system of deposits economizes currency, and therefore contravenes the Act. The question really is, whether these notes are so much in the nature of Bank Notes that they do the duty of Bank Notes, and thereby infringe the Law. Now, I think this is not the case, because they are Bills of Exchange not accepted, and the nature of them is that the person holding them, if not paid, has no remedy against the person accepting them, but against the person who gave them to him. As the holder, therefore, has no remedy against the Bank, but only against the person who gives him the bill for payment, it is a matter of personal credit between these two persons, and the question of interfering with the currency does not arise.

Before I ask the noble Lord the Question which stands in my name, I wish to say a few words in explanation of it. In January or February last some logs of timber either from a derelict vessel or, coming direct from the Atlantic, drifted on a remote island on the coast of Galway, and the timber was taken in charge by the coast guards in the usual way with the assistance of some fishermen. Shortly after the coast guards had taken possession of it, some persons from the main island came in a boat and attempted to remove the timber, whereupon the coast guard fired upon these men, who were unarmed, and killed two and wounded several others. A Coroner's inquest was held on the dead bodies in due course, and in February I asked the noble Lord the Chief Secretary what steps were being taken on the part of the Government to investigate the circumstances of the case, to which the noble Lord replied that he could give no answer to my question until the result of the Coroner's inquest was known. The result of the Coroner's inquest was that the commander of the coast guards and the chief boatman were committed for trial on a charge of manslaughter, and they are now awaiting their trial for that offence. The principal witness against these persons at the Coroner's inquest —["Agreed."] This is a matter that refers to human life, and, therefore, I trust that the House will be patient. The Coroner's inquest was prolonged for a period of three months, but last month two of the principal witnesses, John Larkin and another, to whom my Question refers, were charged by the accused persons with perjury. ["Order!"] If necessary I will put myself into Order by concluding with a Motion. One of the accused persons having charged one of these principal witnesses with having committed perjury at the Coroner's inquest, and the resident magistrate who took these informations having committed the man to prison during the period of eight days, at a distance of thirty miles from where the alleged perjury had been committed. ["Order!"] As the House does not seem inclined to listen to me, I only say that the result is that the principal witnesses in a case of manslaughter have been committed on a charge of perjury, and the consequence is that the people in the neighbourhood are afraid to give evidence against the accused persons. Under these circumstances I wish to ask the noble Lord the Chief Secretary the following Question:—Whether he will explain the circum- stances under which John Larkin, a principal witness against the Coast Guard in the fatal occurrence at Letter-mullen, county of Galway, has been sent to prison on a charge of perjury, before the persons accused of manslaughter have been tried in the usual way; and, further, what action the Government is taking to insure a proper investigation into all the facts attending the use of firearms by the Coast Guard at Lettermullen?

in reply, said, that all the information the Government had received on the subject was that there was an investigation before two magistrates, and upon the deposition of two persons, supported by the evidence of five other witnesses, John Larkin was committed for trial in the regular way upon the charge of perjury, but was admitted to bail. As to the second part of the Question, the inquiry before the Coroner, which was extremely protracted, terminated in the committal to prison of an officer of the coast guard and one of the boatmen, and these men would be tried on the charge of manslaughter at the next Assizes. Pending the trial it was, of course, impossible for the Government to institute any general inquiry into the circumstances under which use was made of firearms on the occasion referred to. But even should the result of the inquiry be to show that the two men accused were not the persons who fired the shots, still, as there was no doubt that shots were fired, and that considerable loss of life resulted, the Government would think it necessary to institute a full and searching inquiry into the facts of the case.

moved—

"That the twenty-seven Orders of the Day following next to the Order for the Committee on the Rating (Liability and Value) Bill be deferred till after the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the nomination of the Select Committee on the Cape of Good Hope and Zanzibar Mail Contract."

What is the latest hour at which it will be taken?

It will be taken at a reasonable hour.

That is very unsatisfactory. After what hour will it not be taken?

The words "reasonable hour" have never received an exact definition in this House, and, with reference to the importance of the subject, the Government will take the most convenient opportunity for allowing the Order to come on.

What is the most convenient opportunity?

said, he did not understand the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) to complain of the course he took the other night as to the nomination of the Committee; but he felt that some explanation was due to the House. It was not till he entered the House on Monday that he ascertained there was a general feeling that the Committee as proposed by his right hon. Friend consisted of too many Members, and that it should be appointed by the Committee of Selection. Entertaining those views himself, and having regard to the hour at which the Motion was brought on, the only course open to him was to move the Adjournment of the Debate. Finding when he came down to the House yesterday that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had placed a Notice on the Paper with reference to the question, he considered that no further action was necessary on his part.

said, he must appeal to the Home Secretary to state distinctly at what hour he intended the Debate to come on.

said, it was extremely inconvenient to fix the hour exactly; because if by any accident the discussion on the Rating (Liability and Value) Bill were protracted five minutes beyond the hour named the Government might be charged with breach of faith in going on with the debate on the nomination of the Zanzibar Committee.

I confess that I am not satisfied.

I may state that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government assured me he intended to give an opportunity for this question to come on at a fair hour of the evening. I understood before 12 o'clock.

moved, in page 5, line 26, to leave out all after "The," to the end of sub-section 1, and to insert—

"occupier of any land shall, for the purposes of this Act, be taken to be the person entitled to the exercise of any right of fowling, shooting, sporting, or fishing on such land, although such right be severed from the occupation or ownership of the soil."

If this Amendment were adopted excessive disputes and excessive references to the assessment committee would be avoided.

said, that as the Bill stood this would he the first time that the right of shooting severed from the land was to be rated, and it would cover the case of a landlord who reserved the right of shooting, but who did not exercise that right or preserve game.

said, there was no doubt something in the criticism which the hon. Gentleman had just offered; but, practically speaking, the valuation which an assessment committee would put upon the right of sporting over an estate which was not exercised, and where there was no preserving, would be very nearly nominal. But if there was a right which was capable of being exercised, and was becoming of value some value must be attached to it, though it would probably be the minimum. The Amendment before the Committee had not met with much discussion, and he should content himself with referring to a subsequent Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), which appeared to raise a question well worth the attentive consideration of the Committee—namely, what person should be rated with reference to the enjoyment of the right of sporting. As far as he was concerned, he had gone on this line of argument—that the occupation of the land and the enjoyment of the right of sporting were not, as a matter of fact, commonly in the same hands. Those who enjoyed the right of sporting were not necessarily the occupiers of the land. If the owner occupied the land, he probably reserved the right of sporting; but there was no difficulty in that case, because the ownership, the occupation, and the right of sporting were all in the same hands. But suppose the owner of an estate had divided it into 20 different farms, occupied by 20 different tenants, but retained the right of sporting over it, or let the right to another person, his proposal was that in either case the owner should be rated. This proposal was founded on a principle of convenience, because the right of sporting might be let to one person or to a great number of persons. The hon. Member (Mr. Pell) proposed to rate the occupying tenant for the right of sport as if he enjoyed it on his own farm; but he thought the Committee would require more argument than they had yet heard to induce them to adopt that proposal, for it would place on one class of the community a liability they ought not to bear. His proposal, on the other hand, was that liability to pay rates in respect of the right of sport should fall on those who possessed and enjoyed that right, and it was only when it was let that the proprietor would, as a matter of convenience, be rated.

observed that the moment they got away from the simplicity of rating hereditaments and proposed to rate the right of "sport" and all sorts of rights they would get into confusion. Game was a product, and they did not rate products. Even in the case of underwood, they rated, not the underwood, but the land on which it was grown. His proposal was to apply that rule everywhere. Game of all products was the most likely to vary, not only with the seasons, but with the caprices of the owner; but whether the land grew corn, sheep, or hares, he would have but one simple assessment. The difficulties of assessing "rights" would be innumerable. It would be almost impossible for the overseer to collect the rate. He might not know where the game tenant lived, and he could not distrain his hares and rabbits. he hoped the Committee would adopt his simple proposal.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had created a monster. The "owner" was actually made "occupier" in order to carry out this proposal.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would adopt the excellent suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), which seemed to be the only one that would meet the difficulty. By the law of England game belonged to the occupier, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk would allow the assessment to proceed in every case on the supposition that the law was to be carried out in practice. The assessment committee would have only one person to deal with, and the value of the game would have to be settled as between the landlord and the tenant. In cases where there was very little game on the land, and where the owner reserved the right of sporting —and this was the ease in many counties of England—it was absurd to put a rate-able value on the reserved right and levy a separate rate.

said, he was glad these Amendments had been suggested on behalf of the tenant farmers by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read) and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). Everyone must know it was in the interest of the whole community that one person should be responsible for the payment of rates. This was the most simple and straightforward way of doing the business, and therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

agreed that the only practical way was to rate the occupier. If the owner were rated would they distrain upon the tenant because the owner had not paid? Again, if the shooting were let to a third person, how could they enforce the rate against him? Would they distrain upon another man's land for Ids default? Further, there were millions of acres in England which were not preserved, and on them any rate upon the shooting could only be nominal in amount.

said, it appeared to him that it would be utterly impossible for any assessment committee to apply the usual rule to hereditaments of so new and extraordinary a nature as those comprised under the name of game. It would be very difficult to arrive at a rateable value.

said, he thought it was a great mistake to cut up the land into these small allotments. Supposing a tenant had a farm of 20 acres and was rated for game, of course he could only be rated for those 20 acres, which would not be of much use to any person for sporting purposes. It seemed to him there was as much difficulty in rating the occupier as in rating the person who had the right of sporting.

said, the Committee had already passed a clause enacting that these incorporeal hereditaments should be rated when severed from the occupation of the soil. It was therefore of no use to go back to the earlier part of the Bill, and say it was inconvenient that one matter was to be subjected to two rates. The question arose as to who was to be rated—whether the person who was, in the ordinary sense, the owner of the land, or the person who was the tenant? He admitted that there might, in particular cases, be some difficulty in getting at either the owner or the occupier for the purposes of rating; but that was not a difficulty of the law, but of the application of the law. What the Committee had endeavoured to do was to settle what should be done by the local authorities in all cases of rating. The proposition of the Government had, at least, this convenience—that it did not enact an absolute rule, but said that the occupier or the owner might, according to the view of the assessment committee, be rated, leaving it to the assessment committee to settle each case according to its merits, and to rate the occupier or the owner, as appeared most convenient. It would have been impossible for the Government to have laid down a strict rule, which might, in many cases, be at variance with the facts.

said, that according to the wording of the clause to which the Attorney General alluded, the man who had the right of sporting was the person to be rated, and not the occupier. It seemed to him that that was an imperative clause, and not an optional one; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman now said the assessment committees were to choose between the tenant of the land and the person who had the right of shooting over it.

said, the proposition of the Government, as amended, was that the right might be either in the hands of the owner or of somebody who let it, and that the assessment committees would deal with each case as convenience dictated.

objected to the rating of game altogether, and he did not think that the matter was one that should be left in the hands of the assessment committee, who, in order to assess the rate fairly, would have to enter into laborious calculations as to the precise value of the game on every person's land. It would be better to require the occupier rather than the landlord to pay the rate.

said, the whole of the counties in England were not like the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, which abounded in game, and therefore could not bear to be rated in the same way as those two counties. In many districts in the North of England the game was worth little or nothing, and yet for that they had all degrees of preservation. If they began to rate for game in those districts, they would put it upon the assessment committee to find out that which it was almost impossible to discover.

explained that it was on behalf of those counties where little game existed that he was anxious to carry his Amendment.

objected to the rating of game as involving a double rate upon the land. It was quite a new principle to rate game if the owner let the shooting, but not to rate it if he kept the shooting for himself.

wished to know, in the case of a gentleman giving away the fishing on a river on his estate, who would be required to pay the rate in respect of it?

felt that there would be this difficulty in adopting the proposed Amendments—that the land would be rateable for no more than it was now, whilst the Bill declared that rating should be extended. Rating at present applied to the whole value of the land. Subject to this difficulty he agreed in the proposed Amendments.

pointed out that moors in such counties as Derby and York, in the neighbourhood of large towns, let at a higher figure for shooting than for pasture, and said the difficulty he felt was that under the Amendment the tenant would not be rated more highly for the moor when it was let for shooting than if it were let for pasture. On the whole, he thought it would be better to take the words of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) and leave the responsibility with the Government. It could hardly be expected that in the first year of rating these incorporeal hereditaments everything would go quite straight.

said, he was not disposed to leave the responsibility with the Government. He objected to sending the Bill to the country to be worked by assessment committees, while the House of Commons was itself unable to say absolutely what was the meaning of the clause. In his opinion, the rateability ought to be one and undivided, as was suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk.

said, that in the event of the land being let for shooting as well as for pasturage, he would let the assessment committee assess at the joint value; for instance, supposing it were let for 1s. 6d. an acre for pasturage and 1s. an acre for shooting, he would have it assessed at half-a-crown.

said, the advice of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) was very sound. He (Mr. Henley) put the case of a man refusing to pay the game assessment and inquired how the rate collector was to distrain. Was he to chase the hares as if they were so many Welsh sheep and impound them? This might, he considered, be a convenient way of making faggot votes, for all that an extensive landed proprietor had to do was to apportion out his shooting and sporting rights in sections of £15 each, when each of these tenants would as a matter of course come upon the Parliamentary register. He was afraid that if they passed the clause as it stood inconveniences would arise out of it which they by no means expected. He would suppose a man rated at 3d. in the pound for £5 valuation to be paid quarterly. How could they expect a rate-collector to waste his time in making those collections? The proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Poll) was a simple one, and he thought our forefathers were very wise in saying that the man who occupied the land must pay the burden upon it.

suggested that for the purpose of any poor rate the occupier of land should be the person rated in respect of any right of shooting, fishing, &c., but that such rating should not prejudice or interfere with any arrangement made between the landlord and tenant when such right was enjoyed separately from the occupation.

said, he did not see any inconsistency in adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), which he thought was the simplest way of meeting the difficulty. As to the moors of which the value for shooting was greater than for pasture, that was an exceptional case. The clause must be framed to meet ordinary cases, and the proposal of the hon. Member for South Norfolk seemed the best calculated to secure that purpose.

submitted that in the case of a common where the lord of the manor enjoyed both the right of sporting and the right of the soil he should be held to be the occupier under this Bill.

said, that in deference to the general feeling which appeared to prevail in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), he was prepared to accept that Amendment. He would also accept the Proviso of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), if it were slightly amended, by leaving out the words "for the purposes of this Act," and, at the end, the words "or ownership."

suggested another difficulty. In the event of one man being the lord of the manor and another the owner of the soil, which of them would be rated for the game?

said, he would consider whether some words might not be introduced with the view of meeting cases of that kind.

moved to add at the end of the clause the following—

"Provided, That the gross value of any land let or occupied by the owner for agricultural purposes shall be the full rent at which the land, irrespective of any reservation of game and timber, might reasonably be expected to let one year with another, free of all tenants' rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent charge if any. Provided always, That when any tenant shall pay any increase of rate by any such assessment of game or timber on any land which he may occupy under any lease or agreement at the time of the passing of this Act, he shall be entitled dining the currency or continuance of such lease or agreement to deduct from any rent he may pay for such land the amount of the increase of such rate from such rent, and the amount of such increase shall be fixed and determined by the assessment committee of the union in which the land is situate."

suggested that the second Proviso should be withdrawn, as his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Read) would see at a moment's reflection that the amount of increase in the rates could not be settled beforehand.

said, that the Amendment as it now stood would throw on the assessment committee the duty of arbitrating between landlord and tenant, which was something very different from what they were bound to undertake.

said, suppose a man was now assessed at 30s. an acre, and the assessment committee raised the assessment for the future to 31s., what he wished was that the committee should have the power to say that the additional shilling was put on for the purpose of assessing the game.

observed that the clause referred to the "Valuation Act, 1873," and would require to be altered in the event, which he considered very probable, of the Valuation Bill not passing during the present Session.

said, he did not at all despair of the Bill in question becoming law this Session. If, however, he saw reason hereafter for being less sanguine than he was on the subject, he would propose an alteration of the clause.

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

"and no mine shall be rated under this Act until a portion of the produce thereof shall have been conveyed away from it for the purposes of sale or manufacture."

The object of this Amendment was to protect those parties who were searching for minerals, and who might produce small quantities and lay them on the surface, and then have to abandon the work because of its not being likely to be remunerative.

objected to the Amendment, observing that one might just as well propose that no farm should be rated until the tenant had reaped his first crop.

moved, after Clause 7, to insert new Clause.

moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following Clauses:—

moved, as an Amendment to Mr. Stansfeld's proposed new Clause, "Application of Act to Ireland," line 1, before "This part of," to insert "Clause 6," and before sub-section 1, to insert—

"1. The expression Poor Rate Act shall mean and include the Act for the more effectual relief of the destitute Poor in Ireland, 1838,' and the Acts amending the same."

assured the hon. Gentleman that Government property in Ireland could not be exempted from taxation, when the present Bill abolished such exemptions in England. Separate Bills would be introduced for Scotland and Ireland, and every exertion made to pass them during the Session. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

wished to know whether the Bill repealing the exemptions in Ireland would be introduced and carried during the present Session?

said, he was afraid it would not be possible to carry a Bill through this Session; but Bills were being prepared which would give Ireland and Scotland the benefit of the same exemptions as England.

said, that after the assurance given by the right hon. Gen- tleman he should withdraw his Amendment.

moved, before Clause 12, to insert—

moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—

moved to add the words "or lead" after the word "copper."

suggested that the words "or zinc" should also be added.

said, that he had accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Cornwall with regard to tin and copper mines, because that hon. Member had in his opinion made out a good case for rating those mines in the manner proposed by the clause he was asking the Committee to assent to. But as to the extension of this Bill to lead mines he was satisfied there was a difference of opinion both in the House and in the country, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northumberland.

moved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 17:—

"Nothing in this Act or in the said recited Act of the forty-third year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth shall be deemed to render any person or persons or body corporate liable to be assessed or rated, either as owner or occupier, to any county, borough, parochial, or other local rates or cesses, in respect of any land, houses, or buildings, or parts of houses or buildings, in the United Kingdom, which shall be used exclusively as a hospital or infirmary for the relief of the sick poor, or for the transaction of the business relating to such hospital or infirmary, and shall yield no pecuniary profit to the governors, trustees, or other administrators of the charity aforesaid."

The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that charitable institutions had been virtually exempted from rating from the passing of the Act of Elizabeth until a recent decision in the House of Lords. In former discussions much stress had been laid on the fact that Chief Justice Holt had in the reign of Queen Anne decided adversely to charities; but this case was of no authority. The report of it occupied four lines only of print, and from the report itself it was evident that some artifice had been resorted to to escape from rating. But however this might be, it was clear that the Legislature, by whom the Act of Elizabeth was passed, contemplated the exemption of charities, for by one of the sections of that Act, a portion of the rates raised under it, were to be appropriated towards the support of hospitals for the relief of the poor. This view was adopted by Lord Mansfield in the cases of St. Luke's and St. Bartholomew's Hospitals, in the middle of the last century, and was thenceforth continuously acted upon. The principles, however, upon which Lord Mansfield's decisions were founded were carried beyond their legitimate consequences, and, in process of time, claims for exemption were made and allowed in the cases of land devoted to public purposes generally. This view was rejected by Lord Westbury in the case of the Mersey Docks Company, on grounds which were subsequently held by the Court of Queen's Bench to be equally applicable to charities. If this modern construction of the statute of Elizabeth was to be accepted as a true exposition of the law as at present existing, it was time that some sufficient steps should be taken to secure a recognition of the older construction, which had prevailed for upwards of 200 years, for public policy, and to a great extent public opinion was in favour of the exemption. The poor were the parties chiefly concerned, it was the poor who would suffer if the claim was rejected. He might refer by way of illustration to the case of St. Thomas's Hospital. It appeared from a Petition which he had presented from that hospital, that if the clause were not adopted they would have to contribute a sum of £3,000 a-year in the shape of taxation. The practical result would be the closing of no fewer than 140 beds out of 600. Now, of the 4,000 in-patients in the year, more than one-third came from the parish of Lambeth, and so also did more than one-half of the total number of out-patients. The parish, therefore, would have had to pay, but for the existence of the hospital, more for the relief of its sick poor than it would gain by the rating in question. If the principle of the Bill had been to impose liability to rating on property of all kinds he would have felt difficulty in pressing his Amendment; but the principle of exemption had been accepted by the Committee in the case of ragged and Sunday schools, and he hoped it would be extended to the case of hospitals and infirmaries.

opposed the clause. He regretted to hear the account his hon. and learned Friend had given of St. Thomas's Hospital, and hoped that he (Sir. Richard Baggallay) was right in saying that the proportion of patients he had referred to belonged to the poor of Lambeth, and not to a class who could afford to pay for medical aid. He could not think the Committee would be induced to change the resolution which they had arrived at on the question as to literary and scientific institutions by now introducing a number of exemptions which had not hitherto existed. It must be remembered that in that case an exemption was expunged; whereas now the proposition was to insert an exemption which did not obtain even under the present law. The principle of the Bill was to abolish exemptions, which meant that no person had a right to compel his neighbour in a given parish to subscribe to any charity he thought fit against the will of his neighbours in such parish. If instead of a large parish like Lambeth they took the case of a small parish in which a great hospital was built, extending over one-third or one-fourth of its entire space, on which rateable property would otherwise be erected, would they allow the governors, who at their own will selected the site, to compel the remainder of the occupiers of property in the parish to pay out of their own pockets an enormous contribution towards the maintenance of the hospital? That was virtually what they were asked to do. Suppose a railway came in and took possession of the site of a hospital, and the hospital was transferred to a new parish, was that parish to be taxed for its support? As regarded the exemption of the ragged schools, the Government objected to that exemption on principle, but had deferred to the majority by which the House expressed its opinion on a former occasion in favour of maintaining that particular exemption. That exemption, however, was of a totally different kind from the one before them, being entirely at the option of the parish. These hospitals for the sick were charities now maintained by voluntary contributions; but if the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend was accepted they would be maintained by involuntary contributions, and the parish of Lambeth, for example, would be taxed for St. Thomas's Hospital to the amount of £3,000 a-year. But we could not possibly tax people for the maintenance of an institution over the government and expenditure of which they had no control whatever. He hoped the Committee would not be led away by feelings of benevolence, which were so easily indulged at the expense of other people, to accept the clause.

said, he thought the able legal argument of the Solicitor General cut both ways, and cut very strongly against himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the case of a small parish in which a body of benevolent persons might erect a hospital, and said that if you exempted the establishment it would be at the expense of the inhabitants; but supposing those benevolent persons took off the streets of that parish a large number of sick poor who were previously chargeable upon its rates, surely in that case the existence of the hospital would relieve the ratepayers. He should certainly support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Richard Baggallay.)

asked if they were to indulge in feelings of benevolence in the case of hospitals where were they to stop? There were many of these institutions supported by a few benevolent persons while the bulk of the people rendered no assistance. But if the Committee decided that the public should pay, they must give them control over the management.

contended that the argument of the Solicitor General was founded upon an entire fallacy. Hospitals were not property in the same sense as those establishments which yielded a benefit to an individual occupier. It was therefore begging the question to say that if they did not rate them they would be imposing a tax upon the rest of the community. This was not a Bill to extend the area of rating, but to alter the law in respect to it. Where an order to clear the site for the building of a hospital, property which had been contributing to the local Exchequer was removed, the hospital which took its place ought to contribute to the rates; but otherwise those institutions ought to be exempted from local taxation. For these reasons he would support the clause.

agreed with the Solicitor General. In York there was a large hospital which received patients from all parts of the country. It was situated in one small parish, and property having been cleared for its erection which formerly contributed to the rates he did not see on what ground of justice it could be exempted from rates. There was a second large hospital in another small parish of the same city, as to which the circumstances were precisely the same. Li fairness to the ratepayers they ought both to be rated. In the case of the ragged schools there was simply power given to the parish to exempt from rating, whilst in the instance now under consideration an absolute exemption was asked for.

said, that the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) were altogether exceptional. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) thought hospitals deserved all the support which could be given to them. They were essential to the benefit of the country, and he should vote for the clause of his hon. and learned Friend.

said, the question was whether hospitals were entitled to a forced support levied upon the poor by means of removing the rates of the establishment to other persons' shoulders. He did not think that an exemption coupled with such consequences should find support in the Committee; and he hoped that the Government would resist the Amendment. The exemption in favour of Sunday and ragged schools was one for which the people and not the House were responsible.

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) would rate the Pyramids of Egypt if they were in this country; or, perhaps, if it were brought under his notice, he would rate the Duke of York's column. He (Mr. Birley) saw no beneficial occupation in a hospital which could bring it within the area of taxation according to the statute of Elizabeth. If a hospital was unable to pay the rates, was a collector to distress upon the beds of the patients or the bottles of the dispensary? All the great jurists had held that hospitals were exempt, and until the decision of the House of Lords in the Mersey Docks case, hospitals had been established upon that understanding. Hospitals should not be rated until it was shown that such establishments contributed to produce burdens upon the poor rates.

supported the clause, and said that though a hospital did not directly tend to increase the poor rate it certainly maintained within its walls many persons who would otherwise have been chargeable upon their own parishes. It was hard that the parish in which a hospital stood should be burdened for the benefit of other parishes.

observed that this was simply a proposition to continue an old exemption, not to create a new one, and he should vote for the exemption.

said, the argument that hospitals should be exempt because they were useful public institutions was open to considerable objection, because there was a great variety of hospitals, and some were well and some badly managed. But admitting the general proposition, if they took land for a hospital which otherwise would pay rates and exempted it, they clearly made a deduction from the rateable value of a parish and enforced a contribution to the hospital of that amount. It was also impossible to prove that a hospital for the sick poor in any degree relieved a parish from a portion of the rates or of the cost of maintaining its poor. The tendency might even be in the other direction. A hospital or other charitable institution planted in a given locality attracted to that locality poor persons who, sooner or later, expected to benefit from it. Did anyone suppose that the establishment of St. Thomas's Hospital on the other side of the river did not attract a poor population to the neighbourhood? Permissive exemption had existed ever since the Act of 14 & 15 Vict. It was then enacted that—

"The guardians of any union or parish may, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, pay out of any fund of such union, or in the case of the parish out of the fund in the hands of such guardians, any sum of money as an annual subscription towards the support and maintenance of any public hospital or infirmary for the reception of sick or disabled persons or persons suffering from any permanent or natural infirmity."

said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman must have very much amused the Committee, because he gravely stated that wherever hospitals were built paupers would come to live near them. The right hon. Gentleman might as well have argued that wherever you constructed a cemetery people would come to live near it for the purpose of dying. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the existence of a permissive provision enabling the local authorities to contribute towards the exemption of hospitals from rating; but it was a matter entirely at the discretion of the Poor Law Board, which always refused its assent when applications of that kind came before it. [Mr. STANSFELD said, the hon. Member was mistaken.] He (Mr. Muntz) contended that it was absurd to exempt places of religious worship from the rate, and fix it on hospitals. What was religious worship to one was gross idolatry or heresy to another, and the most pestilential doctrines of Mormonism or any other "ism" might be preached, and the preachers charged what they liked at the doors, and yet they were to be exempted; while the hospitals, which were founded entirely on Christian principles, were to be taxed. He maintained that the popular feeling was decidedly in favour of the exemption of hospitals from rating, and would on that assertion challenge any Member in public meeting in any town in England. The Act of Elizabeth never intended to charge poor rates upon charitable institutions; and feeling, as he did, very strongly upon it, he should support the exemption clause.

supported the Amendment, believing that the rating of hos- pitals would have the effect of restraining the contributions of the rich towards their support.

asked in whom the beneficial occupation of a hospital rested?

said, he would put the case of the Chester County Hospital. There were 64 parishes in the Union. Why should that hospital in Chester be supported at the expense of those 64 parishes? Upon what principle of justice were all the parishes within that union to be made to contribute compulsorily for the relief and support of that institution which was for the benefit of the whole county of Chester, and not only so, but likewise for the county of Flint? There were many other arguments against the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman to prevent the Committee from adopting it. In the first place, he contended that the present state of the law was satisfactory and sound, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) completely broke down when he came to this vital point. The president of the Local Government Board showed that the existing law empowered the representatives of the local committees, who were able to judge of all the circumstances of the case, to subscribe at the public expense to the local hospitals. But then it was subject to the consent of the Local Government Board, and the hon. Member for Birmingham said that the Poor Law Board refused its consent. The President of the Local Government Board, who was at the head of that Department, denied this, and said that applications made to the Poor Law Board of the present Government had been acceded to. [Mr. MUNTZ said he had referred to a previous time.] It was in that state of the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Baggallay) proposed a clause insisting that by this enactment they should make every local community subject to a compulsory tax for the maintenance of these hospitals. Was that desirable, or was it not? The hon. and learned Gentleman moved mainly in the interest of the rich and endowed hospitals which possessed £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, and in at least one instance he believed more than £50,000 a-year. Not content with such incomes, he contended that they should by Parliament be allowed to tax the community. He did not think those hospitals were managed with the economy they ought to be. He would not name the hospitals, but he would give the hon. and learned Gentleman the names if he wished. A short time ago there were two hospitals in London which relieved with equal efficiency as nearly as possible the same number of cases annually; but with this difference, the one relieved them out of an income of £15,000, and the other out of an income of £30,000 a-year. That was the income of the endowed hospital, and it was to that income the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to add £3,000 a-year by compulsory taxation on the community. Was that rational? When they had a law by which the local authority could tax the community for these purposes, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, was Parliament to interfere and over-ride that authority and tax local communities for the support of those great wealthy endowed bodies, which undoubtedly did a great deal of good, but he would say fearlessly at a much greater cost than need be. He did not even admit that voluntary hospitals stood on different grounds, or that they should be supported by taxation imposed by the will of Parliament. Taxation by exemption was essentially vicious. When people were taxed it was desirable they should know it, but exemptions hid from the people the fact that they were taxed. Where there was public taxation there ought to be public control. He was the oldest Governor of Guy's Hospital, and he wanted to know why the community in the neighbourhood should be taxed for its support, having nothing to say in its management, and no control over it? But that was the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If an amendment of the law were required, should it not be in the direction of striking out the veto of the Poor Law Commissioners? His hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) desired no doubt to be consistent with the principles he had laid down; but, if so, that was an Amendment to which he would not object. With respect to the main question, he hoped the Committee, considering the power contained in the existing Act, would not accept a measure so retrogressive as that now proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. His hon. Friend said he was ready to meet his opponents at the hustings. If he were, let him vote in favour of the voluntary principle to this extent—namely, to place in the hands of the Guardians the power to decide whether the different localities should be taxed in the manner now proposed.

said, he was prepared at any convenient time and place to accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman and discuss the circumstances of the two hospitals which he had referred to; and in reference to the one which expended £30,000 a-year, the Committee must bear in mind that the large endowed hospitals not merely received the sick poor, but were also engaged in preparing, by their medical schools, a large number of well educated professional men to go forth into the world. With regard to Chester Hospital, and other hospitals in large towns, the parishes which were taxed would derive a larger amount of benefit by the relief of their sick poor than they would by the taxation. The clause which he proposed did not provide for absolute exemption; it only provided that nothing in this Act, or in the Act of Elizabeth, should make hospitals and infirmaries liable to rating, the Act of Elizabeth being included in order to remove the doubts raised as to the extent of that Act by the judgments of the House of Lords in the cases of the Mersey Dock Company, and Gray v. the University of Edinburgh. The only part of these institutions which his clause would relieve from liability to rating under these Acts was that which was entirely devoted to the purposes of the sick poor. The principle of exemption had been recognized in the case of ragged and Sunday schools; he asked the Committee to extend that principle to the charitable and deserving institutions the subject of the clause.

said, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had asked him to be consistent. He was consistent, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be the same. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that he was prepared to leave the question of rating hospitals in the hands of the Guardians and other local authorities. So also was he, and he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed the clause (Sir Richard Baggallay) would be so too. If an undertaking were given that on the Report the powers conferred on the Poor Law Board would be struck out of the Bill, he was sure the clause would be withdrawn.

observed that the control of the Poor Law Commissioners was salutary as a check, and would not be exercised to nullify the operation of the law. If the hon. Gentleman could show that the board had exercised the veto improperly he should be inclined to agree with him.

said, that these institutions were of infinitely more benefit to the localities in which they were immediately situated than they were to the outlying districts. In addition to this, the immediate locality had the advantage of supplying all the stores wanted by the hospital.

said, he lived close to Chester Hospital, but in a parish which was not in Cheshire. His district derived the greatest benefit from the county hospital, but would not have to pay one farthing towards its maintenance in return for the advantage it received.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman on the second reading of the Bill had stated there were certain Government properties which he did not propose to make subject to rates, and especially alluded to the Royal Parks, he wished to point out that those Parks would distinctly come within the purview of the Bill if it remained in its present shape. He therefore desired to ask whether before the right hon. Gentleman took any further steps, he proposed to bring in a scheme for the exemption from rating of any portions of Government property. He was also anxious to draw attention to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not propose to interfere in any way with the statutory bargains made with respect to property taken over for Government purposes in regard to rates. With respect to the land purchased for the New Courts of Justice, if it were to continue to be rated as heretofore the amount would be about £4,000 a-year. They all knew that a large sum was about to be expended upon building a Palace of Justice on that site—probably £1, 000, 000—but according to the right hon. Gentleman's plan, the parish in which the land was located would only receive the commuted sum of £4,000 a-year. That he thought was quite right; but take the case of the Houses of Parliament. These buildings cost £3,000,000, and the parish in which they stood would be entitled to require that an assessment should be placed upon them somewhat in accordance with their value and cost. The same remark would apply to Chelsea Hospital, the Horse Guards, the Treasury, and other buildings of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman had by this Bill opened the door to attacks upon the public purse which might well be avoided, and he wished to know what he intended to do in this matter.

said, he thought they would be in a better position to discuss the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman when the Bill, as amended in Committee, was reprinted for the purposes of Report. He, however, did not intend to touch any of the statutable bargains which had been made in reference to particular properties, for if he had done so he could hardly have hoped to pass the Bill this Session.

protested against the assumption that this House should be assessed upon the cost of its construction. If a man spent £500,000 in building a mansion and impoverished his descendants to future generations, the mansion ought not to be assessed on that account on the cost of construction.

moved, as an Amendment—

"That the Committee do consist of Seven Members, Five to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and Two to be added by the House."

He wished it to be clearly understood that in making this proposal he was actuated, not by any invidious feeling towards those hon. Members whose names had been proposed by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), but by a desire to act strictly in conformity with precedent. In his opinion, the Committee ought to be chosen by the especial machinery provided for this purpose in the form of the Committee of Selection. In former times, Committees of this nature were chosen by the Committee of Elections; but since the House had surrendered its jurisdiction over Election Petitions, the Committee of Selection had generally nominated five, and the House itself two of the Members of the Select Committees. In the ease of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances relating to the Inman and Cunard contracts which he, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had entered into in 1868, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), it was ordered that five Members of the Committee should be nominated by the Committee of Selection and two by the House. That Committee was so nominated with the consent of the present Government, and he submitted that the present was on all fours with that case, and that, therefore, the precedent then set should be now followed.

said, that this was a matter which, except as a question of precedent as to the mode of appointing Select Committees, was really not of much importance. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) had suggested itself to him before he had brought forward his Motion for the appointment of the Committee, and he should have been glad had it recommended itself to his judgment, because had it been adopted he should have been relieved from the very invidious and ungrateful task of himself selecting the names of those who should serve on the Committee. He had, however, discovered that there were great objections to its adoption. In the first place, the Committee of Selection strongly objected to having this duty cast upon them. The right hon. Gentleman was accurate in his statement of facts connected with the precedent that he had referred to; but the decision of the House in that case had not been arrived at deliberately, after mature consideration by the House, but hastily, on the spur of the moment, in consequence of hon. Members opposite having declined to serve on the Committee. Moreover, on one or two previous occasions a similar proposal had been rejected by the House on the ground that the Committee of Selection had been appointed for a totally different purpose—that of nominating Members of Select Committees on Private Bills. In this instance the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no objection whatever to the hon. Members whose names he had submitted to the House, and who were gentlemen of unexceptionable character, bearing considerable weight in that House. The first name on the list, that of Mr. Dodson, was one universally respected in that House, and that Gentleman happened to be a Member of the Committee of Selection, who could not, therefore, have selected him to perform the duty he was so well calculated to discharge—that of Chairman of this Select Committee. He was aware that objections had been taken to the proposed constitution of the Committee on the ground that it was highly desirable that members of the legal profession should have been appointed; but he did not consider it a question for lawyers at all, and he deprecated the principle of referring subjects even of a simple character on all occasions to lawyers. As the poet Gay had said—

"We know that lawyers can with ease Twist words and meanings as they please,"

All they wanted in the Committee was good sound sense, honesty, and independence. He was sure that those qualities would be found in the names already placed upon the list. He had originally contemplated proposing a Committee of five Members; but, in consequence of what had occurred with reference to the Committee appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. O'Keeffe, when the House appointed seven in order that the Chairman should not have too great a preponderance, it had occurred to him that seven would be a better number than five. He had originally contemplated appointing two more members to represent the opposing views of this subject, and without votes; but then it was suggested that they might as well vote, as they would always vote contrary ways and thus neutralize each other. He had accepted this suggestion, and as both these Members sat on the same side of the House, he had thus destroyed the original balance of the Committee between the two sides of the House. But he did not think this was a question between one side and the other. It was a question as to what were the facts, and they would be easily ascertained by seven or eight Gentlemen of honourable and independent minds. He did not think it mattered whether the Committee was nominated by the Committee of Selection or by the House; but if the names he submitted met with acceptance it would be best to adhere to the usual practice, and to allow the Mover for the Committee in this case himself to nominate it, rather than to follow a precedent adopted in a hurry, and which was protested against by the Committee of Selection.

said, he had very little to say on the subject. The Government should be very happy with either of the two alternatives proposed. He knew of no substantial objection to be taken to the one or the other. The precedent quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) was perfectly fair and unexceptionable; but the Resolution was adopted at a moment's notice, and that diminished its weight as a precedent. He should have been glad if there had been such an indication of opinion on the part of the House as would have enabled the Government to judge what was the prevailing sense of the House upon the subject, for by such indication they would have been guided. But if the House should remain mute, and give no utterance of their opinion before they went to a division, he thought, considering that the right hon. Member (Mr. Bouverie) had been at the pains to make a selection, which on all hands was admitted to be unexceptionable, and the Gentlemen had been requested to serve, he should be inclined to vote with his right hon. Friend, at the same time declaring that they did not object to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite if the House thought fit to adopt it.

said, the House in considering this question should have regard to possible future proceedings. There could be no doubt that the names proposed were those of Gentlemen of character and position who would deal with the subject with ability and justice. If this Committee was appointed the House would feel sure that the inquiry would be conducted in a manner which was satisfactory and creditable. But the important consideration was whether it was a tribunal which would command public confidence. There had been many occasions on which the House had proceeded, not on the principle of allowing a Member of the House to submit a number of names to to be voted upon—and with respect to whom it was always rather delicate and invidious to vote—but of arranging these matters by the intervention of an intermediate body. It was stated in Sir Erskine May's book on the Law and Practice of Parliament, to which they had been accustomed to look as authority of late years—

"Where the inquiry has been of a judicial character it has been usual to delegate the nomination of a Committee to the General Committee of Elections."

A good number of cases occurring between 1848 and 1864–5 were mentioned. No doubt an impression prevailed that Committees named by the House were constituted by private arrangement, and when a list was presented it was difficult to vote upon it without appearing to reflect on the names it embraced. The proposal to refer the choice of names to the Committee of Selection was met by the reply that they existed for a wholly different purpose, and that they were not particularly well fitted for the duties of the former General Committee of Elections, which, indeed, might be disagreeable to them. As the Committee was not likely to be renewed, was the House to abandon nomination through an intermediate body? That was the question rather than the eligibility of the names submitted. It seemed to him more desirable to conform to the old practice than to set it aside by making a precedent which might be found inconvenient in the future.

remarked that the practice of referring to a Committee upstairs the appointment of a Select Committee was comparatively modern, and ought to be restrained within precise limits. It had been adopted when the characters of Members of the House were involved, or when the questions at issue were of a similarly delicate nature, which it was thought desirable should be investigated by a body appointed in a judicial manner. The present inquiry related to a matter of primary interest to the House—namely, the proper expenditure of public money; there was nothing in it of a delicate nature, and he did not think it was necessary to delegate the appointment of the Committee. On the contrary, it was the duty of the House to take upon itself the responsibility of appointing this Committee. Here, there was no question involving the character of any of the Gentlemen concerned in the transaction, for during the discussions he had heard on the subject not a shadow of an imputation had been cast on the motives of any GI the parties concerned in making what, according to the present impression in the House, was an improvident contract. He saw nothing which ought to induce the House to depart from the practice of appointing a Committee in the ordinary way. The General Committee of Elections that formerly existed was certainly a very convenient tribunal, it being constituted for the express purpose of nominating gentlemen to try judicial questions. He would suggest that in a future Session the Committee of Selection might be advantageously reconstituted with a view to particular exigences.

as a Member of the Committee of Selection, thought that tribunal ought not to be charged with the duty of nominating a Committee on this subject. The business of the Committee of Selection was to choose gentlemen to consider Canal, Railway, Gas, and other Private Bills, and there was, in fact, no reason why all its Members should not be taken from either side of the House exclusively.

in rising to move the Vote for Public Education, said, the Vote showed a considerable decrease on that of last year. The sum which he was about to ask for was £1,299,603, or in round numbers £1,300,000. That showed a decrease on the Vote of last year of £101,952. There was an increase in three items of £11,000–£4,500 for Inspectors, it having been found necessary to appoint four additional Inspectors; £1,000 on new extra grants, under Section 97 of the Act of 1870; and £5,390 for training colleges, in consequence of the large increase in the number of students, which he felt sure the Committee would not be disposed to regard with regret. There was a decrease of £509 for the Central Office, of £13,000 in the sum allowed for the working of the Act, and of £52,900 for building grants, in consequence of the buildings not having been erected as quickly as might have been possible, though, perhaps, as quickly as could reasonably have been expected. In making the Estimate last year, however, it was deemed desirable to take every contingency into account, and to err, if at all, on the safe side. There was a decrease of £12,500 in the sum for night schools, which was chiefly owing to the new regulations adopted with regard to these schools. He regretted on account of their good social effect that night schools should have been diminished; but they were social rather than educational institutions, and he was still of opinion that the House had done right in stipulating by the new regulations that the money expended on edu- cation should be really given for educational results. He came, in the next place, to a considerable decrease of £34,000, which was due to the day schools. The reason of the decrease was that matters did not get on quite so quickly as had been thought possible, and that it had, as he had before stated, been deemed wise to err on the safe side. Taking that view, there had been an over-estimate last year; but, notwithstanding, nearly the same amount was asked for in the present. That was done because there were good grounds now for being confident that the Act was getting into work; that the number of schools was increasing, and the number of scholars, and, as a consequence, the number who had to be paid. He found that the increase since August was very considerably greater than for the corresponding period last year, and that new schools were coming in very quickly. From 1862 to 1869, the average number of new schools brought under Government inspection and receiving Government grants in England and Wales was 492 each year. In 1870, the number was 1,114; in 1871, 1,353; and in 1872, 1,530. It was found in addition that the attendance was greatly on the increase, and it was only due to those gentlemen throughout the country who were engaged in the working of the school boards with such devoted energy that he should give two or three facts to show the results of their labours. He found that in Stockport the average attendance had increased 15 per cent since compulsion was introduced, and in Bath 17 per cent. In Manchester the weekly average attendance had increased 36 per cent in 15 months; while in London the average increase had been in the two years ending last December 36,041, and in Hull 3,580 since February, 1872; while in Leeds the average attendance had increased since 1869 to 8,475, or 63 per cent. As yet the increase had not told in the Returns published in the yearly Estimates; but it was an increase which was telling in the inspection which was now going on from month to month. The monthly increase in the actual payments as compared with last year furnished very striking facts as regarded the larger number of schools and the larger average attendance, and he believed he might safely put the average number of attendances this year at 1,557,910. In 1869—the last year previous to the passing of the Act—the number of average attendances was 1,062,999, so that there had since been an increase of 500,000, or 50 per cent. The actual results, he might add, of inspection in England and Wales were as follow: — The number of departments of day schools inspected in 1872 was 14,101; the day scholars present at examination, 1,607,511; the average attendance at the day schools, 1,336,158. Those scholars were taught by 14,771 certificated teachers, 1,646 assistant teachers, and 21,297 pupil teachers. The population of England and Wales had increased from 1869 to 1872 5½ per cent, and during the same time the number of day scholars instructed 24½ per cent; the scholars present at examination rather less than 21 per cent; the average attendance rather more than 25 per cent; the certificated teachers also rather more than 25 per cent; and the pupil teachers more than 70 per cent. That was the increase up to last year; but the present would show a much larger proportionate increase—a very pleasing fact so far as the progress of education was concerned, but one which would necessitate next year probably a much larger Bill. He did not wish the Committee to suppose that the increase which he had just mentioned did not still leave much to be done. In 1872, the population of England and Wales might be put at about 23,000,000, and, as far as he could estimate, we should aim at an average attendance at elementary schools of about 3,000,000. Our schools would now hold 2,300,000, which, as the Committee would see, would leave a large deficiency in the accommodation, which ought to be considerably in advance of the average attendance. Some of the deficiency with regard to school accommodation was no doubt already supplied; and one of the good results which had followed the inquiries instituted under the Act was that, even in cases where the managers had not thought fit to come under Government conditions, they had in several respects improved their schools, and were improving them, so as really to supply education; while also a larger number of those schools were every day coming under the conditions of Government aid. The building grants, when completed, he estimated would give room for 300,000 more children than they had before. That was without touching the large sums being expended by the different school boards in building schools, taking advantage of the means of obtaining money through the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The London School Board was at work now for 100,000 children, a number which that Board itself, and the Education Department also, believed was the least they could start for, being considerably under the deficiency given by the actual Returns. Besides the case of London, the Department had already recommended loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners that would afford accommodation for at least 115,000 more children. The Committee would, perhaps, expect a few words as to the progress made in getting the Act into operation. Taking the Census of 1871 as his basis, the population of England and Wales might, in round numbers, be divided somewhere in this fashion:—In the metropolis and in boroughs, 9,800,000; and in 14,082 civil parishes not in the metropolis and boroughs, 12,900,000. For this population of 22,700,000 there were school boards in London and in all the larger boroughs–103 in number—for 8,500,000 of the population; and also school boards in 445 civil parishes, which, although a small proportion in number of the 14,082 he had mentioned, yet comprised a very considerable number of the larger of those parishes. There were school boards in these parishes for 1,500,000 of the population, so that altogether there were school boards for 10,000,000 of the population, leaving 12,700,000 without school boards. The Committee must not suppose that those places were now either without education or without great efforts being made to give it; but, undoubtedly, it was the business of the Department and the object of the Act that in all those parishes there should be strict inquiry as to whether there was sufficient education or not. The only part of the country where it was not necessary to make an inquiry before ordering the adoption of a school board was in the metropolis, in which it was decided to have such a board at once. In the rest of the country school boards were to become necessary if there were no other means of supplying the deficiency. The large towns and several of the large parishes had of their own accord declared that they would rather meet the requirements of their position by voluntarily forming a school board. With regard to the other parishes, it had been the duty of the Department to make inquiry and to act according to the results of that inquiry. Some hon. Members might think that process took rather longer time than it need do; but those who had practically to conduct it found that it proceeded as quickly as could reasonably be expected. It might have been possible to have put on more Inspectors, and covered the country at once with a larger staff; but there was a limit to the extent to which any Department could carry on work of that kind, because difficult points were constantly arising which had to be decided by two or three persons at its head. The permanent heads of his Department had done as much work as it was possible for any human being to do in the time, and he did not believe it could be done much, if at all, quicker with a due regard to doing it well. It was no slight task to institute a searching inquiry throughout the kingdom. That inquiry came to an end in the Spring of last year. The first notices were issued on the 16th of May, 1872. By the 31st of May, 1873, they had published the notices for 8,551 districts, and they hoped to complete those notices in August, or within 16 months of their commencement. The Committee might be interested to hear that of those 8,551 notices, as regarded 3,465, or about 40 per cent, the amount of accommodation was sufficient; and in regard to 5,086, or about 60 per cent, it was more or less deficient. Of those last, in respect to 2,817 they found strong reasons to order a union of parishes, and they had sent out notices that they should be formed into 989 united districts. Out of the 8,500 and odd parishes they had dealt with up to the 31st of May last, although they found 5,000 deficient, he should mislead the Committee if he did not state that in many cases the deficiency was very slight and would be easily filled up, while it was impossible to say to what extent it might be filled up even where it was rather large. So much for the working of the Act. With reference to the report of the examination, it was impossible this year to compare the results of the examination with those of the previous year, because they had not got a year of the New Code with which to compare this year. The New Code introduced a considerable change in the mode of examination one most important alteration being that the age for infants was raised from six to seven. The consequence was an apparent diminution in the number presented for examination. Then the standards of examination were a step higher than last year, and the number of attendances demanded was also larger. Therefore, they were not in a position to compare the results with any previous year. He should be interested, however, in comparing next year with this. In one respect such a comparison might be expected to be rather discouraging. As the school boards and the voluntary managers succeeded in sweeping up the neglected children of the country, they must necessarily bring down the average results of the examination; and they must bear that in mind in justice to the teachers; for nothing was more arduous than to deal with a big boy or girl who was brought into the school utterly untaught; and in some cases the number of such children would lower the general result; but it must not, therefore, be imagined that good work was not being done. As to special subjects, they were making to some extent satisfactory progress. Of 118,799 children presented in standards 4 to 6, the three higher standards, 71,507 were examined in one or more special subjects, and of those 18,958 passed in two subjects, and 30,515 in one subject. Thus about 50,000 out of 71,000 passed their examination in special subjects. This educational business was and must be hard work. Sometimes they seemed to be making very little progress; but, on the whole, he believed their progress was considerable, and also sound and sure as far as it went. They had three great problems to solve?—First, to get the schools; second, to get the children into the schools; and third, to get as much teaching as possible for them during the time they were at school. Their first problem they were very quickly solving. They would speedily have schools throughout the kingdom. The attendance also was increasing, though it was still deficient. They had in that respect to contend with the very prosperity of the country, because work competed with education. Yet they were making progress, and he trusted the House would take measures to insure its being still more rapid. Then he came to what was to be taught to the children. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) took great interest in that. He entirely agreed in principle with the hon. Baronet. The principle he would lay down was that they should aim not merely at giving the children elementary instruction in reading, writing, and ciphering, but strive to teach them everything useful which they could learn during the time they could keep them at school. He believed that under the present Code the children of the poorer classes would receive education from which they had before it existed been practically excluded. They should not, however, go too fast. The foundation should first be laid—the elements of education be imparted before they could hope to go further. They had the encouraging example of Scotland before them, and it was one which he trusted they would follow. With respect to the sum asked for Scotland, he had only to say that, the Scotch Act having only been passed last Session and the New Code only now coming into operation, it was not probable that a larger grant would in consequence be required for Scotland during the current year. He expected this to be the case, judging by the English precedent; but should this turn out to be a mistake, a supplementary vote would be asked for next Session. He hoped the Committee would vote the sum for which the Government asked.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken—whether there was, under the present regulations, any provision made for the examination of masters for certificates in schools which had not hitherto received a grant from the Government? He believed that in the last Code proficiency in teaching music had been rendered an essential qualification in the examination of masters of elementary schools. Admiring, as he did, music as much as any man, he did not think that music formed such an element of education as should render the capacity to teach it an essential qualification for a certificate to the master, or for a grant to the school. He wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman thought on the subject?

complained of the inadequacy of inspecting power in the town of Liverpool, and of the disadvantages in an educational point of view resulting therefrom. There were 157 schools to be inspected, and there was but one Inspector, who had one assistant. He would suggest the appointment of supernumerary Inspectors, who would by their training become fitted for the higher office.

said, he was of opinion that everybody must have been satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, and he believed the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) must now see that education was progressing favourably, notwithstanding the fact that school boards were not general throughout the country. He thought that much more would be done by encouraging voluntary effort than by compulsory education. He disapproved, however, of taking away anything because children could not sing, though he would encourage singing as much as possible, and believed that "God save the Queen" would be the most popular song among them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) stated that a great want of school accommodation existed; but some of the Inspectors demanded a great deal more than the necessity of the case required. Some allowance should be made, and the Inspectors should not ride roughshod over those who were trying to do their duty.

said, he had listened with great interest to the lucid statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Education Department. It was, no doubt, a matter of congratulation that the number of children sent in for examination in the extra subjects was increasing; but it appeared that even now, out of 1,500,000 of children in our schools, only 70,000 were examined in anything more than the mere rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic, nor did he think we could expect that under the present provisions of the Code there would be any great improvement in this respect. He therefore congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the improvements he had introduced in the Scotch Code, and hoped that similar modifications would be introduced into that for England. As regarded those who passed in the fourth and higher standards, 3s. per scholar was allotted by the New Scotch Code to history and geography. Again, the grants for extra subjects were no longer to be reducible by the excess over 15s. a-head. He had always argued that this limitation rendered the grants offered for extra subjects practically delusive, in confirmation of which he observed that the Education Department estimated the amount which would be earned this year at 12s. a-head on the average. It was obvious, therefore, that if the schools averaged 12s. by reading, writing, and arithmetic alone, the best ones would earn the full 15s., and there would be no inducement to take up any of the so-called extra subjects, under which term it must be remembered, was included everything except mere reading, writing and arithmetic. He regarded the alterations in the Scotch Code, therefore, as great improvements. When on former occasions he pressed the question on the right hon. Gentleman he was supported by the Chairmen, both of the Education League and of the Union, by every Member of the London School Board who had a seat in the House, and indeed, by almost everyone in the House who took an interest in education. He hoped, therefore, that the boon now granted to Scotland would next year be extended to England.

said, he hoped that this Vote would never again be proposed until the Report of the Committee of Privy Council had first been laid on the Table. He regretted that the extravagance of some school boards was in flitting unnecessary burdens upon the ratepayers; but he congratulated the Committee on the great progress which education was making throughout the country. He hoped the Government would take care that there was an uniformity of action among the Inspectors, some of whom, he understood, had a much higher standard than others. It was also to be desired that Inspectors should be more accessible to the teachers.

asked whether the Government would take some security that schools should not be closed in districts in which children did not attend by reason of attending Sunday schools?

said, he hoped that a better supply of certificated teachers would be found for rural districts. In his parish, a school which had been kept open every day except during holidays for 35 years since its establishment, had been closed during the last nine months, because a certificated teacher, as ordered by the Privy Council, could not be obtained, although a most ample salary had been offered.

also complained that the supply of certificated teachers was not sufficient, and expressed a hope that the item for normal schools would be increased next year. He, however, could not but congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) on the increase of education throughout the country.

bore testimony to the great value and importance of night schools. It was a most interesting sight to see such numbers of young men, women, and grown-up people sitting side by side of an evening after their day's work, endeavouring to make up for their deficiencies in education. These were schools which were particularly susceptible of discouragement, and he regretted to think that the action of the right hon. Gentleman might tend in that direction.

complained that the usual Report had not been placed before the House prior to the discussion on this Vote. It was delayed last year, and was still further delayed this year. This placed hon. Members at a disadvantage in the present discussion. In country districts the people seemed to be afraid of school boards; but facts proved their great practical value. The increased attendance at schools in Birmingham during the last 12 months under the school board system was 50 per cent, as against 50 per cent increased attendance at school throughout the whole country during the last four years. The Vice President of the Council had said that there were 5,000 districts where a deficiency of school accommodation existed, and he should like to know in how many of these districts school boards had been formed? He should like also to know what had been done with reference to normal schools?

trusted that, however valuable the work done by school boards might be, there was no disposition on the part of those who were interested in education to endeavour to thrust school boards on districts where they were not really required by proved deficiency of the means of education. School boards were, at the best, an expensive mode of proceeding— which would tell largely on the people's minds when they came to reckon the costs, and which would tend to discourage education if they were forced upon districts where it was not shown that they were necessary. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Forster's) statement, it did not appear to be so sanguine as the one he made last year; but it was one on which the House and the country might be congratulated. For his own part, he was not so sanguine as to the effects of direct compulsion as he was last year and the year before. Considerable results had been obtained, no doubt, by the application of direct compulsion; all the children most readily got at had been swept into schools, but the difficult work remained behind. Those parents who were indifferent to the value of education were beginning to find out how they might evade the regulations that were laid down, and by some means or other managed to keep their children at home, or to continue that irregularity which had been the bane of the schools in this country. He looked with longing eyes in the direction of indirect rather than direct compulsion. He believed that better results would be obtained if some system could be established under which a certificate of attendance at school should be made a condition of employment in ordinary pursuits as well as in manufacturing districts. There were many difficulties which had to be met, and he would earnestly entreat hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in education not to be too sanguine, but to wait patiently, expecting smaller results than were calculated upon last year, but not to be discouraged, and to look right and left for means of inducing rather than of compelling parents to send their children to school.

said, that the discussion had been full of useful hints, and afforded a hopeful sign of that interest in the subject throughout the kingdom, without which the Department would be altogether helpless. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. A. Johnston), as to whether the Education Department would take steps to ensure that the schools now considered efficient should continue to be efficient, it was impossible to say when the Department might think it necessary to institute fresh inquiry; but of course it would be the duty of the Government to find out, from time to time, if districts were supplied in the sense of the Act. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had asked in how many of the 5,000 odd districts in which a deficiency existed school boards had been formed? The Act did not give the Department power immediately to issue an order for a school board. They had first to give notice of the deficiency, and that might be disputed. If it was not, there was still a final notice to be issued intimating the ascertained deficiency, and notifying that unless it was supplied within some period not exceeding six months a school board would have to be established. These final notices had not yet been issued to any great extent, because it was thought better first to finish issuing the first notices throughout the country, and that would be done by August this year. The hon. Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) said that the Inspectors of the Department ought not to proceed by hard-and-fast-lines in ascertaining deficiencies. It had been their object not to do so; and although they had not given universal satisfaction, they had not had any overpowering evidence of dissatisfaction. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had asked two questions. With regard to the examination of masters, there was in the Code a means by which the master of a school which was not in receipt of a Government grant could obtain a certificate without going up for examination, under certain conditions. With regard to such cases as that which the hon. Member had stated, he (Mr. Forster) would undertake to consider the matter fully before the next Code was settled. With regard to the Musical Fine, the rule had not been unsuccessful. The Code required that singing should be part of the teaching of the Elementary Schools, and that a shilling should be deducted from the grant for average attendance where singing was not taught. The final result had been that for all the schools which had been inspected last year the deductions under the Musical Fine had been only £262 10s. out of the total grant of £848,319. Music and singing were generally taught in the schools with very successful results. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell) seemed to think that school boards might be extravagant in consequence of the grants made to them; but he (Mr. Forster) would rather have thought that complaints, if any were made at all, would have been that the grants were rather too much than too little fenced round. As to the staff of Inspectors, he could not honestly say that it was at present too small; but there were circumstances connected with last year which were exceptional, and in some cases untried men had to do the work. The mode of conducting examinations was becoming more uniform, and the President of the Council and himself had revived the custom of having an annual meeting of the senior Inspectors to give suggestions as to the mode in which inspection should be conducted, especially as to the mode of conducting it with uniformity. Hitherto the Government had not set to work to start any establishment in which suitable masters might be trained, as it was a serious matter to do so. He thought however that the suggestion that training halls might be started was one well worth considering, although he hoped it would not be left to the Government to originate them. With reference to the question of compulsion, he might point out that the great size of London made the work of the London School Board much more difficult than that of any other board in the country, for they had to deal with such an enormous multitude of persons who were neglected and more or less degraded. They must also bear in mind that there was a considerable difference between the town and country, and that though there might be some villages and districts in the country where there was great neglect, there were not those masses of neglected children which they saw in towns. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had said that modes had been discovered for evading the Act; but he (Mr. Forster) had endeavoured to meet those cases in the Bill which he had lately introduced. With regard to the night schools, although the regulation that every school must be open 60 times in the course of a year and the average attendance of the scholars must be 40 might have had the effect of shutting up some schools, he thought that any institution which was worthy of support on educational grounds should be able to comply with that condition. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote which he now asked.

gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for great earnestness and zeal in his endeavours to promote the education of the people; but he regretted that the results, as compared with the cost, were not as satisfactory as might be expected; and he thought that the heads of schools might receive a caution on the subject.

said, it was quite true that Mr. Cole had resigned his position as Superintendent of the Science and Art Department, at South Kensington, and the important question of the appointment and duties of his successor would be taken into consideration by Lord Ripon and himself, with the assistance of his Colleagues in the Government. He could not allude to the resignation of that gentleman without saying that he had always found him a most efficient, devoted, and painstaking public servant. He only wished that in every Department they had such good servants. He had found very few persons to compare with Mr. Cole either in devotion and industry or in ability and knowledge. He had also been most successful as an administrator.

said, that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Mr. Cole's successor was not satisfactory. He objected at so late an hour to go on with this Estimate; particularly as the Government intended, as he understood, to take Supply at the morning sitting this day.

asked how it came that this year the sum allowed for education in Scotland was only £3,000 more than when they had no Act, and he also wished to know why the building grants were put down at the very small sum of £1,400, while the Vote for building grants in England was £105,000?

said, that the reason why the Estimate for Scotch Education was not larger was they did not think it necessary to make it so during the first year of the passing of the Act. If they found more money was wanted, a Supplemental Estimate could be introduced next Session. As to the Scotch Code, that had been drawn up with a view to consult the feelings and wishes of the Scotch people, and he should be very much surprised if Scotland did not earn more money per child than England did.

said, he could not undertake to alter the Scotch Code at once, provided it did not come up to his expectation.