asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What steps have been taken to oblige the owners of Oyster Beds on the Irish Coasts to stock them, as required by the 29 and 30 Victoria, chapter 88, section 3, and by chapter 97, section 14, of the same Statute?

Sir, in all licences granted by the Inspectors of Fisheries for oyster beds there is a provision inserted that the bed shall be properly cultivated within three years from the date of the licence, and with regard to licences granted heretofore, the Inspectors last year held a number of inquiries to ascertain whether the beds were properly cultivated before taking the steps required by the 14th section of 29 & 30 Vict. c. 97, and the 3rd section of 29 & 30 Vict. c. 88, to revoke licences when the licensees had neglected to stock their beds, and it was decided upon to give the licensees another year to do so. Further inquiries will be made during the present year, and the Inspectors will then revoke all licences where, in their opinion, the licensees have not taken the proper steps to form and cultivate their oyster beds.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that all applications from the navigating officers of the Naval Service for permission to accompany the Arctic expedition have been refused; and, if so, whether he will reconsider this decision in favour of a class of officers eminently qualified by their education and training and peculiar know- ledge of the laws of magnetism, for employment on this occasion?

A selection of officers for the Arctic Expedition below the rank of commander was made from a list of 138 applicants, of whom 13 were navigating officers. None of that class were selected. Only one of them was supposed to have any special knowledge of magnetism, and his ago was against his being chosen. As I have before stated in the House, great pains were taken to select the fittest men, and, as all those who were chosen have passed the medical examination, no other appointments can now be made.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been drawn to a recent article in the "Pall Mall Gazette," referring to a deficiency of over four millions and a-half incurred by the National Debt Commissioners in their account with the Trustees of Savings Banks and Friendly Societies; whether such deficiency is still increasing; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to bring forward any measure to remedy a system which makes such accumulating deficiencies possible?

, in reply, said, he had read the article mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member, and which referred to a question frequently brought before the attention of the House in connection with certain yearly accounts supplied under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The accounts between the National Debt Commissioners and the Trustees of Savings Banks and Friendly Societies showed a deficiency against the Commissioners, arising from the fact that in former years a higher rate of interest was allowed by them than they could earn from the investments then open. Of late years the rate of interest allowed by the Commissioners had been reduced, while they had been able to earn a larger amount; but, in consequence of the deficiency which occurred before the corrections between the two rates of interest were made, a deficiency was created which for some years had gone on accumulating. It continued to increase, and would ere long demand the attention of Parliament. He hoped to have an opportunity in the course of the Session of calling the attention of the House to various matters in connection with their National Debt, and this would be one of the matters to which he would direct attention.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill, during the present Session, for better enabling municipal corporations or sanitary authorities to acquire gas or waterworks; and whether the Local Government Board have made any recommendation thereon?

Sir, it is not intended to introduce any Bill specially dealing with the subjects referred to. But it may be convenient to the hon. Member and to the House that I should state shortly what are the existing powers with respect to gas and water, and to what extent they will be varied by the Public Health Bill, which was delivered this morning. Under the existing law, sanitary authorities can purchase waterworks by agreement, and provide waterworks in places where there is no company, or where a company is unable or unwilling to supply sufficient water for all reasonable purposes. The Bill will extend these powers by enabling a local authority to carry water mains outside their district, and to supply water to the authority of an adjoining place. At the present time sanitary authorities have no power under the general law to construct or purchase gasworks. They can only contract for public lighting and provide lamp-posts, &c. The Bill will enable them to purchase gasworks by agreement, and where there is no company they may, by Provisional Order, obtain authority to establish gasworks for their district.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House any recent Correspondence relative to Now Guinea?

There is, Sir, no Correspondence of a recent date at the Colonial Office relating to this subject which can with propriety be laid upon the Table; but there have, I believe, been reports made to the Admiralty by the naval officers employed on recent explorations, though I am, of course, unable to say how far their production may be desirable.

said, that, in the remarks he had made with reference to these Returns, he did not cast any reflection upon the local authorities.

I rise to move that a Select Committee be appointed—

"to inquire into the nature of the estates and interests and the present position of the Customary Tenants of Lands held lately under the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and now under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, by renewable leases made by the Dean and Chapter, who have transferred their estate and interest in such lands to the Commissioners: and to report the opinion of the Committee as to further legislation thereon."

I had the honour to place upon the Notice Book of this House last Session a Motion of a very similar character to that which I have the honour to introduce to-night; but the difficulties which so often attended the Motion of private Members attended mo, and obliged me, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, to postpone my Motion until this Session. Whilst I feel that in this Notice I have given a somewhat local bearing to this question, I still feel that it is a national question, as it affects funds and estates in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which are to be used at their discretion for national purposes. It is certainly no question of Party politics in the usual sense of the term. What I ask for is inquiry into the working of the laws which affect a very largo number of my own constituents, and which are looked upon with interest by the country at large. I ask for inquiry by Members of this House into the grievances of which they complain, and if I prove that the law as it stands is administered harshly, or in a manner not contemplated by Parliament; or if I even prove that, under its operation, great injustice is done to any body of persons, however few they may be, I trust that I shall have made out a case for such an inquiry as I ask for. The parties for whom I ask this inquiry are the customary tenants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They were lately tenants of the Lean and Chapter of Durham, and, before that, they were tenants by court roll. In their Petition they bring forward one or two grave allegations. They complain that the Commissioners refuse to renew their leases, and also throw difficulties in the way of their enfranchising. They state that by this refusal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners they make the Act compulsory as regards the Petitioners, and voluntary as regards the Commissioners, compelling the Petitioners to purchase the fee-simple, or surrender their interest in the land held by them at such prices as the Commissioners may choose, under penalty of having their leases run out, their interest taken away and their property in them destroyed, or they have the alternative only of defending their estates at the cost of enormous expense and delay. Their main allegation, however, is, that the leases are not renewed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that that large and powerful body refuses to do that which the Dean and Chapter of Durham have done over since as Dean and Chapter they came possessed of these estates in the reign of Henry VIII. I have said they also complained of the difficulties thrown in their way in enfranchising. The number who last year complained of this was 180, and now I believe nearly 400 have signed the Petitions I have presented. The Petitioners are not merely the men in possession, but also trustees, mortgagees, and reversioners, and various other persons interested directly or indirectly in these estates. But every caution has been taken to secure that those who signed the Petition should be persons who were personally interested in the matter. They represent that the annual value of these estates is £50,000, and the gross value not less than £1,000,000. I have been kindly told by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Mowbray)—one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—that I ought to accept these figures with some caution; but I believe they are based upon a Return presented to this House, by which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners showed that during the two years which had elapsed between September, 1870, and September, 1872, there were 214 leases, the renewal of which was refused; and that the fines paid upon these leases at their last renewal were no less than £18,656 8s. 11d., or on an average of about £9,000 per annum. Taking these figures to represent one-fourth or one-fifth the annual value of the leases, we arrive pretty nearly at a sum of between £40,000 or £50,000, the annual value set out in the Petition. Some of these may be considered small holdings; but they are of the greatest importance to those who are interested in them. But many are of considerable extent. I have the cases before me of Mrs. Watson, who holds 110 acres; Messrs. Ord, 700 acres; Mr. Abbs, 100 acres; Miss Pus-sell, 200 acres; Mr. Holmes, 115 acres; and Mr. Robinson, 213 acres, making 1,438 acres in all, and I have a long list of very important and considerable holdings. Many of these lands have been held, subject to fines, for upwards of 300 years, and in many cases they have remained for 200 years of that period in the same family. They have regularly paid, from time immemorial, one and a-half years' rent every seven years for their 21 years' leases. I am told that in the time of Elizabeth an Order in Council was made that three years' rent should be paid as fine every twenty-first year. Some dispute arose between the Dean and Chapter and the lessees in the reign of Charles I., and the present system was adopted by Order in Council. It consisted of paying one year's rent as fine every seventh year; this afterwards became one and a-quarter to one and a-half year's increased value. The men who hold these leases belong to the independent race of yeoman farmers, who ought to be encouraged in every way, as they form the stay and backbone of the country. I have looked at their leases, and every right seems to be preserved to them that a holder of land has, and they have exercised their rights upon the estate. They have no conditions as to crops, and they make their own roads and fences, and erect their own boundary. They have been transferred from hand to hand, and up to a certain date the form was used in transfer, but the transferror transferred the tenant-right and right of renewal. They allege that when they ceased to be copyholders in the reign of Henry VIII. they covenanted for the right of perpetual renewal. This was before the restraining statutes of the reign of Queen Elizabeth were passed restraining ecclesiastical bodies from granting leases for more than 21 years. The question of the right of renewal was hardly ever, if over, in dispute. Only one or two cases have occurred in which men have been refused renewal for waste of the estate. But the lease in other cases was invariably renewed. They alleged that, before the dissolution of the monasteries, they were not Bishop's tenants, but held the land by court rolls, and in every other way acted as feudal tenants. These men had rendered good service to England, for they were said to be those who had brought the Coronation Stone out of Scotland—whatever interest that fact may have; but I will not go minutely into this question of antiquarian research. These rights have existed up to the present time, and have been carefully guarded. Take a Report out of a Committee of the House of Lords, which is more unfavourable to them than any others, which says—

"That the lessees, with comparatively few exceptions, have had de facto for more than two centuries the advantage of renewals."

To destroy these is to shake the foundation on which all landed property is held in England. With the leave of the House, I will take a few cases of actual holdings of these estates as examples of many more. There is the case of Mrs. Watson, who has 110 acres of ground, purchased in 1830. Her husband's father paid £6,000 for the land, which was equal to a purchase based on a rental of £300 a-year, for a term of 20 years. One of his two sons, after his father's death, obtained a mortgage on the estate of £3,000, which was paid to the younger brother as his moiety of the estate. The Commissioners offered her £4,000 for the estate, which cost her husband in 1830 or 1832 £6,000, the land in the meanwhile having much increased in value. Mr. Ord, of Newton, bought 366 acres in 1810; but the same estate had been held by his family since 1739 as tenants. In 1810 he paid £7,000 for the estate. This was in a time of war, when rents were high. The present value is at least £200 per annum, and he had not been able to enfranchise. Mr. Abbs, of Cleadon House, hold 100 acres, and the land had been in the family for 150 years. It was purchased at the price of freehold by the trustees of the great grandfather of Mr. Abbs. It was purchased from the Hyltons, of Hylton Castle, who held it before the Dean and Chapter got it from Henry VIII. The present owner had built the farm buildings, farmhouse, and a villa residence. I could give half-a-dozen cases. I call the special attention of the House to the fact that these leases were regularly renewed up to 1870. When the Dean and Chapter began to listen to the blandishments of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the tenants began to feel alarmed when their leases were refused renewal, and they appealed to the Privy Council against the Dean and Chapter transfering their rights to the Commissioners. The question was before Lord Selborne, and he said—

"It seems to me that your position, as Petitioners to Parliament, would not he different after the transfer from what it is now. Your case before Parliament would surely be exactly the same. Indeed, it would he better if the consequence of the transfer was, that you were placed in more jeopardy than you were before. If it were just, there would be more reason for Parliament to interfere in your favour, and if your view is that justice can only he done you by special legislation, it must be presumed that justice would be done upon you showing a case for it after this transfer."

I say there is a strong primâ facie case that should be dealt with. These tenants passed into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They dreaded the change, because, instead of being under the hands of those who knew them, their circumstances and wants, they would be in the hands of those who have no local sympathies, and little understand the claims they had to their estates, and who were 250 miles away from them. This scheme was passed at a Council at Windsor on November 27th, 1872. The scheme was dated 3rd August, 1871, and sets forth that it is made under the powers of the Act of 1868. The figures in it would rather surprise the Fathers of the early Christian Church. It reserved 10,500 acres of land to the Dean and Chapter, sot forth in Schedule A. It laid down that £11,000 a-year was to be paid to the Dean and Chapter or estates yielding that sum clear of rates, and taxes, and agency; £2,000 pension to the Dean; £700 pension to the Chapter clerk; £600 pension to mining engineer; £10,000 to Dean and Chapter to be spent on farm buildings on reserved estates, interest not to be expended; £20,000 for drainage of reserved estates, interest not to be expended; £20,000 for Cathedral repairs, interest to be expended; £3,000 for their Dean, £1,000 each for six canons, £3,000 for the Cathedral school, £2,000 for repairs; and they also reserved 10,500 acres of land, as I have already mentioned. The only persons left out in the cold were the tenants, from whom all this money was obtained. Having entered upon these responsibilities this huge Commission at once began to refuse the renewal of those leases, which had been renewed almost without exception since the reign of Henry VIII. I allege that considerable delays took place in treating with those who wanted to enfranchise. Mr. Jeremiah Abbs, of Westholme, asked for the terms of the sale of reversion in October 31st, 1871, and, after repeated excuse" and continual applications, got a letter on June 3rd, 1874, saying that his offer to buy or sell should have attention. The renewal of the leases being refused, the customary tenants are driven on to the horns of a dilemma. They must cither enfranchise, or they must sell to the Ecclesiastical Commission. On the one hand, if they wish to enfranchise, it is under the Act of 1851—the voluutary Enfranchisement Act. The customary tenant must buy at the sum offered by the Commission. He has no appeal—no arbitration; and more than that, the refusal to renew drives him on towards giving an exorbitant price. On the other hand, he may sell to the Commission; he may claim that his lease expires in 1884, even if it expires before that time—and he is told that that which cost a few years ago 20 or 25 years' purchase is now worth 9 years' purchase at the most. The question of Church property has been before the House repeatedly, and Reports have been issued, the first of which I hold in my hand, and I think there is no doubt they establish the case of those whom I represent. In the Report of the Committee of 1839, the rights of those men are very distinctly and clearly stated, and it is declared that they ought to be attended to and protected. After this was a Report on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1848, and on that Committee there were many eminent men. The Report speaks in a strong and stringent manner with the way in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were dealing with these men. In 1850, the Royal Commission of the House of Lords sat. I place more confidence in the soundness of the views of a Royal Commission than of the Committee of either House because this is a matter which involves nice points of law. No less a person than the Earl of Carlisle brought in the Bill founded on the Report, and that Bill suggested a compromise, so as to give the lessees a perpetual right to renewal. That was the conclusion the Earl of Carlisle arrived at; but the Bill he brought in was thrown out. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government (Mr. Disraeli), in a letter to the Chairman of the Enfranchisement Association, states that the Durham lessees were heard on this question; but there was only one gentleman heard, and his opinion was only asked on the compromise proposed by the Royal Commission. A permissive Bill was brought in in 1851, and now I come to what the Bill enacted. Earl Russell replied to the objections raised, and he said the ecclesiastical corporations could not suffer, because they must be consenting parties to the enfranchisement. The lessees could not be sufferers either, because they too must be consenting parties, and if the term proposed by the Bishop or any ecclesiastical corporations were too hard or severe, the lessee had nothing to do but to refuse those terms, and be retained in the same position as before. Then came the Act of 1860, on which my hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Acland) relies as having settled this question. I have already touched on the Acts of 1851 and 1860, and I think I have clearly shown that up to 1872 they never were under the Act of 1860, and they only came under the Act of 1860, when the scheme was passed by the Privy Council in 1872, under the Act of 1868. I do not say that the Commissioners never asked for power. I say they did; but this House struck the clause out, and the power to renew has never been taken away. The power has always been held by Parliament, and it is regarded as a trust to protect the titles by which the owners held. I am no opponent of voluntary enfranchisement; but I am opposed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' screw being put on these customary tenants. I do not believe in forced voluntary enfranchisement, brought about by the threat of no renewal, and I may refer to the fact that every Act of Parliament has tried to protect these men; and if the behests of Parliament guided the Commissioners, these men would not now, through me, ask for inquiry and redress. I hope the House will not refuse the inquiry which I now seek. Those for whom I speak stake everything they have on this throw, and if they fail in making out their case—if they cannot prove there is hardship and injustice—the step which I am taking will recoil on their heads, and they will be handed over to the tender mercies of the Ecclesiastical Commission. But, Sir, if they prove before that tribunal, to which they appeal, that wrong exists; that hardship exists; that they are treated with injustice. This House will do, what it has ever done—redress the grievance— do away with the hardships, and remedy the injustice.

Mr. Speaker—I rise to second this Motion, and at the outset, in doing so, I shall make one declaration. This is no Party question. The very fact that I stand here to-night to second this Motion ought to be the best guarantee for that. Those who are prepared to vote with my hon. Friend feel that a great wrong has been done, is being done, and is likely to be done, by the policy the Commissioners are pursuing towards those who are our neighbours; and we believe that we have established, as clearly as men can, that there is a grievance sufficient to induce Parliament carefully to inquire, as they are now asked to do, into the whole question. I would remind the House that this is not an inquiry into the Act of any Ministry, but into the Acts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who derive their powers from Parliament; and in the course of these observations, I feel it my duty to question, and to seriously question, the legality and the propriety of the course of proceedings of those Commissioners. I wish to say, at the outset, that I am not unwilling to believe that in the course they pursued they were actuated by a high sense of public duty, and with a due regard to the great trust that Parliament had confided to them. Now, Sir, we ask for this inquiry for the purpose of eliciting certain facts—facts which I believe are known to but few, and only partially known to those few. They are facts with which the general public are entirely unacquainted. They are facts which I hope are unknown to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves; because it is a want of knowledge of these facts which, in my judgment, is the sole justification for the course of policy now pursued. But they are facts which are absolutely necessary for the equitable solution of this question. Therefore, we appeal to Parliament for such an inquiry as will result in the elucidation of these facts. Now, if the House, in its wisdom, thinks fit to grant this inquiry, the first duty that I hope will fall on that Committee will be to unlock the muniment chest of the Chapter of Durham; and I think I can promise them that that will be a very interesting operation. It will be a task replete with ancient custom and law, and it will be a task, therefore, well worthy, I venture to think, of the consideration both of the present and the late Prime Minister of this country. But this production of the muniments of the Chapter is the very thing which the Commissioners oppose. They say we are not prepared to advise the Chapter to give access to their ancient documents. Now, I hope the Commissioners—of whom I wish to speak with respect—will forgive me for saying that I consider this a very suspicious circumstance indeed on their part; and if I draw the inference that the Commissioners are afraid of the publication of these documents—if I infer from this that the production of the documents will tend to support the case of the Petitioners, the Commissioners must not blame me. I have also heard this said by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—" What an unjust, what a hard thing it is to force the Chapter to produce their title deeds." A hard thing! An unjust thing! When the validity of the title to the right to renewal is questioned for the first time by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves; when that is the question at issue; when the production of these documents is the means, and the only means, by which the validity of that ancient title can be proved, I think the injustice lies not in the production, but in the withholding of these documents. Well now, Sir, my hon. Friend in his able speech has gone into the details of the general Parliamentary history of this question, and therefore it will not be necessary for me in consequence of that to do more than to press home, if I can, certain leading points—the main points, I believe them to be, of our case—on the attention of the House. Now, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in supporting the course of policy of which I am here to complain—namely, their refusal to produce the ancient laws—have relied a great deal upon this argument. They say—"We have been the means of carrying forward several hundred enfranchisements. Why disturb a system which has worked so smoothly?" and they go further, and say if the right to renewal on the part of those who are yet unenfranchised—if the right to renewal is admitted—something like injustice has been done to those who have previously been enfranchised. That is one of their arguments. As I understand it, they seem to imply that those enfranchised have been duped into parting with their property, because they were enfranchised under an erroneous impression. They had been duped into parting with their property, and I think the Petitioners are perfectly justified in refusing again to become dupes; but the fact is the Commissioners will not see—and there is nobody so blind as the man who will not see—they refuse to see the whole of the argument which I have urged to show the difference between voluntary and compulsory enfranchisement. I would wish to press this point strongly on the House. We are here to deny that Parliament has ever sanctioned compulsory enfranchisement in any shape. I am not here to deny that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have tried to obtain compulsory powers. They tried to introduce compulsory clauses into two or three Acts, and in both instances they were compelled to withdraw them. Further, if Parliament had granted compulsory powers, it would have been bound to grant protection to the long-continued right of renewal, unquestionably possessed by these tenants. The Commissioners say that it is desirable, in the interests of the Church and its property, to abolish this old, wasteful, and improvident system of tenure on renewal by payment of fines. I am afraid that the strong desire of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to get hold of the land, arises from the motive that they are very valuable lands, and that they have been rendered valuable by the investment of capital of the tenants; because we know that fixity of tenure is the great inducement to the tenant to invest his capital in the land, and I am afraid I must characterize this as a rather unworthy motive. It is said that it is desirable to get possession of the lands in the interest of the Church. I think, however, the interest of the Church would be best promoted by nobler impulses and higher motives than these, and that they would not be promoted by this impatient ardour for acquisition. But we may be told that this is not a question for Parliament. We may be asked, why do not these men go to the Courts of Law? My right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said, not very long ago, that Parliament ought always to be extremely careful in interfering with the action of the Courts of Law. Well, I wish that he had always acted on that wise maxim. But it is precisely because we wish to save our clients—these unfortunate and threatened Petitioners—from the gigantic expenses of a suit at law, that we wish Parliament to take this matter into its own hands. In such a suit they would have to face the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with funds amounting to something like a million and a-quarter annually at their back. How unequal that contest would be! I hope and trust, therefore, that Parliament will not force these men into a contest against such a power as that. I think I shall be able to show that this is especially a question for Parliament to take into its own hands, and the High Court of Parliament is the fittest tribunal to try the allegation of this Petition. That brings me to the last part of my argument. I say that the faith of Parliament is deeply involved in the solution of this question. My hon. Friend has referred to the proceedings before the Privy Council in 1870, when the customary tenants were heard against the transfer of their estates to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The counsel for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners used this language. They actually contended that the Petitioners' estates would not be affected or prejudiced by the scheme of transfer; and my Lord Selborne used this language, and I am sure that anything which falls from him will always be listened to with respect. He said that it may be right when the Commissioners had got the estates to recognize any legal powers and attend to any equitable considerations, but for that they must first have the estates. Well, but this is exactly the declaration we should expect from an eminent and high-minded Equity lawyer; for what is the status of the customary tenants? I believe I am not wrong; but if I am wrong, there are many lawyers present to correct me. I believe that at Common Law the heir of the customary tenant to whom the lord objects, or the customary tenant himself at the expiration of his term cannot enforce his possession against the lord. But whatever rights he possesses must be defended in a Court of Equity, and I believe that one of the earliest functions of the High Court of Equity in this country was to defend the rights of the customary tenants. There- fore, I am not surprised to hear that the greatest Equity lawyer in our land should have made use of these expressions and spoken of these equitable considerations. Were the Petitioners wrong to accept it as a pledge, and will the House allow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to ignore equitable considerations? This recognition of the right of renewal was not heard for the first time within the walls of the Privy Council. Every Committee and Commission have in their Reports to either branch of the Legislature used the same language and the same phrase. It has, in fact, become a stock phrase, and a key-note in every one of those Re-ports, that due regard must be had to the long-established right of renewal which the Commissioners now dispute for the first time. But not only have Committees and Commissioners recognized the right which the Petitioners now claim, but great statesmen, Law Officers of the Crown, Prime Ministers of England in their places in Parliament, have repeated the same pledge. Lord Palmerston, Lord Russell, and the Law Officers of the Crown at that time made the same declaration that due regard must be had to the accustomed right of renewal. I would make an appeal to the present Prime Minister. I would ask him to be true to the traditions of his high office, to recall the utterances of eminent Prime Ministers before him, and to pay a due regard to the rights of renewal which these tenants possess. I believe that in doing so he would be doing an act of justice to those whose cause we have to-night humbly, but to the best of our ability, been endeavouring to maintain.

, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Commission, said, the Mover of the Resolution had rather wandered from its strict terms, to which he would confine himself. The Motion and the Petition directed attention, not to cases of hardship, but to a claim for customary tenure, or, in other words, perpetuity of tenure. The estates of the Dean and Chapter of Durham were not transferred to the Commissioners until 1871, when they were so transferred by Order in Council. Before that time 500 of the 700 leases under which they were demised had been dealt with by voluntary agreements between the Dean and Chapter and the lessees, sanctioned by the Church Estate Commissioners. Therefore, when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners came into possession of the property the leases were few in number compared with the number originally granted. The Commutation Scheme was dated the 3rd of August, 1871, and, according to the Report recently presented to Parliament at the time the scheme was submitted for confirmation, opposition was offered by certain lessees, The Petition was heard in November, and Her Majesty was advised to ratify the scheme. Then the lessees transmitted to the Commission a memorial urging that, if some ancient court rolls were produced, the lessees would be found to have been copyholders before they began, 300 years ago, to be lessees, and that their estates should therefore be treated as customary estates, renewable for over. The Commissioners declined to entertain this claim, and the memorialists announced their intention to take proceedings in Chancery. The Commissioners had no knowledge of the existence of the court rolls, and, if they were found, they would not countervail the fact of the property having been held like other leaseholds from the establishment of the Chapter on its new foundation in 1555. A large amount of evidence had been taken by the Commission and the Committees between 1837 and 1851, but no such claim was then set up; and the lessees who then advocated the claims of themselves and their co-lessees had all effected the enfranchisement of their leaseholds, either by sale of the leasehold interest or by the purchase of the reversionary interest. The hon. Member who had introduced the Motion did not base his case upon perpetual tenancy, nor did he (Mr. Cubitt) think it could be upheld upon any such foundation; and, that being so, of what use would the proposed inquiry be? He would leave it to Members themselves to decide whether a Select Committee was a proper tribunal for conducting such an inquiry. He warned those persons in the county of Durham who were inducing the lessees to put forward claims which they could not establish, that great responsibility would rest upon them. Enfranchisement had already been effected to a considerable extent. From a Return made last year it appeared that during the live years ending October 31, 1873, between 70,000 and 80,000 acres of land had been enfranchised, and he believed the number of cases of enfranchisement which had been effected in various ways amounted to about 9,500. The Report of the Commissioners showed that their operations were in a very advanced state; and if the question of perpetuity of tenure were set aside, was there any ground for supposing that they would not be able to deal with the comparatively small matters now in question? At the same time, the Commissioners had only a public duty to discharge, and whatever the judgment of the House might be they would bow to that decision. He could say that the cases of hardship which had been mentioned were wholly unknown to the Commissioners, and that the only claim brought before them had been that for perpetuity of tenure.

maintained that the petitioners in this case had preferred a claim which was founded in justice. It was all very well to ask what was the use of a Committee; but he, for one, foresaw that it would be productive of great good. A Committee would help Parliament to frame remedial legislation if it were proved that injustice had been done. The lessees in question had for a long time past been trampled upon by the Commissioners. He thought the Commissioners should remember those who had fought the battles of the Church Estates during the Commonwealth. At that period the whole of those estates were sold at 16 or 17 years' purchase, and an Act was passed to confirm those sales. The estates of the Dean and Chapters were exempted from the Act of oblivion. By subsequent Acts it was decided that the claims of lessees should be decided by arbitration, and the Commissioners themselves recognized the claims of the lessees to perpetual renewal. He hoped the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) would not confine his Motion for a Committee to inquire into the nature of the capitular estates of Durham, but would strike out the word "Durham," and enable the Committee to deal with capitular estates generally. He held it was perfectly reasonable in the present case that the petitioners should appeal to Parliament against the Commissioners. He thought the House ought to grant the inquiry if for no other purpose than to see the enormous power which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were becoming possessed of. It had long been the policy of this country to prevent ecclesiastical corporations becoming largely possessed of property, and the House might therefore be surprised to learn that the net income of these Commissioners in the year 1873 was not less than £903,583. There was no complaint made against the Commissioners as regarded the application of the funds; and they were no doubt appropriating them to very useful purposes; but they were doing, on the one hand, a good act at the expense of a serious wrong on the other. He begged to move, as an Amendment, that the words "Dean and Chapter of Durham" be omitted from the Motion, and the words "Deans and Chapters" substituted.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that the leaseholders were fully justified in the alarm they felt on account of the way in which the Act of 1860 had been officially stated as applicable to their case. That Act gave 24 years' enjoyment a-head to the leaseholders then under the Commissioners; but those gentlemen were apt to confound Bills with Acts, for the clause in the Bill of 1860 intended to terminate all church leases in 1884 was struck out, and it was not till the Act of 1868 was passed, that power was obtained for the transfer of the Durham capitular estates; and leases were continually and legally renewed up to 1870, some of which therefore did not expire till 1891. He complained most, however, of the Dean and Chapter consenting to discontinue the customary renewals after 1870, for the system of voluntary enfranchisement had been working admirably, and under it, without any disturbance of the lessees' interests and without any alarm, the desired change of tenure would have been equitably effected. The speech of the hon. Member for Surrey was a renewal of that mixture of alarming pretensions on the one hand, and of vague assurances of tender consideration on the other, with which the Commissioners had treated the lessees. What he himself desired was enfranchisement on an equitable basis. If the Commissioners chose, they could effect this on terms advantageous to the Church and also to the lessees, and the very able agents of the Commission could readily adjust the terms of such a settlement. He felt bound to say that, though after too long delay, a large number of cases of enfranchisement of house property were being effected in his own borough and on very equitable terms, and he saw no reason why leaseholders in the country should not also be fairly dealt with. The houses he referred to were being conveyed to the holder of the existing 21 years leases on new leases of 999 years, at a fixed annual ground-rent, which, however, was to be revised every 100 years, and re-adjusted according to the price of corn. There was also a licence of alienation, costing £2 2s., required every time the property changed hands or was mortgaged or redeemed—a very heavy charge on a small house. The conveyance was very lengthy and wholly in manuscript. He complained also of the severe and elaborate clauses for the reservation and working of minerals which were sought to be imposed even where the Commissioners conveyed the land as freehold for building, reducing the ownership of the ground to nothing more than the use of the surface for tillage. The South Shields School Board successfully resisted the insertion of such monstrous reservations in one case; but in the case of another school site, the same objectionable clauses had again been proposed.

said, he thought the House but imperfectly realized the importance of this question or the magnitude of the interests involved. This was not so much an inquiry into the con- duct of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as into the conduct of Parliament during the last 40 years. The matter was brought under the notice of Parliament in 1837 by Mr. Spring Rice, under the Government of Lord Melbourne; and the Committee which sat in 1838–9 reported that the system of raising revenues by fine, always improvident, was particularly disadvantageous to the Church from the peculiarity of its tenure; that it prevented the investment of capital in the permanent improvement of an estate, put a check upon the extension of buildings in some places where they were very much required, and shut out extensive plots of land from the most improved system of agriculture. From that date the system of leasing Church property then in existence was condemned as vicious, and notice was given that it would soon come altogether to an end. The Commissions and Committees with sat between 1839 and 1850 never reported in favour of perpetual renewal. The Committee of the House of Lords in 1851 reported expressly against the right of perpetual renewal, and they were now asked, after two investigations of the subject by Parliament, to set aside the legislation which had been founded on the Reports of the Committees of this and of the other House of Parliament. The Act of 1851 recognized the rights of the lessees, and under that Act respect had been paid to the long-continued practice of renewal, and what was wanted now was that Parliament should recognize a perpetual right of renewal. The legislation of 1854 and 1860 was still more favourable to the lessees. It had been said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had administered the law harshly, and in a sense not contemplated by Parliament. He repudiated that statement. They had followed the course prescribed by Parliament, and the law had been justly and fairly administered. The inquiry which they were invited to make would lead them to remote historical periods; and if it was extended in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), it would involve an inquiry into the titles of all the lands possessed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Parliament had decided this question long ago; and it was only because there were so many Members now in the House not acquainted with the course of legislation on this question that they were asked to re-open it. In the interests, not of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were quite ready for such an inquiry, but in the interests of the consistency of the Legislature he hoped the House would not grant the inquiry.

said, his only object in rising was to point out to the House what was the actual question before it. Every one who had read the memorial of these parties must have been struck by the fact that they had some notion of their own that they were not leaseholders, but customary tenants, and were entitled to be treated differently from other beneficial lessees, who had come under the operation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Act. That case had to a very great extent broken down, and they had, therefore, brought a sort of imaginary grievance before the House, and the administration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was impugned. If these persons claimed any right which they did not now possess, let the question be decided in a Court of Law and not in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Goldney) wanted to extend the inquiry from the particular, real, or supposed grievance of these persons to the whole acts of the Commissioners. Now, it would be hardly fair, when they were considering a particular grievance, to discuss the whole work of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners without the slightest notice either to the Government or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Commissioners had discharged their difficult duties most thoroughly and most honestly, and the fact that during 25 years no inquiry had been asked or granted into their conduct was a sufficient proof that no great grievance had arisen under their administration. He hoped the House would not now grant any such inquiry; and if the parties whose case had been brought forward suffered any hardship from the character of this Bill, let the question be decided in a Court of Law.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, and bring it forward as a substantive Motion.

rose to call attention to the New Code; and to move—

"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will he graciously pleased to direct that the New Code he amended by the omission of Article 19 D."

The hon. Member said, that every new Code issued by the Education Department possessed an increasing interest, in this respect at any rate—that it affected a greater number of persons and interests of increasing magnitude; and the Code had the power of regulating the principles which guided the education of the country to an extent that was not always understood, and certainly had not been fully considered. One point connected with the new Codes issued by the Education Department had not received sufficient attention—namely, the great difficulty of properly discussing their provisions by the House. The Act of 1870 provided that the Code must be laid on the Table of the House for 30 days before it became effective; but it might happen, as in the present instance, that the Easter holidays would deduct a considerable portion of that time, and thus the chance of a Member who wished to bring forward the subject of obtaining priority by ballot on Tuesday was lessened considerably. He had been compelled to bring the matter forward after a consideration of merely a few hours. The exact operation of these Codes, moreover, was very difficult to understand, and how were Members not only to make up their own minds within the 30 days, but to obtain the opinion of those persons in the country to whom hon. Members were accustomed to turn for advice and assistance in such matters? He would suggest to the Government that when any future Code was challenged the Government should be bound to find a night for the discussion before the Code came into operation. He did not approach the Code in any unfriendly spirit. On the contrary, he expressed his gratification—he might almost say his gratitude—to the Vice President of the Committee of Council for the great improvement that the Code had ushered in. The great object of the Code, if he understood it correctly, was to improve the quality of education in the elementary schools, and that was done by making the condition of the grant more difficult, or, in other words, by making a larger amount of education necessary for the attainment of the same amount of grant. In this feature of the new Code he fully concurred. This matter had been fully discussed by the London and provincial school boards, which agreed that education in the elementary schools was to be chiefly developed by a more complete adoption of the system of payment by results. The difficulty in the way was the necessity for 250 attendances before any grant could be made on the examination in the Standards. It was felt that this necessity had a very discouraging effect upon many schools. It deprived them of grants in the case of children who, though they had not made 250 attendances, were yet able to earn grants by passing in the Standards. The proposition was almost unanimously adopted that the 250 attendances should be done away with, and that a system based upon payment in proportion to increased attainments should be substituted. The new Code did not follow the first part of the recommendation, and he was very much afraid that a very deserving class of schools throughout the country would find that they were in a worse position than they were before. The schools that would mainly suffer would be the board schools in the large towns. He would notice some of the reasons why he thought that effect would be produced. Under Clause 19 A a new condition of the grant was imposed, whereby, in the event of a deficiency of discipline and organization in the school, a deduction of 1s. would be made. To that he did not object. The next point was that the standards were certainly raised very considerably, in this way—that it was necessary that in the higher standards the reading should be "with intelligence." This was, undoubtedly, an enormous step in advance. Another advance was made in writing, though not to so great an extent. He entirely approved of the provision that from Standard II. upwards the children should be required to pass an elementary examination in grammar, geography, and history; but the effect of this increased stringency of the Code would be to diminish the grant. In time the schools would no doubt work up to the Standard; but for the moment the effect would be a diminution of the amount of grant earned. Besides, there was an important reduction of 3s. in the grant on reading, writing, and arithmetic—namely, a reduction from 4s. to 3s. in each of those subjects. On the other hand, an advance was promised on the average attendance of children above seven years of age, provided they were to pass the examination creditably in two of the four subjects—grammar, geography, history, and needlework; and an addition was made to the grant for passing in additional subjects. But there was a condition attached to the grant of 4s. on the average attendance—namely, that 40 per cent of the scholars must be presented in Standards IV, V, and VI, and if that condition were not fulfilled the amount would be reduced to 2s. Now, with regard to the probability of the fulfilment of that condition, what was the result of the examinations last year? It was found that only 16 per cent of the children who were present at the examination were presented in Standards IV. and upwards, and therefore an enormous jump had been made all at once from 16 per cent to 40 per cent. So that it was absolutely impossible for some years to come to have the 4s., and it was in reality a question of only 2s. But then there was a condition attached even to the 2s., that condition being that one-half of the children must pass creditably; and what were the chances of one-half passing creditably? He had no figures as to the probable result with respect to the 2s.; but last year the Report showed that of the children on the register of the schools only one-third passed the examination in the three R's. Now, what was required was that 50 per cent of the numbers who had been on the register for three months should pass, and he would ask, if only one-third passed in the three R's last year, what were the probabilities of one-half of the children passing now that the standards were raised? He was inclined to think that the value of the 2s. was very considerably diminished by that consideration. Again, the grant for specific subjects had been increased from 3s. to 4s. That, of course, everybody would approve of; but the value of this increase was diminished by the condition appended, that 75 per cent of those who were present must pass. Whilst strongly in favour of raising the Code, and whilst he hoped that the same course would be adopted by succeeding Ministers, he could not help thinking that it had been done with too little regard to pecuniary considerations. The schools which would be most disadvantageously affected would, he believed, be the board schools in large towns. With respect to the second part of this subject, he found in Clause 19 B that the schools in the country—the small schools in the rural districts—were not affected by any means in the same way. Instead of trying to uphold the principle of payment by results and, as far as possible, to strengthen and carry it out—even at the cost of a largo pecuniary sacrifice in the case of many schools in large towns—he found that instead of trying to carry out that principle still further, the Government was deviating from it, and a re-action was setting in in a direction which was the very reverse of payment by results. Certain grants were to be made without any reference to increased efficiency or greater results. He did not expect to be able to induce the Government to alter their decision in that respect; but he wished to enter his protest, in order that he might reserve to himself the right to oppose any further changes in the same direction. There was another point. There were a great many schools in the country of the hind referred to which were in a somewhat embarrassed condition; and the question we had to consider was whether they should go on struggling as they were now doing under all the disadvantages of want of means, or whether we should adopt what he believed to be the right and proper course—the alternative offered by the Act of 1870, of establishing school boards. He trusted it would not be supposed that he was by any means unfriendly to the Code; he was prepared, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), to thank the Vice President of the Council for the admirable provisions there were in it; but he had thought it is duty to make these comments, and he trusted that the Department would see the advantage of having the Code freely and fully discussed.

said, he was responsible for the clause limiting the time for the Code being laid upon the Table, and for the reason that it was exceedingly inconvenient for managers and teachers to have a Code hung up a long time after it had been promulgated. It was competent for any hon. Member to move a Resolution with regard to it at any time, and he could not conceive any Government disregarding the result. A special case might be made out for special assistance to the schools described in the Article, which was only to come into force when there was only one public elementary school within three miles of a population of not more than 300. There was a great difficulty in getting good schools in villages so situated. The description in the clause meant, generally speaking, a very poor and sparse population. He hoped it would not be supposed that this was a question of school boards versus denominational or voluntary schools, for it was quite likely that, taking Wales into account, school boards even at present would be as much benefited as voluntary schools by the arrangement in the Code. He was trying to find out what it would be possible for a school to get with 300 inhabitants within three miles, and he could not see that even a capital school, making the best of the Code in such a position, could at present earn more than £30, and for that sum it would not be possible to get good teachers. On the whole, he should have preferred a larger grant for average attendance in the case of such schools, so reserving the system of payment by results. This, however, after all, was a difference in form rather than reality. In fact, his hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon) while submitting a Motion, to the effect that the Government was giving too much money, had made a speech rather to the effect that they were giving too little. The hon. Member seemed rather to underrate what the Government were giving. The alterations in the Code had been made with a great deal of care in that respect, and he doubted whether any man, however much of an expert, could say exactly whether schools would lose or win. The hon. Member said they would lose; but he did not appear to have quite taken into consideration that they were much more likely to get money out of an increase of the average attendance than from money paid on individual examinations. Four shillings on the average attendance was very considerably more than 4s. on the passes. He differed from his hon. Friend in regard to the desire he expressed that the provision for 250 attendances should be departed from. While they were aiming at a higher standard of education, their great difficulty was the attendance; and they might depend upon it, that if any relaxation of the kind which the hon. Member suggested were made, there would be a falling-off in the attendance every year. He confessed that he was glad to find that the Government had adopted the principle of the Scotch Code, and had said that something was to be paid for the examination of classes in matters which were not confined to the "Three Rs." The time had quite come in which we might so far deviate from the principle of the Revised Code as to make the examination of the classes one of the things for which a grant should be made. He approved very much of the alteration in the standard which required some knowledge of history and geography. It was quite as easy to give children a complete mastery of reading, and make them learn a little geography and history at the same time, as to do so without touching those subjects at all. Thus far he had approved what had been done; but now he would ask the Vice President of the Council to consider whether his hon. Friend was not right in thinking that the turning of 4s. into 2s., unless 40 per cent of the children above seven passed in Standard IV., was not just now requiring too much? In his opinion, it was impossible for any school to fulfil that condition at present. What he looked forward to was this—that as we improved in the number of attendances, and therefore in the quantity of knowledge imparted, we should have to screw up the Standards from time to time. He was afraid managers and masters of schools would consider that money offered on such terms was a mockery. He understood that the examination under C 1., for which 4s. was to be given, was an examination of classes, and not of each child; and that it would appear by the instructions given to the Inspectors that what was meant was that some children would be picked out and examined, half of those so examined to pass creditably. He did not object to the stipulation that in order to get the money for special subjects 75 per cent must pass in the Standards; because we must always guard against the danger of masters neglecting the children generally, in order to pass some in the special subjects. His noble Friend was grappling with a difficulty which he himself had not been able to combat—that of making needlework a subject of actual examination. He wished his noble Friend success; but he had found it impossible to carry out the object in view, owing to the difficulty of getting from the Inspectors an adequate knowledge of the subject. His noble Friend was liberal with regard to night schools—in fact, perhaps, too generous. The night school, no doubt, had social advantages; but when it came to a question of granting Government money, he thought a school ought to be open 60 times in the year in order to get it. His noble Friend however, had reduced the number of times from 60 to 40. Neither did he like the reduction of the time from an hour and a-half to one hour. There was danger in such a course, of creating among ignorant persons a notion that when public money was obtained on such terms, the education given was not worth the having. At present, night schools were prevented from sending up scholars for special subjects, but such a restriction ought not to be maintained. It might be said, that when we got to higher education we might rely on the South Kensington grant; but that grant was confined to science, and there were many young people who took naturally to history or literature in preference. He was glad to find that the 15s. limit, which he (Mr. Forster) never could get rid of, was to be abolished. He had lately come to the conclusion that it was working badly, because the expenses were increasing. Few things were more dispiriting to managers and teachers than to find that, having earned the money, they lost it, because, in fact, they had earned it. He should support the present or any other Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying there was another safeguard which it would be most dangerous to pass—that, for every shilling of Government money another shilling should be found in the locality, either in the shape of fees or voluntary contributions. That was the present provision, and if we departed from that we should lose our grasp of the great principle, which had been hitherto maintained, of Government supervision and inspection combined with local interests and local management.

said, he thought the House ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) for bringing this subject under their consideration. Notwithstanding the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), he could not but regret that they had not had more time to consider the new Code, particularly as he understood the Government intended it to be final for some years. He was, however, happy to find, from his inquiries out-of-doors, that the points of difference which were likely to arise were very few, and that the Code was likely to meet with a great amount of approbation; and, if the 40 per cent restriction on the examination of children in special subjects were modified, the higher class of teachers in the metropolis would offer no objection to the rest of the Code. There was only one school in the whole of Westminster—a district which contained a large number of high-class schools—which could pass 40 percent of its scholars in the three higher Standards—IV., V., and VI.—and that was the upper school of the Wesleyan training college, which was a commercial and not a elementary school. The National Schools of St. James's, Piccadilly, and St. Martin's-in-the-Fields could not, at the present moment, pass 40 per cent of their scholars in the three higher Standards. It must be remembered that every addition to the standard of attainment required was an additional strain on the teachers; and, if they "screwed up" the standards much higher, they would have to add to the teaching power of our schools. The teachers were employed from 9 to 6 o'clock, with an hour for dinner; and the evening was often spent in preparation or in working with pupil-teachers; while in some places, they were under moral compulsion to teach for an hour or two in the evening. It was a great concession, which would be hailed as a boon, that voluntary and uncertified teachers might in future conduct night schools. He understood from some of the best elementary teachers in London that children were now leaving school at an earlier age than they used to do, and that was because the London bye-laws spoke of 13 as the limit; it was inferred by parents that that was the age at which elementary education was supposed to be completed, and they were only too ready to avail themselves of such a suggestion. As to the special grant of £10 or £15, he did not see why the limit of three miles was inserted, and why a school in a sparsely-populated district should be denied the grant because there might be a school two miles away from it. They had reason, however, to be thankful to the Government for the consideration they had given to the demands of the teachers. As to night schools, in country districts they were of the greatest advantage and importance, because they gave the children an opportunity of making up for that irregularity of attendance which rural occupations rendered inevitable. Although they might not be so essential in manufacturing districts like those represented by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), in agricultural and rural districts night schools were doing a substantial part of the elementary education of the working classes by filling up, as it were, the interstices of their early training. To understand the Code itself was a serious intellectual study; but as far as he had been able to master it, there seemed to be a provision for letting the girls off some portion of the subjects, which the boys were expected to master, in order that they might devote more time to needlework. He regarded that provision as a great advantage to the community generally, for it was a matter of no small importance that the future wives and mothers of this century should be good needlewomen. Another change for the better was that children should be examined after attending for three months, instead of after a certain number of attendances. The additional grant to the teachers was a great boon; and he would like to know whether this grant should be given to all the pupil teachers who were employed in the best schools or whether only to a minimum number? The postponement of the age clauses would be considered a great advantage, and another sensible alteration was the reduction of the time of attendance of infants. He thanked his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) for the practical improvements which he proposed, and thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon) for the opportunity which had been afforded of discussing these important changes. In the schools with which he was acquainted the managers were willing to co-operate with the Government in raising the standard of education as far as it could properly be raised. This end could not be too quickly attained; progress in this, as in other things, to be sure must be expected to be slow.

, in opposing the Motion, said, the inhabitants of rural districts were exposed to greater difficulties in the maintenance of schools than in the urban districts, and paid much higher rates, while the education given in these schools often caused the boys to migrate to the towns, so that they were educated at the farmers' cost but not for the farmers' advantage. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon), on consideration, would not grudge these small rural schools the encouragement which the Government had been kind enough to give them under this clause.

asked whether it was within the power of the Education Department to impose a restriction upon the choice of electors, as had been done by declaring that no teacher of an elementary school would be recognized as a member of a school board? Surely this was a question for the consideration of the electors, and it was going beyond the Education Act of 1870, which disqualified from being elected as members of a school board only the teachers of schools under the Board. Such cases must be rare, and it was not well to prevent the electors from availing themselves of the services of experienced teachers.

thanked the Government for proposing these alterations in the Code. They suggested a decided improvement in the character of the education which was to be given throughout the country. The remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), however, as to the difficulty of earning the same amount of assistance as was earned before, seemed to be perfectly well founded. In reference to the requirement that 40 per cent of the children should pass the three higher Standards, he was informed that a considerable number of the teachers and managers of some of the best voluntary schools in the metropolis were of opinion that even in the best schools, 25 per cent would be nearer the mark than 40. If so, that would make a serious deduction from the amount of assistance to be given to voluntary schools. Whether the board schools excelled or failed in their teaching, their pecuniary position was unimpeachable; because the board could levy additional rates to make up any deficiency in their receipts from the grant. Every restrictive rule in the Code, however, operated seriously on the voluntary schools. The hon. Member for Birmingham recommended the universal adoption of school boards; but before those boards could be made acceptable throughout the country, the Elementary Education Act must be restored to its original form, by which more liberty was given than was the case now for religious teaching. A community that was desirous of having a denominational school could not have it under the Act as it stood at present. The people of Scotland under their Elementary Education Act enjoyed that privilege; and he asked, why should it be denied to the people of England? Without greater freedom of religious teaching, it was idle to talk of establishing school boards all over the land. He suggested very seriously to the Government, that in conducting these revisions of the Code, they should bear in mind the peculiar difficulty under which the voluntary schools were now working. If those schools were to hold their ground, they must regain some portion of their liberty, and the teachers must not be muzzled when they spoke on any subject—least of all when they spoke on a subject of such transcendant importance as religion. He trusted no difficulty would be found in considering the point which had been so well raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham.

complained that the discussion, instead of being confined to the Code, had ranged over the whole subject of the Education Act. His opinion was, that a good deal of exaggeration had been indulged in by both sides. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) and his Friends, on the one hand, exaggerated the amount of sectarian feeling thrown into the teaching in the elementary schools connected with the denominations. But, on the other hand, there was quite as much exaggeration in asserting that the teaching in board schools was purely secular. Returns recently presented, showed that an amount of religious teaching was given in board schools which might fairly satisfy the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken. He begged to thank the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council for the improvements he seemed to have introduced into the Code of this year. Many of the changes now made were such as he and others in that House had urged when the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was at the Education Office, and, as a whole, they were in a wise direction. Another improvement was the introduction of a standard above the Sixth, the object of which was to enable children to be presented in extra subjects. This would serve as an inducement to parents to keep their children longer at school. It was, moreover, gratifying to see that in addition to the periodical examinations, it was proposed to have something like a regular system of visits by Inspectors without notice. But, at the same time, he thought that if that system was to be properly carried out, the staff of Inspectors would have to be increased. In regard to the Agricultural Children Act, he was glad to see that facilities had been given for obtaining the certificates needed under it, and he thought that steps should at once be taken with a view to putting that Act into force; inasmuch as there might otherwise be a serious interference with farm work, by suddenly requiring that the children were to be sent to school, after the farmers had been led to think that the old system was to be allowed to go on. As to the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he thought it a very small matter, affecting but few schools and involving no great principle.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham would withdraw the Motion which he had submitted. He assumed, in making this suggestion, that his noble Friend would keep to the conditions of the Code as it stood. If the proposition of the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was adopted, it would simply be a premium to small schools. If there were any managers of schools or teachers who complained that the Code established too high a standard, their fears might be allayed by the fact that this was practically the Code which had been in operation in Scotland, where it was found that a great deal more money could be made by that than by any inferior Code. The principle of this improved Code was a very wise one because it did less for mere mechanical results, and more for intellectual teaching. It infused a higher intelligence into the schools, and it was that higher intelligence which produced the good results. All experience showed that unless schools were forced to pass the higher Standards—above the Fourth—the money spent on the education of the children was almost thrown away, because it was only then that they came to acquire the knowledge that was necessary to fit them for the ordinary business of life. Any increased grant given in that direction was given for permanent results useful to the nation, and he congratulated the noble Lord on the advance he had made in the Code, which would be of great use to the country.

said, that under the operation of the Code, of late years the tendency had been to push needlework aside, which was a very serious matter with regard to the happiness of the working man's family. He would suggest whether something might not be done to check that tendency, and restore needlework to its proper position in our schools.

said, he could not sufficiently thank the House for the cordial reception it had given to the new Revised Code, which, on the part of the Government, he had had the pleasure of laying on the Table a few days ago. He must, however, demur to the complimentary remark of the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot), that in preparing that Code he had risen above the prejudices of the Department to which he belonged, and had struck out a new line for himself. He wished it to be clearly understood that, although the Government had taken much trouble in perfecting the Code, the chief credit in preparing it belonged to Sir Francis Sandford, the head of the permanent staff of the Department, to whose indefatigable labour, mastery of details, and public spirit the merit of the Code was principally owing. Having gone with much care into the matter, he was led to believe, upon the best authority, that the effect of the considerable changes to be carried out by the Code—reflecting as it did the idiosyncracy of England as much as the Scotch Code did the idiosyncracy of Scotland—would be that ordinary schools would get just as much as before, that good schools would got more, and that very good schools would get a great deal more. That was a result which the House would doubtless wish to see brought about. It was exceedingly difficult to calculate the effect of these large changes, operating as they did over the large surface of more than 2,000,000 of children; but it was hoped that their results would prove satisfactory in every respect. As regarded inspection, he might state that the Government had increased the English staff of Inspectors by 12, and if the number was still too small to secure an efficient system of inspection, it would be increased. An inspection, to be efficient, must not be hurried; it must not consist chiefly of adding up the number of attendances on the part of the children; but it must be such as to awaken the intelligence of the children, and to help and encourage the teachers in their work. He agreed with the suggestion that visits without notice—as they would be termed in future, instead of being called "surprise visits," which was an objectionable phrase—would be a most valuable mode of increasing the zeal of our school teachers. He would now run rapidly through the points referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon). In the first place, he believed that the effect of the Code would enable the board schools—which, having the resources of the ratepayers at their backs, would be able to secure efficient teachers—to attain the rank of very good schools. The hon. Member had rather blamed him for putting 1s. of the sum given for attendance upon the discipline and organization of the school; but where children were brought together in large masses, the discipline and the organization of the school become of the utmost importance. The hon. Member had further contended that the Standards were too stringent; but he did not think that, upon consideration, the hon. Member would find that his charge was well founded. The truth was that, tinder the old system, too much credit was given for the mere mechanical acquirement of reading, and it was often discovered that the children having got a certain page by heart, were pretending to read with their books turned upside down. Therefore, by working into the mere mechanical reading a little grammar, physical geography, a little knowledge of the geography of England, and a certain amount of history, it was thought that the mind of the child would not be overburdened, and that the teaching would be rendered more lively. He believed also that the acquirement of reading would thus be rendered more easy. Those were the principal additions which the Government had made to the Standards. They, however, had ventured to require that the children should learn certain standard passages of poetry; and, by adopting this rather high type of education, they had not taken a mere theoretical flight, but had adopted a course that was essentially popular among the poorer classes, and he hoped that the minds of the children would be impressed with the lines taken from many of our best authors, and that these might sometimes be a consolation to them in their hours of labour. The hon. Member had complained of the vote of £10 or £15 in aid of the small board schools; but he had overlooked the fact that that sum was not merely put into the pockets of such schools without any return being required, inasmuch as to get that £10 or £15 they must first obtain £30 to meet it. He did not see his way to get effective schools in the midst of small populations without affording some stimulus of this kind. In a population of 300 there ought to be 50 children at school, and there was to be a certificated teacher, who should be a woman, part of whose duty would be to manage the rough boys of the district. She ought to have £60 a-year, but how was this to be secured without some provision of this sort? Under these circumstances, therefore, he felt that he could appeal with confidence to the hon. Member not to press that part of his Motion which related to this subject. In reducing the grant from 4s. to 2s. for grammar and geography unless 40 per cent of the scholars were presented under the Fourth Standard, their object was to induce teachers to push their scholars into the upper Standards. The observations that had been made on the subject of the alteration by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. B. Forster) and other hon. Members would, he could assure the House, receive the most careful consideration of the Department. Allusion had also been made to the night schools, to which he might say he attached much importance. Whether or not night schools were to become part of the general system of the education of the country was a problem which probably those who came after them would settle. Children now left, and would, he feared, continue to leave the schools at 10, 11, or 12 years of age, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them not to lose most of what they had learnt at school. He imagined that when the State adopted the principle that the people should be educated, it was intended that even if children did not remain at school after the age of 12 they should retain what they had already acquired, and no way of enabling them to keep the education they had got was so good as leading them to attend night school voluntarily. It was therefore worth while for the State to encourage them to do so. His right hon. Friend had referred to the fact that there had been an alteration of the hours of teaching—that alteration had been made after much consideration, and had been made in the hope that if instead of an hour-and-a-half's dry teaching they substituted an hour of steady work with a half-hour of singing and other subjects of attraction, a greater number of children would be induced to attend the schools. They were also prepared to allow volunteer teachers to attend the night schools, provided the Inspectors passed them as qualified—in the hope of enlisting a great deal of the educational enthusiasm of the country in the work in which they were engaged. The suggestion of his right hon. Friend that grants should be given for special subjects in the night schools would receive careful attention; but it was one as to which he could not give an answer off-hand, concerning, as it did, the Treasury as well as the Educational Department. He (Viscount San-don) thought he had touched on all the principal subjects alluded to in the debate, and he was glad to find that the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) supported the Government, be- cause he had large experience in the question of education. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) demurred to the provision forbidding masters of schools to be members of school boards. In the Department they had looked at this point from the side of the schools, and thought it their duty to follow former rules prohibiting schoolmasters from undertaking any business which would interfere with their school duties. But they had no idea of casting a slur upon the masters or teachers, many of whom were far superior to some of the members of small school boards. This was a complicated matter, and before he could give any answer with regard to it he must consult the Lord President and others. He quite concurred in what the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland) had said as to the importance of teaching the girls in the schools needlework, and could assure him that the subject had not been overlooked. Within the last fortnight he had communicated with every Inspector in England on the subject, and a large number of them had assured him that needlework was well taught; and the object in view was that every encouragement should be given to that branch of instruction. It was said that girls were oppressed with an undue amount of arithmetic; but the fact was that the general usage of the Inspectors had been to put to girls less difficult questions on arithmetic than to boys because they found that they were rather over-burdened with needlework. It was not the case that needlework was to be treated as an extra subject; but a provision was made to meet the views that had been expressed. It was absolutely necessary that the girls should learn needlework, or the schools would not get the grant; and if the girls did the work in the presence of the Inspectors, and it was taught systematically, they would get a grant of 2s. more. He altogether sympathized with the wish of the hon. Member for North Devon that everything that was possible should be done to improve the homes of the labourers, and that they should have good and practical wives, and he would venture to call attention to the specific subjects in the 4th Schedule—mechanics, physiology, and all sorts of grand things—to which he had ventured to add "domestic economy" for girls, which in- cluded the subjects of food and its preparation; clothing and materials. The dwelling; warming, cleaning, and ventilation. Washing materials and their use. Rules for health; the management of a sick room. Cottage income, expenditure, and savings, in which subjects if they passed they would obtain an extra grant of 4s., just as boys would in physical geography. In the present Code the Government had endeavoured to carry out the promises they made last year. Their great object was to secure that there were thoroughly good schools within the reach of all the population of this country, providing that sort of education which the best class of labourers would think most fitted for their children. In that object he trusted they would succeed. He thanked the House for the support they had received, and he looked forward to considerable effects resulting from an improved Code which had been the joint work of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.

said' he had on a former occasion explained to the House that the Acts on the subject of Corrupt Practices at Elections and Election Petitions would shortly expire, and, in conformity with the pledge he had given to the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), he begged now to move that a Select Committee be appointed.

proposed, as an Amendment, to add, "and what, if any, improvements may The made in the law relating to the trial of Election Petitions." He feared the concluding words of the Motion would have the effect of narrowing the inquiry. Many hon. Members believed there was no necessity for imposing on candidates for seats in the House more restrictions with reference to corrupt practices, and as regarded the modern trial of Election Petitions, they were not satisfied with the present system, and therefore were anxious to satisfy themselves that this inquiry would not be entered upon with a foregone conclusion. If an understanding could be arrived at that the inquiry and Report should not be limited, both sides of the House would be content.

said, he believed there was no substantial difference between the Attorney General and himself with regard to the Motion before the House; but he wished to add at the end of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion the words, "for the trial and do-termination of Parliamentary Election Petitions, and otherwise to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868." His object was merely to guide the Committee as to the subject-matter on which they would have to Report. He thought they ought to give the new system a fair trial; but they had observed it far enough to see that it had not worked with such success as to be incapable of improvement. If the hon. and learned Attorney General thought the words of his Amendment were too large he should be glad to accept any limitation which might be considered desirable.

said, he thought it would be well for the Attorney General to consider the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry, that the two last lines of the original Motion should be struck out, and that the Committee should be simply one of inquiry into all these Acts.

supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry. He was anxious to see a Committee which would have the largest possible powers of inquiry, and he should altogether object to limiting the scope of that inquiry. It ought to have power to go into the Act of 1868, and to suggest any alterations it might think proper as to the constitution of the Court. He also thought that all the three countries—England, Ireland, and Scotland—should be represented on the Committee.

objected to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. C. Lewis), as it would give the Committee more work than it could do in the present Session. Instead of one Committee there might be two if the Amendments were accepted—one to inquire into the working of the Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, and the other to inquire as to the Act of 1868, also to devise the best mode of obviating its defects, and to decide questions affecting the validity of Returns.

explained that although the Motion had not been brought on at the previous night's sitting, he had, at the close of that sitting, given Notice that he would bring it on the next evening. Nothing was further from his intention than to limit the scope of the inquiry by the last words of the Motion. It was his desire that the Committee should inquire into the operation of the three Acts of Parliament and examine whether they had worked well or worked ill, and what Amendments should be made in them. He would have no objection, however, to leave out the concluding words of his Motion—namely, "whether any and what further measures are necessary for the prevention of Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary elections," and to substitute for them the words "and to report them to the House."

stated that he had not intended to impute any irregularity whatever to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he would assent to the second reading, on the understanding that the Bill should not proceed further until the Select Committee had had an opportunity of examining it.

was quite ready to admit that there were grievances which this Bill would meet, and which, as an attached member of the Church of England, he did not desire should remain unredressed. It was undesirable, however, to alter any part of their ecclesiastical arrangements without showing absolute ground for making such an alteration, and this Bill would make a considerable alteration in their parochial system. The case which he had been especially anxious to meet was that in which an incumbent neglected the cure of souls committed to his charge, and, at the same time, prevented anybody else from doing so. If the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would withdraw his Amendment he would propose not merely that the Bill but that the whole subject should be referred to a Select Committee.

, while admitting that the Bill intended to carry out a very desirable object, observed that it affected, to a considerable extent, the whole fabric of the Church establishment in this country. In its essential principle the Bill was opposed to the parochial system, and substituted for it another system, which, while it might be a good one, ought, at all events, not to be adopted without the fullest deliberation and inquiry. If the Bill became law it would constitute in every parish, to which it applied, a divided authority, and would establish a system under which two clergymen of the Church of England would be the only two men in the parish who under no circumstances would speak to each other. It would create a state of schism within the Church which they had hitherto believed was to be found only in bodies outside of the Church, and would give facilities to parties in the Church to carry out those extreme tendencies on the one side or the other which they thought they had gone a long way to repress by the Act of last year. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) spoke of providing churches of refuge in the Church of England; but he (Mr. Raikes) thought that the existence of these little ecclesiastical Alsatias was alien to the principle of an Establishment. The Bill would also create a new sacerdotal caste within the Church of England. It would establish an order of clergymen who would not have the cure of souls, but who would be preachers, and it would recognize a sort of regular order of clergy as opposed to the secular order of clergy. The clergy to be appointed under the Bill would only have the power to administer the rites of the Church in the buildings in which they were entitled to preach; and therefore if any members of their congregation happened to be in extremis they would have to call on the incumbents whose services they had discarded, or the preachers whom they followed must break the law in order to administer to them on their death-beds the last rites of the Church. The most obvious objection, however, to the Bill was that it was the corollary of disestablishment, and ought not to be proposed first. In a parish where the incumbent was unpopular another clergyman would be introduced, who would probably be a good preacher, and who would therefore attract a large number from the parish church. They would thus see the parish church empty, and the man who did no apparent work receiving the emoluments; and if they desired it they could scarcely have a stronger argument for disestablishment. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

said, he only desired in supporting the Bill to promote union in the Church. On the whole, he thought the best course would be to adopt the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would withdraw his Amendment. He took an entirely different view of the subject from that taken by the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), and trusted that it would be referred to a Committee upstairs.

said, the Notice Paper showed that it would not be an easy matter to get the Bill through Committee. He thought the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) would best consult his own intentions in agreeing to the Motion to refer it to a Select Committee, where the subject could be thoroughly thrashed out, and where, at the same time, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would have the best opportunity of stating his objections to this measure.

said, when he came to look with quiet attention at this question he saw the necessity for considering it seriously. There was one reason why he wished to touch upon the subject, and it was this—that there was no provision in the Bill for payment of clergymen who might be appointed to officiate in licensed houses. Now, that was wrong. It was to any clergyman who might officiate in such houses a question of bread and butter, and if provision in the way of payment were not made for him, how was he to subsist? If the hon. Member for Gloucester pressed his Amendment he would vote with him.

observed, that the object of the hon. Member for Stafford was to give further facilities for public worship. No one could doubt that there were cases in which incumbents were unable to afford the facilities which were required by their parishioners. The Bill, there was no doubt, had been viewed with considerable alarm in some quarters as being calculated to produce discord rather than unity in several parishes in the country. But he thought the hon. Member deserved the thanks of the House for the way in which he had dealt with this subject last Session and this Session. The hon. Gentleman's object was the good of the Church of England. He (Mr. Cross) believed that the subject required some further discussion, and that the best course to adopt would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He therefore hoped the hon. Member for Gloucester would withdraw his Amendment.

, concurring in the opinion that the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee, was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

, referring to the observations of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), said, he demurred to that hon. Gentleman's theories, and had very great doubt about his facts. He accepted the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, not only with readiness, but with gratitude.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane)—who was not now in his place—namely, to re-commit the Bill. The Bill was based on the principle that a superannuation should be based on the average of the last three years' salary of the officer about to be superannuated. No doubt cases of hardship might occasionally arise; but it would be better to deal with them in an exceptional manner, as the Treasury could do by laying a Minute before Parliament, stating the particulars, instead of altering the whole law, and allowing the Departments to deal with such cases in a way that might occasionally provoke remarks and cause injury to the public services.