asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to proceed with the Pollution of Rivers Bill this Session?

in reply, said, he had reason to believe that there existed a desire on both sides of the House that the Bill should pass into law this Session. Therefore he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Notice, and allow the Bill to be read a second time on Thursday next. If this were done, he was sanguine enough to hope that he might be able to arrange an Amendment in Committee which would remove the hon. Member's objection to the Bill in its present state.

said, the answer he should give to this appeal would be decidedly "No." So far as he understood the feeling of manufacturers in the country, they only wanted to be assured of the Government's intention to proceed with this Bill in order that they might come up in large numbers for, the purpose of opposing it.

explained that he had on the previous evening moved to report Progress in order that several Gentlemen who had not spoken might have the opportunity of further urging the Nonconformist objections to the Bill. These Gentlemen had not come down at that early hour, and probably they thought, as he thought, that further remonstrance on the part of the friends of non-sectarian education would be hopeless. He did not wish to give a factious opposition to the measure; and, as the front benches on both sides of the House appeared to have agreed as to the course to be taken, he left it to them to arrange matters between them.

said, he thought that this subject had been viewed too much from an urban point of view. The agricultural ratepayers were, in point of fact, paying upon their incomes seven or eight or ten times more than those of the towns, and yet this Bill professed to make the rural districts contribute out of their Imperial taxation towards the educational expenses of the towns, which were much richer in proportion than the country districts. He hoped the Government would take some notice of this fact.

said, he thought they had met to discuss the Education Bill, and not the question of rating, and therefore on that point would only say that the towns paid an average of 3s. 7d. in the pound, whereas the rural districts paid only about 2s. 6d. or 2s. 8d. in the pound. Some extraordinary statements had been made in the course of last night's discussion to the prejudice of his constituents, and from these statements the House might also infer that Birmingham was a nest of heathens. He was, therefore, anxious to say that among the members of the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, and the Dissenters of Birmingham were some of the most eminent men in this country, and that the school board had merely tried to carry out a system for religious education which had worked satisfactorily to all sects for 12 or 14 years in New South Wales and South Australia. They had only undertaken the work of secular education, allowing certain times for religious instruction. The plan had failed because the Church of England and the Roman Catholics refused to carry it out. But the school board were not to blame for endeavouring to introduce a system which existed, under the sanction of the Imperial Government, in another part of Her Majesty's dominions, and which was there approved by the Church of England, by Roman Catholics, and even by Buddhists. At any rate, he did not wish, it to be thought that the Birmingham School Board consisted of a body of men who wished for no religion. As to the Bill, he had hitherto supported it, but hoped that now in Committee Amendments would be introduced which would render it more palatable.

said, he desired before the House went into Committee on the Bill to call attention to a fact that seemed to have been overlooked. He was very anxious that something should be done for national schools, and that the voluntary schools and the national schools should be placed by this Bill on a better footing than at present, so as to avoid the difficulty into which they were now in danger of drifting—namely, that voluntary, national, and other school committees, although they had provided buildings and expended, large sums on school houses, would never be able either to hold their own or to recoup themselves. No doubt some hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that it was advisable everything should be handed over to the school boards that permeated the country. He differed entirely from that view. He was anxious that religion should be taught in the schools, and there could be no question in the minds of most hon. Members on both sides of that House that while possibly some persons might object to the use of the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments ought to be taught in every school. He was one of those who would never dissociate religion from secular instruction. There ought to be in every school at least the option to the parent to send the child to a purely secular school, or to one where he would unquestionably receive religious instruction. The Bir- mingham School Board had been very much, reprehended for the course they had taken. He was not there to find fault with them, but he did complain that the National School Committee should not have the power to keep in their own hands so much of their own money as would educate their own children, and to allow the school board money to be so used that it might be applicable to education in which religion was taught along with the ordinary instruction.

said, he should not have joined in this discussion had it not been for the attack made on the previous night by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) on the British and Foreign School system.

said, the hon. Member would not be in Order in replying to the speech to which he referred.

said, he would accept the ruling of the Chairman, and make no further allusion to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. With regard to the Bill itself—passing its Preamble—there were in the House three classes of educationalists. There were the advocates of secular education, who were divided into two sub-sections; one represented by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), who, on religious grounds, declined to have anything but secular instruction in schools supported by the State, and the other—who were a small section of those who took an interest in the subject—composed of those who believed in no religious education at all. On the other side of the House there was the school of dogmatic Scriptural education. He belonged to a school of ardent friends of religious education, which he believed was common to the majority of the people of this Kingdom, and which, under the Education Act of 1870, had become the religious education of a large proportion of the children of this country. Between 40 and 50 school boards only, of which 28 were in Wales, had declined to have Scriptural education in their schools. Therefore, Scriptural education was carried on by about 1,000 school boards, and it was of the undenominational and general character which he thought the House would be willing to support. The great majority of the people of this country were op- posed to State funds being devoted to dogmatic religious instruction, and the secular educationalists were a small minority. During the debate on the Act of 1870, 20 teachers from the National Schools Society, 20 from the British and Foreign Schools Society, and 20 from the Wesleyan School Board conferred together and reported that, putting aside the creeds and catechisms of the Wesleyans and the Church of England, the religious education was practically the same in all these schools, and this was the unsectarian religious education of about 1,000 school boards. Consequently, he maintained that the system of the British and Foreign Schools Society had not been a failure, and that it was the only one which could be generally approved by the House.

stated that the late Birmingham School Board, of which for three years he was Vice Chairman, had adopted an undenominational system of religious instruction, so simple that no parents objected to it; but the new board had abolished the unsectarian plan. The result was that 6,000 children were receiving from voluntary sources on two mornings in the week religious teaching of a certain kind, under no public authority or responsibility, and the children attending other schools, with accommodation for 7,000 children, never once in the whole year heard a word as to their duty to God or their neighbours. This might be copying an Australian system; but he hoped the House would see the change in its true colours. So far from the Birmingham School Board being pioneers of education, as some people regarded them, they ought rather to be considered to have served the less pretentious, but still useful, purpose of scarecrows to frighten the country from secular teaching, into the adoption of a better and more truly liberal system.

explained that under the Australian system he had mentioned the education given was secular except on one day in each week.

hoped this irregular discussion of Australian systems and Birmingham squabbles would not be continued, and that the Committee would proceed with the consideration of the Bill.

did not accept the ruling of the noble Lord that this discussion was irregular. He wished to remark that this question was not in a stage where it could be considered to be settled. Hon. Gentlemen opposite represented the opinions of a considerable section of the country, but they did not by any means represent the opinions of the majority. Those who shared his views were content to wait for a better time. The tendency of the Bill was to check the further adoption of school boards where they were not at present established. He did not pretend to say whether or not that was a fair solution of the education difficulty. He believed the education given by the State in State schools, while every facility was given to all denominations to carry on the religious instruction of their children, was what the country would have to come to, but they would have a great deal to get through in the interval.

desired to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) for the handsome manner in which he had refrained on that occasion from pressing the views which he and some other Gentlemen opposite held in favour of secular education in order not to cause any further delay in going into Committee on the Bill.

appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. Serjeant Spinks) to postpone the Amendment of which he had given Notice for Clauses 7, 8, 9, and 10, to take effect immediately after the passing of the Act, for the attendance at school of children habitually neglected by the parent, or habitually wandering and consorting with criminals and disorderly persons, and attendance at industrial schools. The Government were preparing with great care Amendments for the formation of day industrial schools, which he hoped to be able to submit to the Committee in two or three days' time. He therefore asked the Committee not to pass any judgment on the question until after they had considered the Government Amendments, and also that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment until the subject was ready for full discussion.

said, he readily assented to the request of the noble Lord.

asked the noble Lord if he intended to postpone also Clauses 7, 8, 9, and 10?

Yes.

moved, in page 1, line 21, after "ten years," to insert—

"Unless any such authority as is hereinafter in this Act referred to as the local authority shall have granted a certificate in writing certifying that such child has attained the age of nine years, and that the employment of such child is upon grounds which the said local authority has investigated and found sufficient: Provided, That the employment into which such child is taken is such that the child while employed will attend school half time."

said, there might be exceptional cases of hardship under the operation of the clause; but if the Amendment were adopted it would practically fix the age up to which a child could not be employed at nine years, and it would be impossible to maintain the limit of 10 years, owing to the pressure which would be brought to bear on the school boards, and this part of the Bill might as well be abandoned.

said, that the Factory Act of 1874 fixed the age for work in textile factories at 10, and it was only just to put all other industries on an equality, and not give an advantage to one over another. In the interest of the great mass of the Lancashire manufacturers, he hoped the noble Lord would not give way on this point.

said, the Act of 1874 had been found to work very well. The only objection to it was that other employments were not under its provisions. One of the objects for which the Royal Commission was issued was to inquire not only into the operation of the Act, but to see how far other industries ought to be subjected to the same restriction.

thought there was some misapprehension as to the object of the Amendment, which was not intended to undermine the clause, but to make the compulsory system gradual, instead of forcing all persons at once into the extreme limits contemplated by the Bill. It would facilitate education by an extension of the half-time system in certain cases under a continuance of the present law.

said, this Amendment would restrict the very stringent rule laid down in this Bill, not at the request of the parents, but on good grounds being shown by them to the attendance committee that it should be done. He should support the Amendment.

said, the Amendment would inflict injury upon Lancashire, for its effect would simply be to produce a demand for the labour of children too young to enter the factories, and to counterbalance the benefits conferred by the Factory Acts, which had done great good. He hoped it would not be pressed.

opposed the Amendment, urging that children outside the factories would be under less efficient supervision.

moved, after "ten years," to insert—

"3. That the child being of the age of nine years has made 250 school attendances in each of the previous four years, and since it reached the age of nine years made 250 school attendances, or had received a certificate fixed by Standard 4 of the Code of 1876."

said, the Amendment was based on a misapprehension of Clause 5 as it would stand after the Amendment of which he had given Notice. After the opposition offered to a similar proposal on behalf of the manufacturing interest, it would be unfair and inconsistent on the part of the Government to accede to a similar request from their agricultural friends. As a matter of fact, children in the agricultural districts were often employed in the mornings and evenings in light labour, while they attended school during the day, and were thus able to earn 1s. 8d. a-week.

moved, in page 1, line 21, to omit that portion prohibiting the employment of a child—

"who, being of the age of 10 years or upwards, has not obtained such certificate either of his proficiency in reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic, or of previous due attendance at a public elementary school, as is in this Act in that behalf mentioned."

contended that agricultural children could not be dealt with in the same way as manufacturing children in towns. It was much better, in his opinion, that they should have compulsory education of children between the ages of 5 and 10 years than that they should be prevented from earning their livelihood between the ages of 10 and 14. He quite believed that this portion of the Government Bill would break down altogether in the agricultural districts. Why should children between the ages of 10 and 14 be prevented from working because they had not attended school a certain number of times between 8 and 10 years? He should like to hear some explanation on this point from the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill, because he felt quite assured that if the provision objected to became law it would cause much dissatisfaction among the agricultural classes.

supported the Amendment, and said he had always been favourable to direct compulsion. He should be sorry to interpose any obstacle to the passing of the Bill; but if his hon. Friend below him went to a division he should vote with him on the principle that he was in favour of direct, as distinguished from indirect, compulsion.

said, that the Amendment really raised the question between direct and indirect compulsion. Now, the Government had taken their stand upon the proposal that they had made, that they should not apply direct compulsion in all cases. They proceeded upon the presumption that the great majority of well-doing industrious parents, if the temptation of getting their children's earnings were withdrawn from them, would do their duty without being embarrassed by attendance officers. If they adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon, and did away with the labour pass, they must adopt the other alternative and go in for universal compulsion, which meant universal inspection and universal school authorities. He was very glad to find that which he had never doubted—that there was so much earnest zeal for the promotion of education among those who were connected with agriculture; but then he regarded that portion of the Bill against which the Amendment was directed as essential, and he could not therefore consent to depart from it.

observed, that the 10th clause of the Bill as amended by the noble Lord would practically introduce a measure of direct compulsion. He had no doubt that the labour pass would be of considerable advantage, and should be sorry if it were disregarded. He could not vote for the Amendment; but he hoped that some provision might be made for a half-time system between 10 and 14.

said, that if the age of 12 years were substituted for 14 they would get out of the difficulty. Many lads were so dull that they would never pass Standard IV. even if they were kept at school till 21 years of age.

opposed the Amendment, believing that the clause would operate beneficially.

remarked, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter Barttelot), that the half-time system had been found to work beneficially in the case of agricultural children.

said, he would support the Amendment. As it at present stood the clause would allow children between 5 and 10 to wander about idle for half of the year. If the Amendment were carried he hoped that something more definite would be done for children between 5 and 10.

observed, that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed now to be in favour of universal compulsion. He (Lord Robert Montagu) was not so easily converted, and would therefore vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon.

suggested that, in the clause defining child, the word "fourteen" should be left out, and the word "twelve" substituted.

said, that if the concession now asked for were made in the case of agriculture, the same relaxation should be made in the case of children employed in manufactories under the Factories Acts.

deprecated one uniform law applying to poor families under all circumstances. He should therefore hesitate to support the Government on this question. The first necessity of children was to eat, and the parent's first duty was to feed them. If these halffed children were forced to school—especially one in which they were taught no religion—they would be very apt to lay their hands on what they could. An enactment of this sort should not be too sweeping; there should be some modification in the case of large families or the children of widows, and he should support the Amendment.

said, that direct compulsion was not required in the borough of Nottingham, and he should support the Bill as it stood.

thought there should be direct compulsion up to the age of 10, and then there would be no occasion for the cruel enactment that children up to 14 should not be allowed, under certain circumstances, to earn their own living. He doubted whether the fear of punishment four or five years hence would force parents to do their duty at present.

observed, that the clause imposed a penalty on any person employing a child under 10 years of age unless it could be proved that he had acted in good faith, in which case the penalty would fall on the parent. He believed that such penalty would be unworkable, and moved, in page 1, line 23, after "certificate," to insert "of age and." The enactment without some such security would be inefficient and worthless.

admitted the necessity of some bonâ fide arrangement of the nature pointed out, but thought it might be more conveniently introduced into the 15th clause.

moved, in page 1, line 25, to leave out" public elemen- tary," and insert "certified efficient," in order that schools that were giving a sound education might count equally with the public elementary schools.

moved, in page l, line 26, at end, to add—

"Unless such child is employed, and is attending school in accordance with the provisions of the Factory Acts, or of any bye-law of the local authority sanctioned by the Education Department, regulating the attendance at school of children who are necessarily and beneficially employed."

supported the Amendment on the ground that it might open the way to the adoption of the principle of half-time in the agricultural districts.

expressed his gratification that the Amendment had been moved, and declared his readiness to vote for it. The proposal was one that went in the right direction, and he was sure it must commend itself to the mind of everybody.

also supported the proposal. If adopted it would be extremely valuable in the agricultural districts. He hoped the Government would support it, as it would tend to carry out their own principle of compulsion.

hoped the Amendment would be adopted, if only for the sake of uniformity.

would also express a hope that the Vice President of the Council would accept the Amendment. He did not like to relax the stringent provisions as to education that were necessary; but unless this Amendment were adopted it would be impossible to work this clause. They were all agreed that these children between 10 and 14 ought to be working to a certain extent, and it was important that no obstacle should be thrown in the way of a child earning its own livelihood after 14. What he and the noble Lord desired to effect was that between these ages a child should be allowed to go both to work and to school until it had had schooling enough, when it should be allowed to devote itself to work altogether. The noble Lord said the child must either have had schooling enough or must show a sufficient number of attendances; but, through the fault of the parent and not the child, he might not have had the proper number of attendances, and there would be several cases in which the child would not be able to pass the Standard or the attendances. What ought to be done in such cases? The child ought not to be prevented from working. He would not deny that the desire to get hold of the labour pass would affect the minds of parents; but the Legislature ought not to subject ignorant and neglected children to the additional calamity of idleness.

thought the proposal was a step in the right direction, and ought to be embodied in the Bill.

said, that the balance of argument was in favour of the relaxation of the clause in accordance with the wish of the noble Lord, but he could not promise to make any amendment to Clause 7 in the same direction. He was happy, on the part of the Government, to accept the improvement of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord.

remarked that the provisions affecting the employment of children were scattered up and. down the Bill in such a way that it would be somewhat difficult for the poor people to whom this applied to apprehend them.

feared that the effect of the Amendment would be to encourage parents in wilful neglect in sending their children to school because they would say "Our children will obtain work whether there has been the requisite number of attendances or not." The result would be to entirely destroy the system of indirect compulsion between the ages of 5 and 10. If this was done to the extent proposed they should have some security that the system of direct compulsion between those ages should be strengthened.

reminded his hon. Friend of the important Amendments already made in the Bill, and of the provision made for the attendance of such children.

moved to add at the end of the Clause—

"Provided, that a list of Public Elementary and other Schools where efficient elementary instruction is given (whether such schools are or are not in receipt of grants provided by Parliament) shall be annually published by the Committee of Council on Education; and that the list so published, or any supplementary list published during the year, on the request of the local authority or of the managers of a school, shall be sufficient evidence that every school so named is an efficient elementary school."

thought it was hardly necessary to insert such a provision, because he did not think the local authorities would be rash enough to close a school such as the noble Lord had described. If, however, he found on further consideration that further provision was required he would be happy to meet the views of the noble Lord.

called the attention of the noble Lord to the position of the canal children throughout the country. He was not going to propose any Amendment, because he believed the noble Lord had the case under consideration. He knew how difficult it was to ascertain precisely the residences such children, of whom there were a great number, chiefly located in the canal boats.

admitted the importance of the subject. Though he thought these children would to a certain extent be caught under the operation of the Bill, yet he was afraid that great numbers of them would succeed in eluding its provisions. In fact, they were a class of children with whom it was extremely difficult to deal, and he was disposed to think that the best course to pursue would be to postpone the further dealing with our canal population until the time when his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department would have to legislate with respect to the various labour suggestions of the Factory Commissions. If, meantime, he found any opportunity of dealing with the question he should be glad to do so.

was of opinion that it would not be well to defer dealing with the subject for so long a time.

moved, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "district," to "in this Act," in line 10, and insert—

"By a committee (in this Act referred to as a 'school attendance committee') appointed annually, if it is a borough, by the council of the borough, and, if it is a parish, by the guardians of the union comprising such parish.

"A school attendance committee under this section may consist of not less than six nor more than twelve members of the council or guardians appointing the committee, so, however, that, in the case of a committee appointed by guardians, one-third at least shall consist of ex-officio guardians, if there are any and sufficient ex-officio guardians.

"Every such school board and school attendance committee."

thanked the noble Lord for having introduced into the Bill an Amendment substantially such as he had himself proposed, and expressed his confident opinion that it would be found to work well throughout the country.

was very glad the noble Lord had made this alteration, and that he had not adhered to the proposal that authority should be given to persons not of the local authorities. The noble Lord had up to this time completely fulfilled his promise that he would listen to proposals for improvement from all parts of the House. He would suggest whether there were not some districts where it would be almost impossible to secure the proportion of one-third of ex-officio Guardians.

thought it would be well to follow the precedent that had been adopted for guidance.

said, that from his experience ex-officio members were not so willing to act as elected members.

said, he was much pleased with the alteration proposed to be made in this section. As the clause stood it would not work well.

objected to the committee consisting of one-third ex-officio Guardians. He did so because it was likely to make a precedent for Ireland, and there it would not at all work well.

said, it would be better to amend the Amendment by providing that, in case an adequate number of ex-officio members could not be obtained, the deficiency should be made up by elected Guardians.

could not conceive on what ground it was assumed that ex-officio Guardians would not discharge their duty as members of the education committee.

moved, in page 2, line 13, after "known," to insert—

"It shall be the duty of such local authority to report to the Education Department any infraction of the provisions of section seven of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' in any public elementary school within their district which may come to their knowledge; and also to forward to the Education Department any complaint which they may receive of the infraction of those provisions.' "

observed, that the Government and all hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side were as anxious as any hon. Members on the other side could be that there should be no doubt as to the Conscience Clause being strictly and honestly carried out. In point of fact, the cases were very few in the country generally in which there were any complaints of the infraction of the clause; but whenever a complaint was received by the Education Department they immediately caused inquiries to be made into it. They had had two or three cases, and the school had been notified that if the infraction were repeated the annual Parliamentary grant would be stopped, and there was an end of the matter. He thought that the Amendment was a very good one, not for removing any real difficulties which existed; but if it was an additional assurance to persons that their conscientious scruples would not be interfered with, it would have done good work.

contended that as no grant was made to certified efficient schools they ought not to have a Conscience Clause imposed upon them.

said, he agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) that all wished to see the Conscience Clause carried out in the most complete and loyal manner. He feared that the Amendment, if accepted in its present shape, would, oblige the local authorities to report any idle tale or rumour as to the infraction of the clause, and if so it would do great mischief and cause strife where we wanted peace. He would therefore move to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting all the words after the word "authority" in line 2 down to "also" in line 5.

pointed out that it was not a mere rumour, but an infraction of the provision of the section referred to that should be reported.

said, he could not conceive words more clear than the terms in which the Amendment was drawn. It was satisfactory to the Committee to have the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford that he had known of no infraction of the Conscience Clause.

said, he was greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford for proposing the Amendment, and he was no less obliged to the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) for the frank and generous spirit with which he had received it. It would be a great advantage to give this power to the local authorities.

moved, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "and not of," and insert "to assist." If the clause were left unaltered it would throw upon the Inspectors of Factories, and upon them alone, the duty of looking after the children employed in all the smaller workshops, and the consequence would be that in a great portion of the country the Act would be inoperative. The effect of his Amendment was to throw upon the local authorities the duty of enforcing the observance of the law, providing at the same time that the Inspectors of Factories should assist the local authorities in the carrying out of that duty.

said, some Amendment was absolutely necessary in the mining districts, where the Inspectors had so many important duties and large districts to attend to; thus it would be impossible for them to attend to the schools in the manner required by the Bill.

said, it was utterly impossible that the Inspectors could do what this clause imposed upon them.

admitted that it would be imperilling too much the interests of education if they relied solely upon the Inspectors, and he would therefore accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon.

in calling attention to the circumstances under which Captain Sulivan R.N., was recently superseded by the Admiralty from the command of H.M.S. "London;" and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, Captain Sulivan should not have been removed from the command of one of Her Majesty's ships for any alleged error, shortcoming or neglect of duty, without having been given an opportunity, if he desired it, of explaining or defending his conduct before a competent Court,"

"My Lords are of opinion that Mr. Penny's conduct has in several instances been highly disrespectful towards his Captain."

"Had acted in a spirit apart from that which should be shown by any officer, and especially by a clergyman."

"That on any future occasion he should consider it his duty to take most serious notice of it."

"After a careful perusal of the whole correspondence, commencing as far back as September, 1874, my Lords have been compelled with regret to come to the conclusion that Captain Sulivan has not acted towards Mr. Penny with that consideration and judgment which is expected from the Captain of one of Her Majesty's ships.

"My Lords are further of opinion that Mr. Penny's conduct has in several instances been highly disrespectful towards his Captain; and as they entirely agree in the opinion of the Court that so long as these two officers remain together no harmony can be expected, they have decided to remove them both from the ship, and they are to be so informed."

"My dear Sulivan,—I can assure you it was with much regret I heard first through the papers that the Lords of the Admiralty had resolved to remove you from your command. I make no comment as to this discharge, but a sense of justice alone has induced me to write to their Lordships my very high opinion of the zeal and ability that you displayed under trying circumstances in the arrangement of the ship."

seconded the Motion, because he believed that great injustice had been done to a distinguished officer, and that the Admiralty in his case had departed from the line of procedure laid down by Parliament for the administration of justice in the Navy. He was an entire stranger to Captain Sulivan, but he had come forward to support this Motion from a sense of duty. Captain Sulivan was accused of undue interference with his chaplain; but according to Naval Regulations a captain was responsible for the due performance of religious duties on board his ship, and was invested with a certain amount of discretion as to the length, of the prayers to be read. It was also to be borne in mind that Captain Sulivan had on board his ship some 52 Nonconformists, whose religious opinions were entitled to some consideration. He asked hon. Members acquainted with the practice adopted in private families whether it was usual at prayers to read the Creed and those parts of the Liturgy which Captain Sulivan had directed should be omitted? Why, the Chaplain of the House of Commons who read short prayers before they commenced their Sittings, was not required to read the Creed or those parts of the Liturgy; and the House could hardly blame Captain Sulivan for following its own example in that respect. The second complaint made against Captain Sulivan was that he directed the chaplain to omit chanting in the open air on the upper deck, and to confine himself to the singing of hymns. There he thought that gallant officer had used a wise dis- cretion. The third objection raised by the chaplain was that he was desired to omit the priestly invocation, which, not being in the Church service of the Church of England, Captain Sulivan was justified in requesting him to omit. That priestly invocation would have been offensive to all the Nonconformists on board, as it certainly would have been to him if he had been in the ship. Then the fourth and most important point was that Captain Sulivan found that his chaplain appeared in a dress which he had never seen before—a stole with three gold crosses upon it, and on asking his chaplain what that dress was, as he did not know of any Admiralty Regulation authorizing it, the chaplain told him it was a dress given him when he was made a priest by the Church, and that the Admiralty should not take it from him. Captain Sulivan, in his complaint about the stole with those gold crosses on it, said it would destroy the simplicity which had hitherto characterized the service held in the ship, and thus justify the Nonconformists, of whom there were 50 in the London. in objecting to it, and in absenting themselves from it, as would certainly have been the case if these novelties had been tolerated. Admiral Cumming, who commanded at the Cape of Good Hope Station, writing to Captain Sulivan in reference to that matter, asked him to inform Mr. Penny that it was his wish, that he should discontinue the use of the stole with the gold crosses on it in order to prevent dissension on board the London. The Rev. Mr. Penny, in a letter to the Admiralty of the 7th February, 1875, which was not among those Papers, but which the First Lord of the Admiralty had that day kindly laid on the Table, said that in regard to the Admiral's wish that he should for the present discontinue the use of his stole, he felt himself conscientiously unable to gratify him; that he had used the stole for 10 years without its causing the least offence to any one except to Captain Sulivan, who was not a member of the Church of England. Therefore, it was the opinion of the chaplain that to give offence to a person who was not a member of the Church of England was of no importance, forgetting that Captain Sulivan and the 50 Nonconformists were as much members of his congregation as the highest Churchman on board. What was the decision of the Admiralty? On the 2nd of March, 1875, my Lords said that as regarded the stole described they made no order on the subject, observing, however, that in a matter so indifferent no unnecessary offence should be given to anybody on board. Therefore, the Admiralty declined to give any opinion and left that unfortunate difference to be fought out in the ship as best it could be. What had been the consequence? Why, that in the same command, on board of a man-of-war, within the last few months, the chaplain was seated at table, and never rose as the other officers did to the Admiral, saying that he had nothing to do with the Admiral, that he was independent of him, and was under the Lords of the Admiralty. If that was the way in which the Lords of the Admiralty upheld the discipline of the Navy, he thought they would find that discipline rapidly sink. That in subordinate chaplain had been encouraged in his insubordination. He wrote a letter in June which caused Captain Sulivan to apply for an inquiry, which was this time granted, but it was too late. The Court of Inquiry could not go into the matter, because the Admiralty had given their decision upon it. Therefore, Captain Sulivan had had no opportunity of defending himself against the accusations made by the chaplain. No doubt the House would be told that Captain Sulivan had not been dismissed, but only removed from his command, and that had he been dismissed he would have been entitled to a court martial. When he himself asked for the Papers relating to the dismissal of Captain Sulivan, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) corrected him, and said that that officer had not been "dismissed," but only "removed." He had altered his Notice accordingly; but he asked the House what was the difference to Captain Sulivan? If Captain Sulivan had been tried in accordance with his request by a court martial, he did not think they would have done anything more than to severely reprimand him, and he would have remained in command of his ship up to the present time. But the Admiralty had practically inflicted a more severe punishment on Captain Sulivan than if he had been tried by a court martial. He believed he was correct in saying that the Chaplain's Department of the Admiralty was managed by the private Secretary of the First Lord. The private Secretary of the First Lord was not a responsible officer. If he gave advice to the First Lord, the First Lord was responsible. He would now allude to what was, perhaps, the most important point connected with this question—namely, the holding of Courts of Inquiry instead of courts martial. That was a practice which had been gradually growing for f many years both in the Navy and the f Army, to the great discontent of the officers of both Services. He did not at all wish to raise the question of the prerogative of the Crown to dismiss any officer. He freely admitted that the Crown had the right—and had properly the right—to dismiss any officer without giving any reasons whatever. But that was a very different thing from the course that was now adopted—namely, that of condemning an officer first of all and then removing him. The Crown had no prerogative to condemn any man without hearing what he might have to say in his defence. The Lords of the Admiralty referred to the opinion of the Court of Inquiry as justifying them in removing Captain Sulivan. They did not say they removed him by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown without giving any reasons. If Courts of Inquiry were to be held, they ought to be regulated on well-known principles. He thanked the hon. Member for bringing forward the Motion, and he hoped the House would agree to it.

said, the Motion which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman opposite was somewhat ambiguous in its terms. ["No!"] It said that—

"Captain Sulivan should not have been removed from the command of one of Her Majesty's ships for any alleged error, shortcoming, or neglect of duty, without having been given an opportunity, if he desired it, of explaining or defending his conduct before a competent court."

"I cannot see any ground for inquiry into the manner in which the chaplain has conducted himself. He appears in every instance to have implicitly obeyed his orders."

reminded his right hon. Friend that the stole was not so much objected to as the gold crosses on the stole.

Well, as a matter of taste, he preferred the stole to the gold crosses on the stole. But the crosses on the stole were simply crosses worked in yellow floss silk. It was a pity that crosses should be worn where they gave offence; but when they were sanctioned by Bishops in this country it was impossible for the Admiralty to lay down a positive rule that no chaplain should have a cross upon his stole. They made no order about the stole, but suggested no unnecessary offence should be given to anyone on board the ship. He maintained that to be a truly Christian principle, and held that they were right in not in making a positive order as to the crosses. He now came to the next complaint. The House would observe that according to the opinions of Commodore Hewett and Admiral Gumming, up to that time the chaplain conducted himself most respectfully and obeyed every order. He regretted, however, that that course was not continued; but he must say that the Captain's conduct to the chaplain was most vexatious and aggravating. He interfered with what was to be read, to say nothing as to interference with the chanting of portions of the Service, which the Rubric said might be said or sung. Chanting, however, might possibly be inconvenient on board a ship; but when the Captain went on to forbid the use of the Apostles' Creed, he was certainly going beyond the line of his duty. But he must tell the House also that when the chaplain got up to preach Captain Sulivan walked out. He said he "withdrew from the service when the chaplain preached."[Sir Henry James: Because he was personally referred to.] Yes, that was what he said; but the chaplain denied that he had made any personal reference, and said he could not have done so, as he was preaching an old sermon. Of course, if the chaplain was preaching at the Captain he was doing what was very wrong; but there were other ways of dealing with the matter besides getting up and walking out, and he altogether denied that he made any personal reference to the Captain. Then there was another matter. The chaplain was in the habit of taking a voluntary mission service on shore, and the Captain forbad him to do so. It was true that he rescinded the order after a certain time, but it was calculated to annoy; and nothing could be more aggravating or tend more to lessen the influence of the chaplain than that the Captain should tell him to shorten the prayers, omit certain parts of the Service, walk out when he began to preach, and stop his volunteer service on shore. It appeared from the Correspondence that the chaplain had occasion to complain that the Captain had neglected to make any provision for the officers and men of the smaller ships of the Squadron attending Divine Service, and the Admiral, while he considered the explanation of Captain Sulivan indefinite and unsatisfactory, found fault with the chaplain for complaining to another captain who appeared at the station, and who was senior to Captain Sulivan. He was not there to defend the chaplain, whom he had superseded. Going on a little further a new Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Macdonald, was appointed, and on the 30th of July he wrote to the Admiralty, saying that he had ordered a Court of Inquiry. That was occupied 10 days with these wretched squabbles, from the 14th to the 24th, and the Report was made on the 28th, so that the duties of the station were neglected for a fortnight. According to a rule that had always been maintained, he could not produce the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry; for his own sake he wished he could, because he thought they would show that a right decision had been arrived at. He read the proceedings most carefully, and the conclusion produced by the perusal of that Report was that both the chaplain and the Captain were to blame—the Captain, in the first instance, when the dissensions arose, and the chaplain afterwards, when he exhibited an improper spirit for a clergyman and disrespect for the Captain. Therefore, he could not uphold either, though the Admiralty, if possible, always upheld a captain, and, with the entire concurrence of his Colleagues, he felt that the only thing to be done was to supersede the Captain. A Court of Inquiry was most essential and most desirable. This was not a case of a charge against the Captain and of evidence before a court martial. These were matters of manner, and a course of conduct creating ill-feeling, which could not be placed in a charge before a court martial. It seemed to him that this was a case in which the two officers should be superseded, for it was impossible that the state of things which had arisen should be allowed to continue; there was discord in the ship, and the services of the ship could not be properly carried on with the existence of so muchill-feeling. Both officers were simultaneously informed that they would be superseded, and that their successors would be sent out by the next steamer. Unemployed captains were many, but unemployed chaplains were few, and it was much easier to send out a captain than a chaplain. He had intended that both should come home at once, and it was through an accident and inadvertence that this was not the case, though they were both superseded at the same time. The captain came home, and the chaplain was directed to come home before his successor arrived. The captain came home and demanded a court martial. The fact did not appear in the Papers because the demand was made on a personal interview. The request made was that a ship should be sent to Zanzibar with a lot of officers to form a Court, for at these distant stations it was often impossible, even when desirable, to obtain a sufficient number of officers to form a Court. The reply he gave to the demand was that he did not consider it possible to frame a charge that would be cognizable by a court martial. He had been told that the Captain ought to have been tried by a court martial, but some of the witnesses were in England while the others were in Zanzibar, so that the difficulties were insuperable. The truth was that both these officers had got into such an antagonistic attitude and into such a state of excitement that everything in their conduct to each other appeared to their jaundiced vision to be disrespectful. He believed that there had been faults on both sides; that originally the fault was in Captain Sulivan, that it soon became a matter of mutual offence, and that eventually the Admiralty did the best thing for the service by removing both officers from the ship. In a private interview, he informed Captain Sulivan that it was an unfortunate business, but that he might tell his friends it would not be looked at in the light in which he regarded it, and that the Admiralty were willing to employ him again. In his opinion, it was to be regretted that Captain Sulivan did not accept this proposition instead of taking the steps he did. The matter would then have been forgotten, for it was one of those unfortunate personal squabbles which sometimes, though very rarely, arose on board Her Majesty's ships. However, as the subject had been brought before the House he had been obliged to go into it fully and to say things against Captain Sulivan which he should not have said except in self-defence. The Admiralty was responsible for order being kept on board Her Majesty's ships. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman expressed his belief that the Admiralty acted wisely in removing both officers and in refusing the court martial to investigate a question of insolence of conduct and manner that was wholly beneath the dignity of such a tribunal.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned any charge which could be brought against Captain Sulivan. In the course of this discussion many hon. Members must have asked themselves the question—"What has Captain Sulivan really done, and why has he been discharged from his ship?" According to the right hon. Gentleman, it was on account of some miserable squabbles which ought not to have been brought under the attention of the House. It was indeed to be regretted that incidents which had caused scandal in the Navy should have occurred at all; but it was not by shirking the question in that House that the difficulty could be got over. Captain Sulivan ought to have been supported in his position in order that it might have been shown that the presence of a chaplain did not make it a difficult duty for a Nonconformist to command one of Her Majesty's ships. Captain Sulivan's position as a Nonconformist was full of difficulty, and seemed to have been made more difficult by the conduct of the chaplain in introducing some of the more novel forms of the Church of England Service, and, arising from this, the proper order and discipline of the ship was risked in consequence of a miserable squabble about a stole and a gold cross. It was bad taste also and want of discretion on the part of the chaplain to speak as he did of "the heavy disabilities under which the Church of England labours in this vessel," for members of the Church of England on board the London certainly enjoyed advantages as compared with the Dissenting portion of the crew. He thought it was well that cases of this kind should be brought forward, in order that chaplains should understand that the enormous advantages they enjoyed should be exercised with some consideration for the opinions and feelings of those who differed from them. Inasmuch as the Admiralty had recorded their opinion that the chaplain's conduct in this case was "highly disrespectful towards his Captain," it was an unfortunate inadvertence, to say the least, that the chaplain had not been superseded at the same time with the captain; nor was it usual, he thought, when a superior and an inferior officer could not work harmoniously together and the conduct of the inferior had been "highly disrespectful," to remove the superior officer. The difficulty might surely have been cut short by the removal of the chaplain, and not of the Captain. To be removed from the command of his ship was a most grave circumstance in a captain's career, and any personal assurances given to him to the contrary would count for very little. One point made against Captain Sulivan was that he had desired the omission of the Creed from the services; but it should have been added that these were the weekday, not the Sunday services. On the whole, he thought that a reprimand in the case of Captain Sulivan would have met the case. There might have been indiscretion justifying such a reprimand as had been given in the case of other captains; but surely to come into collision with a chaplain was not so great an offence as to come into collision with one of Her Majesty's ships. It was said in the Papers that the chaplain had strictly complied with orders. But there was a way of strictly complying with orders, and yet doing so in such a manner as to be very insubordinate. There might be inuendoes, too, even in an old sermon. But how did the right hon. Gentleman know that this was an old sermon? He saw nothing to this effect in the Papers. Did this statement occur in the private proceedings of which the House knew nothing and which the Captain therefore was unable to contradict? That brought him to the last point, which was that a private inquiry might properly lead to a court martial, but ought not to be allowed to take the place of one. The Admiralty stated that, in their opinion, the matters involved were not of a kind that required to be submitted to a court martial. He thought, however, it would have been better if the Admiralty had decided on the Papers alone without a private inquiry, instead of having to fall back again on the Papers. He acknowledged that the Admiralty had a perfect right to supersede any officer who might have been guilty of indiscretion, or whom they might think unfit to command one of Her Majesty's ships. But then they were in this position: that the Admiralty had information before them which the House had not. On the whole, the matter was left in a most unsatisfactory state, and he regretted that the impression should go forth in the Royal Navy that the Admiralty would not sustain the authority of the captains in the maintenance of discipline.

said, that he found in the letter that had been placed on the Table of the House that day that the chaplain stated that the sermon which Captain Sulivan said was preached at him was an old sermon preached 12 months ago.

regretted exceedingly that Captain Sulivan's application for a court martial had not been acceded to. The place where an officer who had his conduct arraigned should be called on to defend himself was before a court martial. He must remark, however, that the First Lord of the Admiralty had justified the course he had taken by the precedent which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) had established in the case of Admiral Wellesley and Admiral Wilmot. If a division were taken he should certainly support the Resolution, on the grounds that captains were entitled to have their conduct publicly inquired into.

pointed out that the punishment of the two officers was utterly unequal, for Captain Sulivan had lost the opportunity by his supersession of gaining an increase of half-pay.

rose to call the attention of the House to the circumstances affecting the public rights of Fishery on the Blackwater and on the tidal waters of the estuary of that river; and to move—

"That, without desiring to infringe upon private rights of several fishery in the Blackwater, this House is of opinion that it is the duty of the Government to watch over and protect the rights of the public in respect to fishery in the tidal waters of that and other Irish rivers."

said, he had hoped the hon. Member would have stated a little more clearly what it was he wanted the Government to do. He understood it was a question of law.