asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland, If he will state what are the grounds on which Messrs. Murphy and Campion of Rathdowney, in the Queen's County, have been sent to Naas Gaol?

, in reply, said, the grounds on which the persons named in the Question were arrested were that they had incited other persons to intimidate tenants not to fulfil their lawful contracts by paying their rents.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that both these men emphatically denied having directly or indirectly ever sanctioned, or otherwise assisted in, any proceedings of this nature?

said, that he had not exactly that statement before him.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mrs. O'Halleron, wife of Mr. Martin O'Halleron, a "suspect" under the Coercion Act, of Ketullo, Athenry, county Gal-way, who has a large family to support, has received no relief since the arrest of her husband in March last, except ten shillings that was granted her about three weeks ago; and, whether the Loughrea Board of Guardians was prevented from receiving the grant by the refusal of the chairman to put a motion on the subject to the meeting?

, in reply, said, it was true that Mrs. O'Halleron had received 10s. and no more than 10s., out-door relief, which was granted on the 9th ultimo. On the 23rd ultimo the presiding Chairman refused to allow the question of further relief to the family to be put to a meeting of the Guardians. The case was, however, investigated, and it was decided at a subsequent meeting to refuse relief to Mrs. O'Halleron, on the ground that she possessed six acres well cropped, a cow, and a heifer. He would also refer the hon. Member to the 3rd section of the Relief of Distress Act, 1880, under which statute, as the hon. Member was doubtless aware, matters of this kind were left to the decision of the Guardians.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause inquiry to be made into this matter, as to whether there was no prejudice against this woman on account of her husband's act; and if he would send down an order that relief should be granted?

said, he thought there was nothing to warrant any further inquiry. The Chairman of the Guardians had at first refused to authorize a discussion through a misapprehension of the law. At the next meeting a majority of the Guardians decided against giving the relief, and, for all he knew, it might have been a unanimous decision. There could have been no animus in the matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Spanish Government as to the persistent refusal of the local authorities to carry out the repeated sentences of the Spanish Courts on the subject of the Zamora Waterworks; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in face of this continued denial of justice?

Sir, this matter has, from time to time, been urgently pressed upon the Spanish Government by Her Majesty's Representative at Madrid; and on the receipt in April last of a letter from the agents of the Company in England, from which it appeared that their client's claim was still unsettled, Mr. West was again instructed to press the Spanish Government to take immediate measures for its settlement. The result of this representation was that on the 13th of June last Mr. West received a Note from the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs stating that positive orders had been sent to the Civil Governor of Zamora to carry out the Royal order for compelling the Municipality to pay the sum due to the Company, and that unless this order were complied with the severest measures would be adopted against the Corporation.

asked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether pensioners from the Royal Marines serving on the Militia Staff will be placed on the same footing at their final retirement from the Ser- vice as Pensioners from the Regular Army?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that the Question which he has raised was considered and decided in the negative by my Predecessor on an application by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) in 1879. I will communicate with the Admiralty on the subject; but I cannot hold out much hope of so recent a decision being altered.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, looking at the great importance of preserving the land forming part of the Paddington Estate, and at present unbuilt on, as a Park for the people, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will for a reasonable time withhold their consent to any operations which may lead to the erection of buildings on the land and thus to the prevention of any possibility of its preservation as an open space; and give such other facilities for the carrying out of the project in the way of the price of the land and otherwise as may be in their power?

Sir, everybody must approve the object which the Committee over which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder presides has in view—namely, securing a public park for Paddington; and although I have been unable, owing to their dispersion for the Recess, to communicate with my Colleagues since this Question appeared on the Paper, I feel sure, from my knowledge of their sentiments, that, assuming the pecuniary interests of which they are guardians to be duly protected, they would be most desirous to give all proper facilities for attaining it. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have already informed the Paddington Park Committee of their readiness to part with their interest in the land on certain named terms per acre; and I feel sure that if an agreement, whether conditional on the money being raised within a specified time or otherwise, be come to on behalf of the Paddington Park Committee, the Commissioners would be quite ready to afford a reasonable time for carrying out any proposed arrangement.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What progress he has made towards completing a Consular Convention with the United States?

in reply, said, his hon. Friend was doubtless aware that this question had been for the last seven or eight years sleeping; but Her Majesty's Government were, at the present moment, engaged in waking it. They had taken the initial step of asking the Foreign Office to do something in the matter. He was sanguine that during the Recess they would be able to report a successful issue.

Will my hon. Friend place the Correspondence on the Table of the House so far as it has gone?

There is no Correspondence with the Foreign Office on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Field Officers of Rifle Regiments of Militia, who have retired with permission to wear their uniform, may continue to wear such uniform, although their Regiment is to be changed into an ordinary Regiment?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Vice President of the Council, If Professor Leone Levi has sent in a Report on Technical Education in Italy and elsewhere, and what course is to be taken with it?

Yes, Sir; Professor Leone Levi has made a very elaborate Report upon the state of technical education in Italy and elsewhere. He has spent three months of this year abroad, and I purpose to refer the Report to the Royal Commission which is about to be appointed.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he has any ob- jection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and R. P. Laurie, Esq. late Member of this House for the City of Canterbury, with reference to the removal of that gentleman from the Commission of the Peace for the county of Kent?

in reply, said, he understood that the Lord Chancellor had no objection to the production of the documents referred to in the Question; but he put it to the hon. Member whether it would be justifiable to incur the large expense that would be incurred in the publication of them as a Parliamentary Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that on July 21st a fire broke out in Ladbroke Grove Road, Notting Hill, but that no water could be obtained from the Water Company's main; whether it is the fact that in case of a London fire it is necessary to invoke five separate authorities having no unity of action:—1. The Police, controlled by the Home Secretary; 2. The Water Companies; 3. The Salvage Corps, controlled by the Insurance Companies; 4. The Fire Brigade, controlled by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and 5. The Streets, controlled by the Vestries; and, if he will consider whether these authorities might not be amalgamated for the purpose of fire extinction?

, in reply, said, he had seen a report on the subject, from which it appeared, not that there was a scarcity of water, but that it was not at high pressure, owing to an accident to the main. With reference to the second part of the Question, he had to say that the police were not directly concerned in extinguishing fires, having merely to keep order; that the Salvage Corps was employed in the private interest of the Insurance Companies; while the Vestries were not concerned at all. When the question came to be determined on whom the duty of supplying water to the Metropolis should devolve, it would certainly become necessary to consider whether the Fire Brigade should not also be placed under the same control as the water service.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the Auditors of Paddington Vestry have entered on the account boobs of such vestry a statement to the effect that, having in view the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board to the effect that no method exists for enforcing a surcharge of Metropolitan Vestry Accounts, they regard the examination of the parochial accounts of the parish of Paddington as useless; whether he is aware that such accounts contain heavy charges for refreshments which ought to be surcharged; and, whether it is proposed to leave the London Vestries to expend ratepayers' money in any manner and for any purpose they think fit, or what remedy he intends to apply to this state of things?

Sir, I have received a communication from the auditors of the Paddington Vestry that they have appended to the accounts of the Vestry a statement that, under the existing condition of the law, the examination by them of the parochial accounts is practically of no effect, as the Act gives them no power to enforce payment of the surcharges. I have, however, no information from the auditors whether or not such accounts contain charges for refreshments; but I perceive from a newspaper extract that in the accounts for the year ended the 25th of March, 1880, the auditors disallowed £57 15s. 6d. for refreshment, of which £26 appears to have been for the erection of a tent in which a dinner was given at the opening of a slop tank. If such expenditure had appeared in the accounts which are audited by the auditor of the Local Government Board, he would have had power, not only to surcharge these illegal payments, but to recover the amount summarily from the persons by whom they were authorized. Unfortunately for the ratepayers, the auditors, under the Metropolis Management Act, have no such power; but the question as to how the present defect in the law should be remedied is rather for the consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as I have no jurisdiction under the Metropolis Management Act.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting of the Cork telegraph clerks, held on Saturday the 2nd July, the object of which was to act in conjunction with the clerks at the various offices throughout the United Kingdom; whether the postmaster of the Cork office, upon seeing a report of the proceedings of the meeting in the Cork papers on Monday the 4th instant, gave instructions that any clerk who had taken a prominent part in the meeting should not be engaged in the performance of special or relief duties, which involve extra pay; and, whether it is with his sanction that these instructions have been issued?

in reply, said, his attention had not been called to this matter previously; but he had made careful inquiry, and was convinced that no such instructions as those mentioned in the Question were issued or acted upon.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the language of Mr. A. E. Herbert, J.P. in the following Report from the "Kerry Sentinel," of 28th July, in the case of parsons charged at Brosna Petty Sessions with attacking a bailiff. Constable Carroll deposed:—

"That, on account of the attitude of the people, they went back to one of the houses, escorted by the police, and took down one of the writs which he had posted.

"Mr. Herbert—And no stones thrown?

"Witness—No stones thrown.

"Mr. Herbert—I may tell you if I was there I'd know what to do.

"One of the defendants cross-examined Constable Carroll, who admitted that he and men were supplied with plenty of new milk by the people on whom the writs were served.

"Mr. Herbert—I think the police on that day were like a flock without a shepherd; I think they were all the time drinking milk from this riotous and terrible mob. I always speak for myself, and that is my opinion of the Royal Irish Constabulary on that day. Drinking new milk from this riotous and dig-orderly mob;"

"He was sorry the police acted with so much forbearance. If he himself was there he would order the mob to be 'skivered,' and he would have buckshot used on them. There would be no peace in the Country until such people were 'skivered;'"

Sir, I have seen the report in the newspaper to which the hon. Member refers; but I have no means of verifying it. The whole of the cases in which Irish magistrates are concerned are under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and I have communicated with my noble and learned Friend upon the matter.

wished to know if there was any proper authority in the House to which hon. Members could appeal in reference to the conduct of magistrates?

The Lord Chancellor is the official whose business it is to consider these questions; and if, after allowing sufficient time to elapse, the hon. Member will ask me what the Lord Chancellor has done in this case, I will tell him.

said, he would ask the Question on Friday. He also wished to know if this same magistrate was arrested some time since for drunkenness and disorderly conduct at Farranfore?

It is only justice to Mr. Herbert to state that I never heard of that charge being brought against him.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has received Colonel Bolton's Report on the Grand Junction Water Company; and, whether he will lay a Copy of it upon the Table?

, in reply, said, that he had only just received the Report re- ferred to, and had not had time to examine it. As far as he was aware, there was no objection to laying a copy of it upon the Table; but he must consider the matter before he gave any undertaking on the subject.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that the smallpox hospital ships now moored off Greenwich are so close to the shore that there is great danger of their causing the epidemic to spread to the adjoining districts; that before they were placed in their present positions, thereby greatly impeding the free use and value of the wharves in front of which they are moored, no notice was given to the owners of those wharves; and that, owing to the serious inconvenience caused by the presence of these ships to the free navigation of the River Thames, the Thames Conservancy Board and the Metropolitan District Asylum Board of Managers were and are in favour of their being moored lower down the river; if so, whether any steps are to be taken to remove these vessels from their present positions, and thus to obviate the danger of the epidemic spreading among the numerous workmen employed in the various shipbuilding and other yards abutting on the shore?

Sir, I cannot admit that it is a fact that these ships are so close to the shore that there is great danger of their spreading small-pox to the adjoining districts; in fact, I was distinctly advised by one of the Medical Inspectors, who has had great experience in these epidemics, that no such danger need be apprehended. No direct notice was given to the owners of the wharves in front of which the ships were moored; but the preparations for their removal were publicly known for some time before the ships were placed there, and no objections were made against the course proposed. I am not aware of any serious inconvenience to the navigation; and, so far from the Thames Conservancy Board objecting to the position, the spot was adopted on their suggestion. The Metropolitan Asylum Managers did propose to place the ships much lower down the river, but not for the reason suggested. I was, however, advised that acute cases could not without serious risk and danger be removed to such a distance; and, therefore, the ships were moored off Greenwich, close by the spot where the Dreadnought hospital ship lay on a previous occasion, and, as far as we are aware, without any ill effect. With respect to the removal of the vessels, it is only intended that they shall remain there during the pressure of the present epidemic.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would state the distance which the ships were from the shore, and whether he was aware that the sewage passed into the river there?

Not having measured it, I should not like to say what the distance is; but I have been on board the ships myself.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the Colonial Office has had before it the Petition presented by him to this House, from the Committee of Inhabitants of Malta; and, whether Her Majesty's Government means to grant its prayer, or to concede to the Maltese any of those reforms recommended by Mr. Rowsell and Sir Penrose Julyan, and some of which were about to be conceded by the late Government?

Sir, a copy of the Petition has been obtained and is under consideration, as well as a Memorial transmitted to the Secretary of State; but it is not possible to state at present the answer which will be returned. The administrative changes recommended by Sir Penrose Julyan have been in considerable part already carried out.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, By whose authority and direction it was that the dates were expunged from all the rebutting statements which were sent in writing by the Irish Landlords to the Bessborough Commission, and which had been inadvertently stated and incorrectly supposed to have been printed in Appendix C when the Report wag signed, and what was the object sought to be attained by expunging the dates in question?

I have no means of giving an answer officially to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, nor do I think it very desirable that the Government should institute an examination into the matter. I would rather recommend the hon. Member to communicate with the officers of the Commission, who, I have no doubt, will give him the most accurate account of the matter. At the same time, if the hon. Member wishes, the Government will ask for the information he requires.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that Parliament have from time to time passed Votes of Thanks to Generals of the Army for successful triumphs in War, he will propose a Vote of Thanks to General Sir Evelyn Wood for the distinguished services which he has recently rendered to this Country in South Africa by peaceful means?

Sir, in answer to this Question, I must say that General Sir Evelyn Wood is not the only person who has rendered service, and excellent service, to the Crown and the country in South Africa; but the time has not yet arrived when we can regard the important transactions in which they have been engaged as being altogether concluded; and, therefore, the time has not yet arrived for considering any such matter as that indicated by the hon. Member's Question. I ought also to say, as my hon. Friend probably knows, that the Votes of this House, although not absolutely limited to military services, yet are by precedent in every case limited to military service or to auxiliary services in connection with military service. But, as the hon. Member has referred to the name of Sir Evelyn Wood in particular, I think that it is only right that I should state that Her Majesty's Government have the highest sense of the zeal, the ability, the judgment, and the tact, as well as right feeling with which Sir Evelyn Wood has conducted the matters intrusted to his control in circumstances of very great difficulty indeed.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the announcement made in the morning papers that Mr. John Dillon had been released from Kilmainham Gaol was correct?

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he wished to ask him whether Mr. Dillon had been released unconditionally, or whether he had been obliged to sign some conditions?

Yes, Sir; it is true that Mr. Dillon has been released from Kilmainham, and I suppose the House would wish me to give the grounds of that release. A letter was sent yesterday to the Governor of Kilmainham, in the following terms:—

"I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to inform you that a representation having been made to his Excellency that Mr. John Dillon's life would be endangered by further confinement, his Excellency has been pleased to order his release. Therefore, upon the receipt of this letter, discharge Mr. Dillon, and give him a copy of this letter."

Does the doctor say that his life has been endangered through the confinement he has undergone?

I have given the exact statement I received, and it was the first intimation I had. The doctors would have been failing in their duty if they had not informed us of the facts.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has seen the Return of Loss of Life issued at the instance of the honourable Member for Manchester, showing the number of deaths from drowning in mercantile and non-mercantile waters of the United Kingdom to have been in 1879, 3,690 lives; if this includes the loss of life from sea-coast bathing, if not, if he can state what this was for the same year; and, if he can state what measures he intends adopting for the purpose of compelling local inland and sea-coast authorities at all public bathing places to provide boats, life-buoys, and watchmen during the bathing season?

Sir, the Return does not, as I believe, include the loss of life from sea-coast bathing; and there is not, as far I can ascertain, any information collected to show the extent of loss for the year to which the Return refers. At present there is no power to compel local inland and sea-coast authorities to provide boats, life-buoys, and watchmen during the bathing or any other season. These authorities can make bye-laws, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, with respect to public bathing and the regulation of bathing machines; but they are not authorized to make any provision of this kind from the local rates, or to require that the proprietors of the bathing machines shall do so. This defect has been brought under the notice of the Board, who contemplate dealing with the matter whenever a suitable opportunity offers for amending the law.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he had seen the telegram from Lahore in The Times of the 6th instant, in which the Correspondent of that journal, after stating that the Ameer's Envoy passed through Lahore on his way to Simla, went on to say—

"I am assured that he comes at the suggestion of the Viceroy, and hears a message in which the Ameer reminds the Viceroy that he had earnestly and repeatedly hegged the Government to hold Candahar for one year, in order to enable the Ameer to make his position secure. It is clear from the Envoy's account that the Ameer began to lose heart at hearing of the news of the evacuation of Candahar;"

I have not received from the Government of India any information respecting the position of the Envoy from Cabul to Simla. I am, therefore, unable to say what message he may have been charged to deliver, or what statement he may have made. But I have referred to the Correspondence which has passed between the Ameer and the Government of India, and it certainly is not the case that the Ameer had earnestly and repeatedly asked the Government to hold Candahar for one year, in order to enable him to make his position secure.

Was a request ever made to that effect?

No, Sir; nothing of the kind.

wished to ask the Prime Minister a Question with regard to the position of Mr. Bradlaugh. For himself, he might explain that he had a Resolution on going into Committee of Supply, which practically was to rescind the Resolution come to in April last. He believed that that Resolution precluded Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the Oath, together with a subsequent Resolution passed precluding Mr. Bradlaugh from coming within this House, were both Sessional Orders, and that they would lapse at the end of this Session. The result, of course, would be that at the commencement of next Session Mr. Bradlaugh would present himself at the Table of the House and endeavour to take the Oath and his seat, as he believed he had a right to do. Now, what he would ask was this—whether, when Mr. Bradlaugh took that course, he might hope that he would be supported by the Government, in what he believed, and some in this House believed, to be his Constitutional rights? In that case, as it was near the close of the Session, and he had no wish to inconvenience hon. Gentlemen opposite—for it was quite possible his Motion might inconvenience them, as they did not know when it might be brought on—he would withdraw his Motion and leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government for next Session.

Sir, I understand from my hon. Friend two things—that he has investigated the matter, and ascertained that the Resolution which forbids Mr. Bradlaugh taking the Oath at the Table—I do not mean the Resolution debarring him from access—is a Sessional Resolution which expires with the Session. I understand, that being so, it is possible, according to my hon. Friend's view, that Mr. Bradlaugh may again present himself and claim to take the Oath at the commencement of next Session. I take these two propositions simply as given by my hon. Friend, and I assume them to be correct. If he should so present himself, and so claim to take the Oath, and should opposition thereupon arise, undoubtedly Her Majesty's Government would deem it their duty to consider the question with a view to the termination of the controversy.

asked the Speaker whether it was the fact that the Order forbidding Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath did expire at the end of the Session, and would require to be renewed at the beginning of the next?

I understand the right hon. and learned Member to refer to the Resolution of 10th May. That is not a Standing Order, and would terminate at the end of the Session.

asked the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether the Resolution of the 20th of April, which precluded Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the Oath, would lapse at the end of the Session?

The Resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not made a Standing Order, and therefore would expire with the Session.

asked the Prime Minister, in reference to the answer he had given to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), whether, when he brought in a measure dealing with Mr. Bradlaugh, he would take means to secure the attendance and the vote in its favour of the Liberal Members of the Liberal majority by whose defection Mr. Bradlaugh had been excluded?

Sir, I do not know if I have gone too far in answering the Question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere); but I did it simply on the ground that everyone must feel desirous, at a time when we are beginning to hope we may very soon disperse, to know whether they are likely to be called upon again to vote on a subject of Mr. Bradlaugh during the present Session. But as the Question of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has a reference to a future Session, and a contingency only supposed to arise then, I hope he will kindly exercise his patience until the future Session arrives.

asked the hon. Member for Northampton whether, after the statement of the Prime Minister, he would go on with his Resolution?

Certainly not, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if he could give the House any information respecting the course of Public Business, and specially the Navy Estimates?

asked if it was intended to take the Irish Votes in Class IV. to-night?

It is our intention to take the whole of Class IV., including the Irish Votes.

I think it is already understood—and what has happened since I last spoke on the subject would rather sustain and confirm the impression—that the proceedings in the House of Lords may terminate to-night with respect to the Irish Land Bill, and, therefore, that we shall be in a position to consider the question of the Lords' Amendments to-morrow as the first and principal Business for Tuesday evening. How long they will take I do not know; but we shall propose to proceed with the Navy Estimates immediately after the conclusion of the question of the Lords' Amendments.

asked if it was impossible to get the Lords' Amendments that night, so as to give time to consider them prior to the meeting of the House on Tuesday? He presumed there would be no Morning Sitting.

The Lords' Amendments, I understand, will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. There will be no Morning Sitting. I do not entertain any doubt that any Member can, as a matter of courtesy, obtain a copy of the Lords' last print of the Bill; but we have no power to make an order requiring copies of that print to be furnished to Members of the House of Commons generally.

, who had the following Resolution on the Paper:—

"That the retention by the Governors of the United Westminster Schools of Mr. Goffin as head master of that public institution, after he had, by a Select Committee of this House specially appointed in 1879 to inquire into his conduct at the request of the Governors of the Schools, been found guilty of a systematic course of fraud, falsehood, and subornation, is a public scandal, and as such demands the immediate attention of the Education Office and Charity Commissioners,"

"Inasmuch as you wrote to the committee, through me, questioning the fair dealing of the main examinations, though the points referred to were honourahly carried out, yet they direct me to inform you a communication was made last week by the boys—viz., the questions contained in the working paper, and laid before them on the night of the examination, were all known to them, and learnt by heart. I have further to acquaint you that the teacher has resigned his post as schoolmaster here, and the class consequently has broken up."

"(Question 2,046.) 'After you had given these notes to Mr. Hall did anybody ever talk to you about them? Did you ever hear anything more about them?'—(A.) 'I forget now.' (Q.) 'Try and think. Did anybody ever send to you about these notes? '(A.)' I was in the class one day—in Mr. Kent's class—and he said to the boys—"Have any of you given any notes to anybody?" and I said "Yes, sir, I gave notes to Mr. Hall." He said, "That is nothing;" and that is all.' "

"Your Committee are satisfied from evidence taken on oath and from documents laid before them—(a) that Mr. Goffin, the head master of the United Westminster Schools, did disclose to his pupils in certain science classes, just previous to the examinations, the answers to a largo number of questions in the examination papers; (b) that the information which he thus gave was of such a nature that he must, before imparting it to his classes, have known the contents of the examination paper; (e) that the registers containing the attendance roll of the pupils of Mr. Goffin were, in certain cases, falsified by Mr. Goffin and his assistants to obtain payment of pupils who had not made the necessary number of attendances; (d) that the statements in the petitions signed by pupils and teachers on Mr. Goffin's behalf, and presented to the governors of the United Westminster Schools, were false, and were known by some of the signatories to be so. Previous to his appointment in 1874 as head master of the United Westminster Schools Mr. Goffin was master of St. John's School, Woking. Tour Committee have taken evidence as to his system of teaching science there, and from that evidence it is clear—(a) that a large number of pupils, including mere children, were enabled to pass examinations in a great number of science subjects, of which they knew scarcely anything, by being systematically taught by heart on the day of, or the day previous to, the examination, answers to the questions set; (A) that fraudulent fabrication of the attendance registers was systematically practised in order to obtain payment upon the pupils, who, by another fraud, had been enabled to pass the examination. The investigations now held, have disclosed the fact that Mr. Goffin has carried on a course of fraud in a manner and to an extent which must have greatly lowered the tone of morality among a large body of scholars and teachers. Your Committee record their emphatic opinion that fraud thus reduced to a system and almost elevated to the dignity of an art, requires the immediate attention of the Education Department with a view to the adoption of such further precautions as will prevent a repetition of these disgraceful practices. Your Committee further express a hope that the Department will deal as leniently as their public duty will allow with the teachers who, in the course of this inquiry, have by their evidence exposed themselves to the charge of complicity with some of Mr. Goffin's proceedings."

said, he never addressed the House under circumstances more painful to himself. This subject was brought forward by one of the foremost of the Conservative Party, by one from whom he had received personal kindness; but the interests of what he believed to be truth and justice required him to take the line which he proposed to take, regardless altogether of the immense authority and departmental experience of the noble Lord, and of the very strong prejudice which must at this moment exist against Mr. Goffin. The noble Lord had not told the House who Mr. Goffin was. He was a man of preeminent ability, a man of most unusual scientific knowledge. When he said of pre-eminent ability and scientific knowledge, he meant he was a man who had taken the highest distinction in eight different sciences. Not only that, but he had unusual aptitude for teaching. There were many sound scholars in the world; but the gift of teaching was very rare. They all knew very well that if in their great public schools there was any man who stood out amongst the list of untrained head masters, distinguished by this gift, how his memory was cherished for many years. That capacity of teaching Mr. Goffin had, in addition to very great scientific knowledge, which he (Mr. Warton) believed no living man could equal; he had a rare faculty of impressing his pupils with a wonderful love of knowledge, which led them to prosecute their studies with great devotion and ardour. The House must bear in mind that this was a school which was distinguished for science, and therefore it was not unusual for a man of such ability, with such apparatus at his command—it was not at all surprising that these boys, taught by him, really succeeded in a way likely to astonish people who were accustomed to boys taught by more ordinary men. Let them take a specimen in other fields than the examination at Westminster. He would take the examination for the Oxford Local Examination; on one occasion there were only 31 boys sent up altogether from the different schools; of these 31 boys seven passed, and of these seven, six were pupils of Mr. Goffin, and that number was all he sent up. In 1880, again, in the January Oxford Examination, there were 40 boys sent up, and out of those 40, 11 boys passed, seven were pupils of Mr. Goffin, and that number was all he sent. They were told about the way in which this case ended before the Committee; he was not there to say one word against the Committee. He was not prepared to say that as the evidence was presented to them, so worked up by the Department that they could very well have come to any other conclusion, and the case looked black—very black indeed. They were told that there was a previous case at Woking, and they might trace the very same agency there. It was quite possible for men of pre-eminent ability to have enemies who, perhaps, did not scruple to take revenge. Mr. Goffin was a man of a highly delicate organization, and of a nervous temperament—a man on whom the advancing years had worked very great injury to his health and happiness; and when a man like Mr. Goffin was brought in contact with Lord Sherbrooke, they could imagine there would be very little sympathy for Mr. Goffin, who came before the Committee faint and ill, with this charge hanging over him. Those who had read the evidence would remember that Mr. Goffin was asked, in the tone of a Judge addressing a criminal, whether he desired to make any statement. He replied that he had been forbidden by his medical advisers to appear at all, and he wished to be excused. Lord Sherbrooke said—"We do not call upon you to give evidence; but I understand that you wish to make a statement." Mr. Goffin replied in the affirmative. Mr. Goffin was tried not as an ordinary criminal would have been, in which case the prosecutors would first have to make out a case. He was called upon for a defence before the case of the prosecution was made out. Four or five times had this Motion been likely to come on, and on two of those occasions, if it had been brought forward, it would have been brought forward as a substantive Motion; and on those occasions he put down a Notice of the Previous Question, and he had a similar Notice down that night, although, of course, he could not move it. It was no part of the duty of the House to interfere with the wish of the Governors of the School. The evidence of the Committee had not turned away the love and affection of those who esteemed Mr. Goffin; it had not turned away that affection and that feeling on the part of the Governors of the School. What took place after the condemnation of the Committee? There was a meeting held in the school, at which some 600 or 700 boys were present, and 400 parents, and 14 of them addressed the meeting, and they all of them expressed their confidence in Mr. Goffin, and resolutions were passed in his favour. If that was the feeling of the parents and of the boys, if that was the feeling of the Governors of the School, it was not for the House to say whether or not they should continue to give their support to Mr. Goffin. It was not a question, he contended, for that House. The Governors of the School did not wish, and the parents of the boys did not wish, to have anything more to do with the Department; they were convinced of Mr. Goffin's innocence, and under Mr. Goffin the school had acquired a reputation for science. He held in his hand an examination of the boys in the upper sixth form in practical chemistry, not an examination which was seen before, and out of a class of 31 boys, 23 passed, getting the maximum marks, and the average of the 33, although reduced by one boy, who was backward, was 91. After such examination as that the school could afford to dispense with the Department. He did not ask the House to judge; but he said the parents were right and the Government were wrong. The House had nothing to do with it; and he asked the House not to give a vote, but to suspend its judgment until some proceedings were taken which would show what ought to be done.

said, that, with the permission of the House, he would, in the first place, say a word personal to himself. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had stated that, as a Member of the Committee, he had, with others, assented to their Report. The noble Lord had also told the House that he had proposed a Report of a very different character. A division was taken on his Report, showing the effect which the evidence had on his mind. The Report prepared by him expressed the opinion that the evidence laid before the Committee justified the Department in suspending the certificate of Mr. Goffin. That was as different from the Report prepared by the Chairman of the Committee (Lord Sherbrooke) as light from darkness. Now, he was willing to admit, and he thought all the Governors admitted, that Mr. Goffin had been guilty of "cramming" to an extent which was an injury to the school, to the Department, and to the system under which money was paid for results, and that the Department was therefore justified in taking away his certificate. But the Governors were of opinion that Mr. Goffin had not been guilty of any worse practice, and that there was not a tittle of direct evidence that he had had in his possession a copy of the examination papers beforehand. No single witness was called to show that. The whole tenour of the evidence against him was to show that because the boys gave certain answers they must have been "coached" up by someone who had seen the questions. There were 30 witnesses outside the doors of the Committee Room waiting to be called at Mr. Goffin's request to show how men practised in "coaching"—a better word, he thought, than "cramming"—could prepare their pupils; and yet the Committee would not allow any one of those witnesses to be called in Mr. Goffin's defence. He felt it only right to say those few words in justification of the course pursued in relation to the Committee.

May I ask—

said, he did not interrupt the noble Lord when he was proceeding with his argument, though he made statements with which he could not concur. He did not propose to follow the noble Lord over the course of the examination which took place before the Committee, because, if he did so, he should have to give question after question, and answer after answer; but he ventured to say that if the Committee itself was an unfair tribunal, it would be very difficult indeed, in a House like this, at this period of the Session, to bring evidence on the one side and evidence on the other, to enable the minds of Members of this House to be in a condition to judge which side was right and which side was wrong. The Board of Governors came to a resolution that the decision in Mr. Goffin's case by the Parliamentary Committee could not be regarded as final, owing to the fact that the inquiry was conducted with closed doors; that Mr. Goffin was not allowed to be present, except when giving evidence, nor to be heard by counsel, nor permitted to cross-examine the witnesses against him; and that while more than 20 witnesses were ready to give evidence on his behalf only one of them was allowed to be heard. They, therefore, requested the Department to give Mr. Goffin an opportunity, as he desired, of vindicating his character. The answer to that resolution, contained in a memorandum, said that if the Governors were dissatisfied with the unanimous decision of the tribunal to whom they appealed, it rested with them to carry Mr. Goffin's case to another Court. The charges had not been withdrawn; on the contrary, the suspension of Mr. Goffin's certificate had not been made absolute, and yet legal proceedings had not been taken. The noble Lord said Mr. Goffin had obtained nearly £400 as fees by fraud. Surely, if that was the case, the person who so obtained the money ought to be punished. The Governors were advised that the Department had had ample opportunity to prosecute Mr. Goffin in a Court of Law, where the examination would have taken place in public, and witnesses would have been called for and against the defendant, whose counsel would have been able to cross-examine the witnesses. He (Sir Sydney Waterlow) moved a distinct Resolution in the Committee that the proceedings should be open. The noble Lord had said that was a great public question. He admitted it. It would raise the very grave question whether the present system of payment by results, or practically offering almost a bribe to the masters of large schools, by the temptation of nearly doubling their salaries, to "coach" a small number of boys and to give them marked attention, to the prejudice of the great mass of the scholars, was justifiable. Since Mr. Goffin's certificate was taken away the Board had seen a marked improvement. Attention was more evenly distributed, and the condition of the mass was immensely improved. It would, he repeated, raise the question of the system of almost bribing the masters to do that which was undoubtedly to the prejudice of any large school. But he would proceed. The answer of the Council went on to say that if, with a view of justifying their conduct in retain- ing Mr. Goffin at the head of the institution, it should prove that he was guilty of the grave charges that were Brought against him, it would be for the Board to take such steps as they considered advisable. The Governors of the School gave Mr. Goffin to understand that unless he should commence legal proceedings in order to have the charges that had been made against him properly investigated, he must expect to be dismissed. Mr. Goffin took the advise of a most learned counsel, and was advised to take action against his prosecutor, who, he might say, was his persecutor. What did the House think the Department said? They did not merely refuse to prosecute the man themselves, but when the man turned round to prosecute, with the assistance of his friends from one end of the country to the other, the Department turned round and pleaded privilege, so that all possibility of trying this question in the manner in which it ought to be tried was lost to Mr. Goffin. Therefore, the Governors felt they ought to throw back the onus on the Department of proceeding against him for obtaining public money by false pretences. The noble Lord had told the House that in the beginning he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) raised a discussion as to whether the Committee should be conducted with open doors. He put on the Paper of Business of this House a Notice of Motion, asking the House to believe that, from beginning to end, the Governors were anxious to have an open and fair trial of this man. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and Mr. Lowe (now Lord Sherbrooke), who were defending the Department, were virtually in the position of judges and prosecutors at the same time. Medical testimony was given that Mr. Goffin was lying on a sick-bed, and he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) appealed to the Committee to allow him to appear by counsel. They refused absolutely, and declared that he should not be represented by counsel, nor should he be in the room when the witnesses were called against him. He asked hon. Members would they like to be deprived of their power of defence and of cross-examination? He was sure they would not. They refused to hear from any one of the witnesses that were called to give evidence any statement on the particular fact on which everything turned—namely, whether it was pos- sible for the boys to have given the answers they gave without having seen the papers. There was not a tittle of evidence that these papers had ever got out of the hands they belonged to. The noble Lord had discussed the question of payment by results. That was not the question before the House at all, though he hoped the time might soon come when they should have to discuss that question. The more the noble Lord insisted, as he did insist, that the case was so clear that it was quite impossible for anybody to have any doubt about it, the more willing he ought to be to allow the case to be tried in a Court of Law. The noble Lord also said that there was the strongest possible evidence that it was absolutely impossible that the master could have made the notes he did without having had supplied to him the printed examination paper. There were a score of men to be called—men of experience in these matters—not one of whom was called. Well, then it had been urged that Mr. Goffin should have appealed against the decision of the Court on the question of privilege. Let any hon. Gentleman present who knew anything as to the state of the law on the question give his opinion, and he thought he would agree with the learned counsel in the case that it would have been useless to have appealed against the decision of the Court on that point. He should not be wrong in reading a few lines from the judgment of Mr. Justice Field about the case. He said the Court was of opinion that the plea of privilege was a good one, and a perfect answer to the plaintiff's case. That was to say, it shut up the plaintiff entirely, and gave him no opportunity of going on. The plaintiff, no doubt, suffered from that which, on the face of it, was a serious libel upon him, and it was desirable he should have opportunity of investigation. Further on the Judge said it was a bad thing and a hard thing for individuals that anyone should be at liberty to say that a man was committing a crime, and that the law could not call upon him to prove what he said. Now, he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) should like to ask the noble Lord whether he proposed next Session to bring in an Act of Parliament to alter the Act relating to this school? If he did, then discussion would take a larger range than it could at present. The Governors took the greatest possible care before they appointed Mr. Goffin as head master. His testimonials were of the highest character, some of them being from Inspectors connected with the Education Department. The school rapidly filled, and, at the present moment, there were 690 boys in a school only built for 600. There were applicants far exceeding the number of vacancies that arose. No doubt, the school possessed many advantages for giving a sound education to boys intended for commercial life. The best way to judge of a school was to consider whether the boys were properly educated and were sought after; and he might say that there was scarcely a public company seeking clerks that was not asking for these boys. Mr. Goffin passed 92 per cent of the boys sent up for examination. In order to test the qualities of the school, the Governors last year appointed Examiners of the highest character, and of the greatest possible talent and ability, and they took care that the masters should have nothing to do with it. Let him read a few lines from the Report of the Examiners as regarded the written examination in chemistry. They found that 23 boys out of 31 had determined a difficult matter correctly. The whole Report was of an eminently favourable character. What he asked for, and what he asked of the Government, was that they should proceed with their accusation that Mr. Goffin had been guilty of obtaining nearly £400 of public money. He could not do more than ask the Government either to prosecute the man, or allow Mr. Goffin to go on with his action for libel and slander. He therefore asked the Government to bring up an action in such a way as might be best calculated to bring to light these charges.

said, that as he was the only Member of the Committee which inquired into the charges against Mr. Goffin who had not spoken, he wished in the strongest manner possible to corroborate the statement made by the noble Lord, who had done a great service in bringing the subject before the House. He had supported his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Sir Sydney Waterlow) in the Amendment he proposed to the Report of the Committee; and his hon. Friend now declared that that Amendment simply expressed an opinion that the evidence laid before the Committee justified the Department in suspending the certificate of Mr. Goffin. He (Mr. Errington) confessed that this was the first time he had ever heard a suggestion that that was the sense in which the words of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were intended to be taken. He thought the interpretation hardly just, because the subsequent words of the Amendment were that the Committee desired to record also an emphatic opinion that the declaration made by the masters required the serious attention of the Education Department, with a view to the adoption of further precautions in order to prevent the examination papers from becoming known outside the Department before the examination took place. That meant that the papers had become known outside the Department before the examination. He (Mr. Erring-ton) had supported that Amendment with the distinct understanding that it condemned the conduct of Mr. Goffin quite as strongly as the Report of the Committee did. The question really was whether a man of the skill and experience of Mr. Goffin, by mere experience, could have guessed and interpreted the questions in a fair and legitimate manner, and taught them to his pupils accordingly. The hon. Member for Gravesend said the Committee refused to listen to certain witnesses who were in waiting to prove that what Mr. Goffin had done might have been done, more or less, merely by skill and experience; but the Committee had got far beyond that. He agreed with the hon. Member that if that question had been opened the Committee ought to have listened to the evidence Mr. Goffin proposed to call. He (Mr. Goffin) had denied the authenticity of the notes which formed the accusation against him. He denied them categorically, and said they were a forgery, and the result of a conspiracy against him. The noble Lord the then Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lord Francis Hervey) pinned him exactly to that declaration. He asked him if the notes were authentic, and whether he agreed with the conclusion of Professor Roscoe that it would be impossible to have framed the questions in a particular way without access had been had to the questions of the Examiners. Mr. Goffin said he thought so, and that he should have agreed with that. Therefore, Mr. Goffin's own admission was that the answers could not have been given through any mere experience and knowledge of tuition. It must be remembered that at that time there was no direct proof, although there was internal evidence, that the notes were authentic. That link in the evidence was still wanting. Therefore, Mr. Goffin thought himself perfectly safe in adhering to his old line of defence, and in saying that the notes were not authentic. If they were authentic, then the case against him would have been conceded. A remarkable point was that, having narrowed the issue down to that, the missing link was in the end obtained, and the Committee got evidence which convinced them that the notes were, beyond all question, taken at the lecture given immediately before the examination, and for the purpose of teaching the pupils the questions that were to be asked. They had obviously the assurance of Mr. Goffin that if the notes were authentic he could not have given the answers without having a copy of the Examiners' questions. That brought the question to a very narrow issue. The question, as far as the public out-of-doors were concerned, regarded the form of procedure. The noble Lord admitted that many of the Committee at first sight were reluctant to accept the particular course of procedure proposed by the Chairman of the Committee; but the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, and who had condemned that course very strongly, ought to remember that strongly as he felt against it he was not inclined to divide the Committee against it. Although reluctant to assent to the form of procedure, which was not, perhaps, usual, but which was forced upon the Committee by the necessities of the case, the hon. Baronet, like all of the Members of the Committee, had on consideration agreed that it was the most expedient course to adopt. He (Mr. Errington) was sure the Committee adopted it with regret; but they felt on consideration that it was the best and most satisfactory course they could take. He agreed with the noble Lord that that course had a most satisfactory result. It enabled the Committee to come to a conclusion which they could not have come to as certainly, or without the greatest difficulty, if they had adopted any other course. The hon. Baronet had repeated the charge against the Education Department, that they had not brought an action against Mr. Goffin for having obtained by fraud a large sum of money. No doubt, the Committee were of opinion that the money was obtained by fraud; but it was paid over to the trustees, and, therefore, an action for fraud would not lie. If these were the only grounds that could be urged in defence of Mr. Goffin, he thought the case of that gentleman was a very weak one indeed. No doubt they must all feel pained in joining in a vote of censure against a body which was so much respected as the Governors of Westminster School; but he must say that he thought that every word contained in the proposal which the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex had placed on the Paper was fully justified. It certainly appeared to him to be a scandal that, when an inquiry of this kind was asked for, and after it had been concluded in the way it had, the Governors of Westminster School should think themselves justified in absolutely ignoring the decision of the Committee, and in maintaining Mr. Goffin in the important place he occupied, notwithstanding the gravity of the charges against him. At any rate, they ought to have suspended Mr. Goffin, or have insisted upon some practical course being taken by that gentleman for the vindication of his character. The Governors called upon the Department to prosecute Mr. Goffin; but the last decision having been against Mr. Goffin, that gentleman was bound to take action against the Department. It was quite true that Mr. Goffin did commence an action; but it was of such a nature that everybody knew beforehand it would be ridiculed when it came into Court. He thought it was a great pity that, owing to the Forms of the House, they had not now an opportunity of affirming, by their decision—

" That the retention by the Governors of the United Westminster Schools of Mr. Goffin as head master of that public institution, after he had, by a Select Committee of this House specially appointed in 1879 to inquire into his conduct at the request of the Governors of the Schools, been found guilty of a systematic course of fraud, falsehood, and subornation, is a public scandal, and as such demands the immediate attention of the Education Office and Charity Commissioners."

said, he had yet to learn that it was the duty of honourable men placed in such a posi- tion as the Governors of Westminster School to act contrary to their consciences, whatever decision a Committee of that House, acting in a different manner from that upon which other Committees usually acted, and ending in the examination and condemnation of a man with closed doors, after forbidding him to be present during the whole of the inquiry, and not allowing him to call the witnesses who were in attendance to speak in his favour—might have arrived at. He had heard with surprise some of the language which had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) in regard to the Governors of the School. Perhaps the House would scarcely believe that the man who proposed the resolution read by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) that day, who had gone through all the evidence, who was not prejudiced in favour of Mr. Goffin, but rather prejudiced against him—that the very man who moved that Resolution, after hearing and considering all the evidence, was that eminent scholar and Divine, Canon Farrar. It was after becoming acquainted with all the facts that Canon Farrar, at the first meeting of the Governors, called to consider the question, proposed the resolution which had been read by the hon. Member for Gravesend, and it was passed unanimously by the Governors. The statement made by the noble Lord would have conveyed an impression which he thought, upon reflection, was not the impression the noble Lord desired to convey; but, undoubtedly, the impression produced on the mind of any stranger who heard the subject now for the first time would be that Mr. Goffin was a kind of charlatan, who, by means of fraud and underhand practices, had obtained a position he was not entitled to, and that therefore the Department, for a long series of years, had been endeavouring to entrap him. Now, reference had been made by the hon. Member for Gravesend to the position Mr. Goffin had occupied for many years. It was well-known to anyone who knew anything about teaching that Mr. Goffin was the first teacher of technical science in the country. That was admitted by every person connected with education in the country. It was difficult to find a man who held a different opinion, and they had evidence adduced in the course of the debate that when all the privi- leges previously enjoyed by Mr. Goffin were taken away from, and when the greatest care was taken by the Governors that no special examination should be held in the school, the boys educated in the school still continued to take the very highest position. He was not there to defend either the action of Mr. Goffin or the course of his life; he was there simply as one of the Governors of the School to defend the action of the Governors; and he declared in the most positive terms that, as honourable and conscientious men, they dared not dismiss a man to ruin and degradation until they were satisfied in their own minds of the truth of the charges made against him. The Governors were not in any degree partial to Mr. Goffin; but they were animated by one feeling—namely, that they ought not to absolutely ruin a man until they arrived at a satisfactory conclusion that there was no doubt as to the truth of the case preferred against him. He was anxious to trace the early part of the case. The noble lord had told him himself that he had made up his mind that Mr. Goffin was guilty.

begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had never said anything of the kind. He might have told the hon. Gentleman that he was satisfied of Mr. Goffin's guilt after the proofs had been produced. He had certainly never said that he had made up his mind before the proofs were produced.

said, that what the noble Lord had said had certainly conveyed that impression to his mind. He would withdraw anything as to the actual words used by the noble Lord; but undoubtedly the impression conveyed to his mind was that the noble Lord had made up his mind as to Mr. Goffin's guilt. Perhaps the noble Lord would remember that his (Sir James Lawrence's) reply was—"I cannot condemn a man until I have got at all the facts." But it was not only the noble Lord, but the Department, which appeared to have made up its mind to crush Mr. Goffin long before the whole of the evidence came out. The first inquiry was conducted by Colonel Donnelly, and, to say the least of it, it was conducted in a most extraordinary manner. Instead of approaching the boys in a conciliatory spirit and in a gentle manner, as if he were really anxious to obtain the truth from them, to each answer given by the boys Colonel Donnelly said—"You are a liar; you are all liars." That was the course taken by the gentleman sent down by the Department to ascertain the facts of the case. The noble Lord said that the boys were in fear and trembling when they came before the Governors. That was quite untrue, and the Governors were able to obtain very clear statements from them. He was quite aware of the difficulty of getting any Government Department to confess itself in error, or that it had done injury to an individual. An instance occurred to him which he might mention to the House. When he first came into the House he was waited upon one day by a man who was one of the most trusted of the porters connected with the South Western Railway. The man said he wished him (Sir James Lawrence) to do him a favour. He had been a member for many years of the police force, and he had injured himself very severely in struggling with a burglar, the consequence of which was that he was laid up. The doctor made up his mind that he was malingering, and gave evidence before the Home Secretary to the effect that when he examined the man's leg he found traces of iodine upon the foot which he had not prescribed. The consequence was that the man lost his pension, and he was taken into the employment of the South Western Railway, and became one of the most trusted servants they had. Some years afterwards, on some alterations being made in the chemist's shop in which the prescription was made up, the original paper was found signed by the medical man who gave evidence against this poor fellow, in his own handwriting, and in the document appeared the very article "iodine," the prescription of which he had forgotten. He (Sir James Lawrence) went to the Home Office and laid the facts before them; but the only answer he obtained was that they could not undo what they had already done. The man did not ask to be reinstated in his position, but simply to have his character cleared. But an English Public Department knew nothing of that rehabilitation of character which other Governments and nations were always anxious to under- take, and until our Government adopted the course pursued elsewhere he feared that very much injustice would be done. He had detained the House much longer than he ought to have done; but he felt warmly in regard to some of the expressions which had fallen from the noble Lord, and which he considered to be quite unjustifiable. He held that no man had a right to impute motives or talk about a public scandal in regard to the action of men who held honourable positions. He thought that greater care should be taken by the heads of Departments, and by the officials under them, as to the manner in which the public conduct of other men, as conscientious as themselves, was construed. MR. RATHBONE said, he never rose with more pain to address the House upon any subject than he did on the present occasion. Many men whom he sincerely respected were among the Governors of the Westminster School; but it seemed to him that this was one of those cases on which it was most important that the House should express a clear opinion. A great deal of the arguments they had heard went to prove Mr. Goffin's great ability. There was no doubt that he was a man of wonderful ability as a teacher; and one of the most remarkable proofs of his ability was that he should have been able so to mislead the Governors of the School. [Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW dissented.] His hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) shook his head; but he really thought if his hon. Friend would only try to carry his mind back to the time when he proposed his draft Report, he would see at once that the line he had been taking to-night was absolutely inconsistent with that Report, and what must have been the state of his mind when he proposed it. Mr. Goffin swore positively that no such information ever came into his possession, and yet, in the Report proposed by the hon. Baronet, the Committee desired to record their emphatic opinion that the declarations made by the witnesses required the serious attention of the Education Department, with a view to the adoption of further precautions in order to prevent the examination papers from becoming known outside the Department before the time of examination. If that meant anything, it meant that Mr. Goffin had had the papers. It could mean nothing else; and, if so, Mr. Goffin was guilty of clear and deliberate perjury, and it was the duty of the Governors to have prosecuted him for that perjury. They were the only persons who could prosecute him for receiving money under false pretences, because it was from them he received it, and not from the Department. He imagined that most Members of the House had made up their minds that Mr. Goffin did commit these offences, and the noble Lord had shown that this was not the first offence. Then, what a frightful thing it was for the Governors of Westminster School to give their sanction and countenance to a man who had been guilty of a fraud in regard to which he must have taken the boys with him. The Vice President of the Council had told them to-day that he was going to remove some of the great temptations to fraud to which the elementary school masters had hitherto been subjected, and it was quite time that he should do so, for anyone who had been connected with public elementary schools knew how difficult it had been to maintain that high spirit of honour which was so important. But, at the same time, when they came to look at the effect of maintaining a man so able, so eminent, and so distinguished as Mr. Goffin in his position, after the Committee had distinctly come to the unanimous conclusion they did, he thought it was of immense importance that, by some means or other, the scandal of maintaining such a man in such a position should be put an end to. It was not merely that the Governors were called upon to prevent the scandal, but they ought to consider the effect of leaving such a man with power to persecute all those who had given honest and straightforward evidence against him.

said, that, deplorable as it might be to leave Mr. Goffin with power to persecute persons who were objectionable to him, it was, nevertheless, only a common practice even in connection with a respectable Government Department. Therefore, they could not condemn Mr. Goffin on that account. The noble Lord who had formerly been Vice President of the Council and Under Secretary of State for India (Lord George Hamilton) could, from his experience, quote many cases in which a junior member of the Civil Service had occasion to remember any unfortunate slip he might have made against his superiors for all the rest of his life. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had studied the case of Mr. Goffin, with the intention of bringing the matter before Parliament if he could conscientiously do so; but certainly the impression produced on his mind was that the case against Mr. Goffin was not made out. He did not think that sufficient stress had been laid on the peculiar nature of the study to which "coachers" or "crammers" directed their attention, when they were engaged in coaching a pupil for passing a particular examination. The first part of the duty of the crammer was to find out who the Examiners were, and, in the next place, to hunt up all the antecedents of the Examiners with the skill of a private detective. He would obtain information as to all the occasions upon which such and such an Examiner had acted, all the questions which that Examiner had put upon paper; and it was upon a wisely selected average of such questions running over a long period of years that a professional crammer proceeded in preparing his class for an examination to take place two months, six months, or one month hence, at the hands of that special Examiner. Only yesterday an old College chum of his own, now engaged in coaching, breakfasted with him. His friend complained that too many crammers, and the most successful ones, confined themselves to the business of teaching their pupils the answers to questions which, over a long space of years, the particular Examiners before whom they were to appear had been in the habit of asking of the pupils. For instance, this gentleman was a coach for some of the examinations for commissions in the Line, commissions given to Militia officers; and he said that among the Examiners at these examinations within recent years there had been Examiners who were also Examiners in the public Colleges, such as Woolwich and Sandhurst. The crammer knew very well that Mr. So-and-So, Professor of such and such a Department at Woolwich, was the Examiner; and he would, therefore, find out the class of questions that gentleman had propounded at Woolwich and Sandhurst over a series of years, and after he had found that out beyond all doubt, his pupils would be able to clear a majority of the questions asked. Cramming was a sort of art which had been brought almost to perfection in the present day. A short time ago there was an hon. Member in that House who was at the head of one of the greatest cramming establishments in the Kingdom. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was deprived of his seat by the verdict of an Electoral Commission. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was sorry for that untoward event, because if the Gentleman to whom he referred had been disposed to give a brief lecture on the science and mysteries of cramming, he would certainly have been able to astonish a great majority of that House. It had been pointed out to him (Mr. O'Donnell) by an experienced crammer, in a moment of social expansion, that the more distinguished the Examiners with whom a crammer had to deal the more safe the crammer was in forecasting the questions that would be asked. Men of distinguished scientific attainments were the men who were most sure to have a dozen particular fads of which they were particularly proud. Having arrived at certain original views, they could not for the life of them help asking questions upon them year after year. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was of opinion that the whole system of competitive examinations required re-casting. It was something like the contest between big guns and iron plates; the guns had got ahead of the plates, and the crammer had got ahead of the competitive examination system. Looking at the imperfect nature of the tribunal before which Mr. Goffin went—and if there was one tribunal less satisfactory than another it was a Committee of that honourable House—looking at the imperfect nature of that tribunal, he was certainly utterly unable to come to any conclusion hostile to the good faith of Mr. Goffin. Mr. Goffin seemed to be a man of wonderful ability as a teacher, with a wonderful genius for getting at conclusions; and he was quite sure that during the period Mr. Goffin was engaged in preparing Westminster scholars under a strict cramming system, he would have made it his business to go through all the antecedents of the Examiners, and all the people the pupils were likely to come in contact with. Being a man of such ability, it was not astonishing that the pupils of Mr. Goffin, as a general rule, satisfactorily answered about 90 per cent of the questions put to them. He thought it would be most difficult, in all the circumstances of the case, for the House to draw any hasty inference as to the guilt of Mr. Goffin, or to come to any conclusion adverse to him.

said, he had no right to address the House again except by permission; but he would not detain the House for more than two or three minutes. The question had only been brought to his attention by the Notice placed on the Paper by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton); and everyone who heard the noble Lord that night must feel that he had done good service in bringing it forward. When the question was brought under his (Mr. Mundella's) notice in the Department, he made an inquiry into the nature of the charges against Mr. Goffin, and the result of his investigation was this—that Mr. Goffin was guilty of the charge brought against him, and that it was really a sad thing that a body of Governors so eminently respectable as the Governors of Westminster School should have retained a man in such an important position. The retention of such a man was little less than a scandal, and it was setting a very bad example. He was the more sorry, because it was really teaching the country to believe that the Department were disposed to charge a man with fraud when there was no real and substantial ground for the accusation. He did not know that it was possible to constitute a fairer or more complete Committee than that which had been appointed at the suggestion of his hon. Friend behind him to investigate this case. It consisted of Mr. Lowthian Bell, Mr. Moore, Lord George Hamilton, Lord Francis Hervey, Mr. Errington, Mr. Rodwell, and Sir Sydney Waterlow. His hon. Friend the Member for Graves-end charged everyone who sided against Mr. Goffin with being the prosecutor. He spoke of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex as the prosecutor, then of Colonel Donnelly as the prosecutor; and he (Mr. Mundella) was afraid that he himself would now be looked upon as the prosecutor. Even Mr. Lowe, the present Lord Sherbrooke, was spoken of as the prosecutor, because he had happened to be Vice President of the Council, and it was supposed that he must necessarily be affected with some Departmental taint which would prevent him from fairly and honourably dealing with a question like that of Mr. Goffin. Surely the House would not suspect that Members of the Government and permanent officials were really anxious to convict any man of fraud? From what he could learn, such men as Professor Franklin and Professor Roscoe considered that the case against Mr. Goffin was proved beyond all doubt, and that it was a scandal that such a man should have been retained so long in the position he now occupied. There was no doubt that Mr. Goffin was a remarkably able man and an excellent science teacher; but he had all the less excuse for the course he had taken. It was not necessary that a man possessing so much ability should have recourse to fraud in the way in which Mr. Goffin evidently had had recourse to it in order to obtain money for his own school work. It was said that the Education Department ought to have prosecuted Mr. Goffin, and the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Erring-ton) repeated that cry. The hon. Member, however, knew that the Department could not do so. This transaction took place nearly three and a-half years ago—namely, in May, 1878—and how could they now prosecute Mr. Goffin? An indictment for fraud would not lie against him; that was very well known. The fraud was not committed by Mr. Goffin directly for his own benefit, but only indirectly, as the money went into the hands of the Governors. If a criminal indictment had been preferred against Mr. Goffin, his mouth would have been closed; they could not have cross-examined him, and they would have been deprived of the best means of getting at the truth. All he could say about the matter was this—that he thought the discussion which had taken place would produce a good effect. He hoped the Governors of the School would, on reflection, consider that it was a scandal to allow the present state of things to continue. He should certainly confer with those who usually advised him in legal matters, in order to see what steps could possibly be taken. He was afraid that nothing could be done by the Education Department; but, if not, the Charity Commissioners might consider whether it was not their duty to interfere. He did not care how eminent or able a man might be; if he committed such a fraud as this, he was guilty of a great mistake, and, in the interests of all public teachers, he ought not to be allowed to continue in the position he occupied. It was now time that this discussion should come to an end, and, as the House could not come to a conclusion on the matter, he would appeal to it to resolve itself at once into Committee, so that the Government might be allowed to take the Education Votes.

asked if there was to be a discussion upon the Estimates?

Certainly.

said, he was not anxious to trouble the Committee in any way; but he thought that the full and very interesting Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would require a good deal of time for the consideration of the facts contained in it before they could express any judgment upon it. He thought no excuse was needed for the long speech which had been made to them, as it was one of great interest to all who had the pleasure of hearing it; and he would only venture to remark that he hoped another time to have the satisfaction of entering at length into the points which the right hon. Gentleman had laid before them that night. He was inclined to doubt the advisability of the practice which the Vice President had adopted that night, and which he (Viscount Sandon) tried to adopt when he filled the Office of Vice President of the Council—namely, of making a Statement with the Speaker in the Chair. Unfortunately, other matters had intercepted that Statement, and the natural discussion of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and the result was that they had arrived at a very late hour before they were able to discuss the Vote. As he had said, he was not to blame for not having set a bad example in the matter, because he did try to make his statement with the Speaker in the Chair; but he was prevented from doing so by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. He gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council that the experience of the last 10 years had somewhat disappointed the expectations that were raised, and, to some extent, that it dissipated some of the fears that were expressed. Some of them expected that the voluntary schools would be very much encouraged by the course of legislation adopted; but those expectations had been disappointed. On the other hand, the expectation entertained that the progress of education would be a little more rapid had been somewhat dashed. The hopeful aspect of the case was that the parties who disagreed in former years were now evincing a desire to work together in a more harmonious manner for the benefit of the children committed to their charge. He was gratified to hear the high testimony which the Vice President of the Council bore to the voluntary work of the country, both in regard to the board schools and the voluntary schools. They found that some very vague and voluntary dreams which had been formed of the past had been abandoned, judging from the Vice President's speech. Nobody spoke more strongly than the Vice President did now against the evils of free and gratuitous education. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly consistent in that; but it was most important that a person holding the high position of the right hon. Gentleman should be able to say that the opinion of the country was entirely against free education. As to religious instruction, the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of its value; and he (Viscount Sandon) rejoiced that it was so after the 18 months' experience the right hon. Gentleman had had of the working of the Department. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that it had fallen to his lot to come to the House at a time of comparative calm in the Education Department, so that he was able to turn his mind to a further revision of the Education Code. He hoped, in the long run, the right hon. Gentleman might not find that in trying to be concise he had become obscure. The right hon. Gentleman was able to undertake this im- portant work, owing to the Department being more free in regard to the supply of schools, and owing to the board system having been started and got into full working order. He was also able to undertake the work of compulsion which had been proposed by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). His way had been cleared for him, and he (Viscount Sandon) felt that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in giving a large meed of praise to the exceeding vigour of the heads of the Education Department, not only the Gentleman who was at the head of all, but those who were at the head of the subordinate departments. In regard to the Code itself, he hoped he might be allowed to record his opinion, and he trusted that all hon. Gentlemen who were interested in education would do the same. Until they had seen the system fully in operation, the whole future of the schools must depend entirely on the good working of the Code. They must remember that all the changes were purely tentative after all, and the great question which lurked behind was that of the money. They were told that they were not to consider the money question at present; but to look to it solely as an educational question. That was very admirable and very excellent; but the schools of the country must look to it from the money point of view; and the case of the board schools, and voluntary schools, as between small schools and large schools, rural schools and urban schools, must be decided by the facilities which the new Code afforded. It would, therefore, be unwise to express an opinion as to the Code until they knew how the money was to be allocated. There was one thing, however, which they ought to require. He did trust the right hon. Gentleman would watch the matter carefully, so as not to place too great a head pressure upon the children. He said that from the experience he had gained when Vice President, and he was satisfied that there was great danger of pressing too heavily on children of tender age. He would venture to call special attention to the case of the pupil teachers. He was quite sure that in many cases they demanded far too much from young pupil teachers. They had to give out these poor children, as well as take them in, and the pressure upon their minds was very great, in having to teach during the greater part of the day, to stand almost entirely throughout the day, and then to study at night. Then, also, in regard to increasing the intellectual pressure, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, after the strong expressions he had used as to the advantages of religious teaching, to keep a careful watch that in their exertions for the spread of secular knowledge they did not ignore religious teaching. There was great danger, if they showed that the interests of the State in the schools was merely based on secular knowledge, that in the course of time pure religious teaching would be cast aside as of no importance whatever. He thought that was quite unintentional on the part of Her Majesty's Government; and he believed that they might virtually make it impossible that that religious teaching they wished to foster should suffer. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his praiseworthy endeavours to remove the temptation to fraud which existed at present, and which were so serious in our schools. No one would rejoice more than he would when the scheme relating to the 250 attendances was carried out. As to The Child's School Book to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, he was in favour of getting rid of all unnecessary forms; and, therefore, he should only be too happy if he succeeded in getting rid of The Child's School Book. The right hon. Gentleman said he was also going to give greater prominence to poetry, recitation, history, and geography. He would be glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman had time to get those matters attended to in the ordinary curriculum of the schools. For his own part, he was a little doubtful whether Milton and Shakspeare offered the best kind of poetry to children of 10 or 12 years of age; and he was rather in favour of some of our excellent patriotic lyrics which very easily adapted themselves to the intellects of children. But that was a matter of detail. The right hon. Gentleman had also assured them that he was going to lay great stress on sewing as a branch of instruction. He believed he had the honour to be the first to give the money of the State for the promotion of that most important art amongst girls, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do all in his power to encourage it. At the same time, he ventured to put in a word for those despised subjects—domestic economy and cooking. They should all have in view the importance of teaching those useful and necessary subjects in schools. It was difficult in practice, he knew; but they were most necessary to be taught to girls, and he hoped the Vice President would encourage them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman meant to keep the attention of Inspectors fully engaged on the moral character of the schools. Everyone who knew what schools were would see how important it was that the Inspectors should show great attention to the general moral tone which prevailed in them. The right hon. Gentleman had used one happy expression. He said he was determined that the teaching in these elementary schools should be thorough. He reminded the House that they had made it compulsory on parents to send their children to those schools; that they were bound to see that the teaching was thorough and good, and that it was absolute cruelty and wrong to subject children to insufficient instruction. That point should, undoubtedly, be kept steadily in view. He wished the right hon. Gentleman success in his endeavour to promote night schools; and he agreed that he was taking a bold and wise course in allowing clerical teachers to instruct in night schools. It was probably the most important change of any made in the Code to throw open the profession of teachers to graduates of the Universities; and he thought the more people considered it, the more they would see the advantages of making that alteration. It would however, be necessary, in fairness to existing teachers, that they should have due warning of the change, because, having entered upon their career on the understanding that it was a closed one, they should certainly receive notice of what would appear to them a very sudden and important change. He also hoped care would be taken to find a more suitable class of teachers for rural schools. The misfortune was that it was impossible for the districts in which those schools were situated to give a high rate of pay, and yet it was exceedingly bad to have very young teachers. That question, undoubtedly, merited great attention. It was the case that there was some deterioration in respect of the time during which teachers stayed in their schools; and they found that as a rule where there was only a mistress she stayed only for a year, or possibly two years. Anyone would understand that the effect of that upon the children was disastrous. In that way the teacher had no time to make acquaintance with the children, who were always being put under new systems, while, in fact, the moral hold was relaxed. That was a very important difficulty which all interested in rural education should consider. He could not agree with the remarks of the Vice President of the Council on the subject of honour certificates. He had always regarded them both as tending to raise the tone in schools and as incentives to future exertion. He thought those certificates did tend to elevate the character of their elementary schools, and he was afraid he should adhere to that view. He thought it a pity, for the sake of £1,000, to sacrifice what he believed to be in many cases a useful incentive; and, therefore, he trusted that if any change was made the system might be modified without being abandoned. He saw that about 13,000 children in the course of the year got those certificates; and he was constantly meeting with children who had gained them and who showed them with great pride, while the parents had told him that the moral effect upon their families was surprising. There was one point on which he should be obliged to challenge the decision of his right hon. Friend if he should think it his duty to press it. He, for one, was loth in any way to lower the character of the Inspectorate, because it was of the highest importance that its intellectual standard should be kept up; so much so, in his opinion, that when he held the Office of Vice President very severe conditions were attached as qualifications for that office. Therefore, he trusted that nothing would be done to lower the position of the Inspectorate. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any truth in the rumour alluded to in the Press that he held out hopes to teachers of extending the pension system generally? He was aware that he granted a certain number of pensions in cases where the teachers were old and underpaid; but he carefully guarded himself from holding out any hope whatever of a general pension system, which would be a most serious and grave undertaking for the country, and he hardly thought the right hon. Gentleman could have been correctly reported when he was said to hold out hopes of so great a change. Although he should not be sorry to see a system of assurances established which would secure teachers against the consequences of sickness and old age, he did not think it was the business of the State to go further in the matter. He did not wish to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman; but he must hold himself absolutely free with regard to the changes in the Code, and with regard, also, to the changes in connection with the Inspectorate.

said, he had a Motion on the Paper on going into Committee of Supply which, yielding to the appeal of his right hon. Friend, he did not proceed with; but to which, perhaps, he might be permitted to refer in Committee and to say a few words on the subject of it. He referred to what he could not but regard as a great anomaly in their educational system—that was to say, the denominational character of so many of our Training Colleges. He did not severely blame anybody for that, because it had grown out of a state of things which existed formerly, but which no longer prevailed. It was well known that for a long time the education of the people of the country was left in the hands of voluntary associations, and they frankly and gratefully acknowledged that they rendered valuable service to the cause of education. As long as these associations were purely voluntary, and supported by the contributions of their friends, they had a right to make their own rules; but when Government undertook to subsidize those efforts, then, of course, the matter was very much altered. It was enacted that all elementary schools should be subject to the Conscience Clause, which, to some extent, modified the denominational character of those schools, but the Training Colleges remained as they were, being governed by the same rules as existed when they were purely voluntary institutions. But they were no longer voluntary institutions; so much otherwise that by far the larger proportion of the incomes by which they were supported was derived from Parliamentary grants, and the fees paid by students. He would give some figures, by way of illustration, taken from the Report of the Committee of Council. He found that with regard to the Training College at Carnarvon the total annual expenditure was £2,227, the subscriptions and donations amounted to only £293. At Cheltenham College the total expenditure was £5,275, of which only £500 was raised by subscriptions and donations; the total expenditure of the Female College in the same town being £2,281, with subscriptions and donations amounting to only £117. The British Schools College, in the Borough Road, had a total expenditure of £7,000, of which only £1,390 was raised by voluntary contributions, and the Wesleyan College, at Battersea, a total expenditure of £4,172, and the donations and subscriptions amounted to £321. Thus it would be apparent to the Committee that, so far as support was concerned, those Colleges had become almost State institutions; and the question was whether it was right that institutions, which were practically dependent on public money, to which all classes of the community contributed, should remain sectarian in their character, government, and teaching. The tendency of their legislation had been, of late years, to unsectarianize education. That was proved by the Elementary Education Act, the Endowed Schools Act, and the various Acts passed by the Legislature during the last 20 or 30 years in relation to the Universities. But the Training Colleges remained on the same footing as before, many of them being, beyond doubt, purely denominational. A Memorial had been sent in to the London School Board, signed by the members of the Teachers' Association in this Metropolis, complaining of the disabilities imposed upon them by the denominational character of the examination to which their pupils were subject before they could enter the Training Colleges. The School Board thereupon applied to each Training College in the country for copies of the forms of application for admission, and for information with regard to the nature of the religious examination required to be passed by candidates. The Returns to the London School Board were as follows:—There were 41 Training Colleges of all kinds in England and Wales. Of these, six made no Return, five had no religious examination, and 25 had returned that they required, on entrance, an examination in the Old and New Testaments and in the Prayer Book. In all the Church of England and Diocesan Training Colleges this examination was exacted. The Wesleyan Methodists required an examination in the Old and New Testaments and the Conference Catechism; and as to the preliminary inquiries of an ecclesiastical character there were a great variety. Some Colleges merely required testimonials as to character from a clergyman or minister, and others addressed questions of this kind—"Are you a Communicant?" "Are you a member of the Church of England?" "Are you prepared to make a declaration that you will continue as a teacher in the Church schools?" Now, he asked the Committee again whether it was fair that these institutions, which were supported almost entirely out of public money, should have a character so decidedly denominational as to exclude entirely from the advantages of the training they gave all the Nonconformists of the country? He did not wish to say one disrespectful word of the Book of Common Prayer. It was not his habit to speak disrespectfully of anything that was an object of reverence to any of his countrymen; but he might be permitted to say there was much in the Book of Common Prayer that the Nonconformist conscientiously objected to. They did not teach it in their schools; therefore, any of the Nonconformist teachers who wished to go to those Training Colleges were barred by the requirement that a candidate must be examined in the Book of Common Prayer. There was a great hardship in that, inasmuch as these teachers might wish to go to the Training Colleges for the purpose of, afterwards, teaching in the board schools, which did not, and were not, allowed to teach the children the Prayer Book and the Catechism. The board schools were forbidden, by the 14th section of the Elementary Education Act, from giving the children such instruction. No examination on these matters was required in the scholarship examination undertaken by the Government; and yet, when these young people presented themselves for admission to the Training Colleges, they were made to submit to that religious test examination into the Prayer Book, and, in some cases, they were compelled to declare that they were members of the Church of England. He must say it was time that all this should be changed. It was undesirable that any of these Training Colleges should be denominational in their character; but, in any case, he maintained, the sectarian restrictions which prevented others than members of the Church of England from enjoying the advantages of those Training Colleges, and other institutions supported by public money, should be removed. He was not able to move the Resolution he had put on the Paper, owing to the Forms of the House; but, if the Committee would permit him, he would read it, in order that hon. Members might see the modest proposal he intended to make as to those elementary teachers. It was as follows:—

"That the Training Colleges for Elementary Teachers, which are almost entirely maintained by public grants and by the contributions of the students, should, so long as the present system of denominational colleges exists, be open without sectarian restrictions to those candidates who, being otherwise qualified, pass the scholarship examination with the greatest success, and the same religious liberty should be secured to them during their training which the Law now secures to students at the Universities, Grammar Schools, and in public Elementary Schools throughout the Country."

said, that one of the disadvantages they experienced on the present occasion, and which his noble Friend the Member for Liverpool had referred to, was that they had not been able to follow the interesting Statement of the Vice President by a general discussion. The debate had strayed over various topics, interesting in themselves, some of them highly interesting, almost sensational, and those had diverted them from the main topic of the evening—namely, a review of the educational proceedings of the past, and of the educational policy of the future. He could not help expressing a hope that if the revision of the Rules of the House was, as had been indicated, to form an important part of the programme for next Session, no new Rule would be adopted which would encourage and sanction the course of proceeding which had been pursued that night. Discussions of that kind came on under great disadvantages at such an hour of the morning, and it was very difficult for one to compress into the few minutes which he felt himself at liberty to occupy all the observations he desired to make concerning the large number of interesting topics referred to. He did not intend to go into the case of Mr. Goffin; but he would say a word with regard to what the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) had, with great moderation from his point of view, just stated. He (Mr. Richard) had made an appeal to the Government, and he thought it would have been very desirable if they could have come to some decision on the subject. Just as in the case of Mr. Goffin they were unable to come to a decision, so also in the matter of Training Colleges they were unable to come to a decision. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not be led into an incautious statement in approval of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Merthyr in so seductive a manner. He had spoken as though a gentle change might be made to bring these Training Colleges in harmony with other institutions in the country, conducted upon what he called the undenominational principle. If they were at an earlier period of the evening he should endeavour to persuade the hon. Member that this institution, whose example he recommended, was not so undenominational as he seemed to think. He would have reminded him of the endowed schools which came under Clause 19 of the Endowed Schools Act, and he would have pointed to the larger "public schools," as they were called, where religious education was given. But he would not now go into matters of that kind. He would only ask the Committee to remember that any change of the kind the hon. Member proposed would be a great and fundamental change, and not only that, but it would be a change that would amount to something very much like a breach of faith, because, although it was true that those institutions were supported in a great measure by the State—and he fully recognized the fact—yet it was also equally true that they were founded in a great measure by the liberality of private persons, for the express purpose of their being connected with a certain religious denomination. That remark did not only apply to the Church of England in which he was interested. There were Wesleyan Colleges, founded by and for Wesleyans, and also Roman Catholic Colleges, which were founded by and for Roman Catholics. Therefore, he trusted the Vice President of the Council would not, in a moment of incaution, be induced to adopt the view of the hon. Member for Merthyr, and, by so doing, give a severe shock to public feeling—to a great deal of the sound feeling on which the education of this country had hitherto rested, to which the Vice President of the Council had given credit, and to which the hon. Member himself had given credit. Education in this country was, for a very long time, chiefly dependent on voluntary effort. That voluntary effort was entirely connected with some religious body, and that religious body was mainly Church of England, as being the principal representative of religion in the country. He did not know that he would detain the Committee longer on this matter, except to say this—that there was a great difference between Training Colleges and public elementary schools. In connection with the latter there was the Conscience Clause, and the children of parents of any religious opinion could be admitted, every person's religious convictions being respected. He was not merely going into those matters on his own authority, but the Schools Inquiry Commissioners in their Report said that great distinction was to be drawn between places where pupils were received, educated, and boarded, and those to which children went as day scholars. Boarding schools it was pointed out, were in loco parentum, and it was shown that to have no definite system of religious teaching in them would be a serious detriment to their character. He was not speaking to those in the House who would discard religious instruction altogether from all schools; his arguments would be of no value to them; but to anyone who believed in giving young people some religious instruction, he said that unless they instructed the teachers in some definite form of religion—he cared not for the purpose of the present argument what, so long as it were definite—they had no chance of producing that class of teachers who would be the best and truest teachers in the sense in which they wished the children of this country to be taught. On this subject, speaking of Training Colleges, he was naturally led to say a word on a very important point—namely, the new Code, of which the right hon. Gentleman had given them an outline. He spoke of graduates of any University being recognized as assistant teachers without having to undergo examination for certificates. The existing rule might be relaxed harmlessly; and if that article of the Code was carried out to any extent, they would have a large number of teachers in the country who would not have been trained in Training Colleges, which was now necessary; but would have had the advantages of that free training which was given in the Universities. No work could be more suited to graduates, who had gone through a great deal of teaching themselves, than to impart their knowledge to others. The system contemplated had been already tried, he believed, and had been found successful, especially in the case of ladies. He did not mean to say that those ladies had absolutely taken University degrees; but they had passed the University examinations, and were those who would be expected, under certain circumstances, to take degrees and enrol themselves in the ranks of school teachers. He was glad to see anything like an advance in that direction. Teaching was one of the noblest occupations possible. Anything which raised the profession was a distinct benefit to the community, and he here spoke not only of University, but elementary teaching. He most cordially thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his proposal. He had here one or two figures which he thought he might trouble the Committee with, just to show how great had been the progress of the schools connected with the Church of England—which were the larger part of the voluntary schools—and the large share they had had in the scholastic development of the country. In 1870 the accommodation in the Church schools was 1,365,000, and in 1880, 2,327,379, whilst the average attendance in 1870 was 844,334, and in 1880, 1,471,615; or, in other words, 962,299 additional places had been provided in Church schools in 10 years; whilst all other denominations, together with the school boards, afforded additional places for 1,399,870. In 1880, there was, as he had said, in Church schools accommodation for 2,327,379, or more than half the whole school accommodation of the whole country, which was 4,240,753. It was said that the school boards represented the elementary education of the country. He did not wish to discourage the good work done by the school boards; but his view was that they had only to supplement what was already partly done by the voluntary schools in the matter of elementary education. But it was important to observe that far from killing, or even checking, voluntary effort, the school board system seemed to have stimulated and encouraged that effort. They were entitled to ask how that had occurred. There was a very pertinent view taken of that matter by some people. They said—"People won't pay twice over for the same thing." It was said—"How can you expect people to subscribe towards the support of voluntary schools when they have to pay taxes for the maintenance of the school board schools?" Well, it was because at the bottom of the voluntary system there was something sufficient to counterbalance the selfish element. There seemed to be in such a matter an analogy with the relief of the poor. It might be supposed that nobody would subscribe to voluntary hospitals, when there were infirmaries scattered all over the country provided out of the rates; but just as they found in that case that people always would provide more in the way of relief than was required to simply meet the necessities of the case, so in this case he thought they would find that the voluntary system of education would not be killed, but would rather be quickened and increased by the action of the School Board. With regard to the details of the new scheme, although they had only heard them for the first time that night, they would give to it all the favourable consideration in their power, and heartily co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in respect to it.

wished to say a word or two as to the Training Colleges which were referred to by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. In the first place, there was not only the grievance of those who were driven out of the Training Colleges by conscientious scruples, but there was the moral harm to the other ex-pupil teachers who felt compelled to sacrifice their religious scruples in order to obtain the training. That was a result which they ought to look at quite as much as to the injury to those who adhered to their religious opinions. In fact, he thought they ought to consider the latter class rather more than those who withdrew from the Colleges. Then, with regard to the training of teachers, the country paid this large sum of money in order that the most experienced and industrious of the teachers might proceed through the Colleges to the work of elementary teaching. By giving preference to an ex-pupil teacher who passed low down in the examination because he could pass an examination on the Church Service, or who gave a promise that he would teach in Church schools, they got inferior teachers when they might secure superior teachers. He did not think it necessary to labour that point further, except to remind the hon. Member for the University of Oxford that freedom of conscience and exemption from religious services and instruction existed in all the Colleges among the undergraduates. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the steady progress made by his Department this year. The progress was, perhaps, not as great as they would have liked to see; but there was a sufficiently distinct progress to make them feel that they were promoting elementary education. He did not think it was necessary, at that late hour, for him to take up the challenge the right hon. Gentleman threw down as to the ex-pensiveness of the London School Board. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he held strongly that the duty of the Department was to look after the efficiency of the School Board and not the cost, which was the business only of the ratepayers. He hoped the Department would keep their minds on the question of efficiency, and not run into other matters. They had too much of the Education Department under the late Government, when it tried to hold up economy at the risk of sacrificing efficiency. It was not proper in a debate in Parliament to drag in considerations of cost as between one school and another. Then, with regard to the proposals for the revision of the Code, no one could give a final opinion favourable or unfavourable upon them. It was a most important scheme, and full of very valuable considerations; but their remarks that night must be purely provisional, and further discussion must be reserved. But there were one or two points which he should like his right hon. Friend to consider before finally pledging himself to this scheme. He should like to suggest under No. 5 whether sewing, which was to be compulsory for all girls, might not be made optional for girls who were half-timers. It was necessary there should be compulsory sewing; but in industrial districts, where girls were half-timers, they got so little opportunity for mental training that he thought sewing should not be made part of the curriculum. Then, as to Clause 6, the Department had to steer between two shoals, the danger of mechanical instruction, and the danger of trusting everything to inspection. If they wished to give the Inspector greater power and liberty, they would be exposed to the danger of its being said that they were putting the schoolmaster under the Inspector, and enabling the Inspector to impose his own theories upon a whole district. That was a danger they ought to be alive to—the danger of excessive State interference. He was sufficiently in favour of local individualism not to wish to see that, but to see something like free play and individual working out of the educational system in the country. A stereotyped pattern of education throughout the country would be, on the whole, bad, although it might be useful in backward districts. He welcomed No. 8 as to adult teachers; but he should like to call the attention of his right hon. Friend to No. 8 in connection with Nos. 36 and 37. He gathered from the Vice President of the Council that by the latter Articles of the Code it was intended to wipe out the ex-pupil teacher in favour of certificated teachers. He did not dissent from that; but he should like to ask what was the meaning in No. 8 of an adult teacher up to the number of 40, and a certificated teacher when the number amounted to 60. Then, in No. 20, needlework would cease to be a class subject. It had been put in as a necessary subject according to the Schedule; but it would be a necessary subject in the routine of the day, and not a class subject. He did not object to that; but he would remind the Vice President of the Council that if he put needlework in the Schedule he would materially raise the standard, because at present, if needlework was taught according to Schedule, it was taught as a class subject, and it became a matter for extra grants. The modification of the specific subjects was too minute a proposal to be discussed at that hour; but it would naturally be discussed in the autumn by persons practically engaged in education. In No. 28, he thought the Vice President was going too far in the direction of checking and discouraging specific subjects unless elementary subjects were well taught. He had not the slightest objection to the provision that where less than 75 per cent passed in elementary subjects the grant should not be paid in that particular year for specific subjects; but he thought it would be hard to reduce the grant if there was less than 75 per cent passed in the previous year, for there might have been many things, such as an epidemic, for instance, to interfere with the results. He knew schools in one district of London where they frequently got less than 75 per cent, but where the Inspector reported that the state of education was thoroughly satisfactory. In fact, he believed that in that particular district schools were more efficient, passing under 75 per cent, than many other schools passing up to 85 or even 90 per cent, so different was the standard of different Inspectors. Therefore, he thought to prohibit the grant for specific subjects merely on account of the percentage of the school would be a mistake. He should not object to giving the Inspectors some discretionary power, or that if they reported the general teaching of a school to have fallen back, the grant for specific subjects for the coming year should be suspended; but he did not think they should have a mechanical self-acting standard like 75 per cent. With regard to night schools, he sympathized with the desire of the Department to raise the teaching; but night schools took up education after a boy had left the elementary schools, and it was not enough to go to the Seventh Standard in those schools, because some of the boys would probably have passed the sixth or even the seventh by the time they were 13 years old, and for these there would be no further education in the night schools. He should like to see something which would enable night schools to go beyond that. Then, with regard to No. 34 and the three pupil teachers, he sympathized with the intention of the Department to keep down the number; but three pupil teachers would be too many in a small school of, say, 120 average attendance; while, on the other hand, in infant schools with an average of 600 three pupil teachers would not be sufficient. He would rather fix the number at one for every 100 of the average attendance. That would keep down the number of teachers more than the present proposal. As to No. 36, he agreed with the proposal to reduce the value of the certificated assistant, and to let him count for 60 instead of 80; but he thought it would be necessary, if they reduced the value of the assistant, that they should reduce the value of the pupil teacher. He had hitherto been valued as half; but if they made the value 40 as compared with 60, they were stimulating pupil teachers rather than assistants. As to No. 39, dealing with graduates, that had been spoken of as if it were a concession; but it did not concede or give anything of moment, and there was nothing to prevent a graduate of a University getting an appointment to a school and sitting for his certificate. He would admit no ex-pupil teachers unless they were prepared to pass the Government examination; but he would not close the door absolutely to persons who might be of great merit, and. some of whom were doing admirable work in their schools, unless they were prepared to go through a University training. Although, as a rule, that training was valuable, they might get some people who had been teaching in private schools, but could not afford University training, who were very efficient for teaching; and they would be doing great injustice to them and depriving elementary schools of valuable teachers by the present proposal. Then he thought No. 39 would immensely strengthen the argument of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) in favour of breaking down the present monopoly of the Training Colleges. But if they proposed that the only door of admission to the schools should be the Training Colleges, they made an overwhelming argument for the contention against any denominational distinction whatever. On the whole, however, he congratulated his right hon. Friend upon his scheme.

said, he thought two parts of the Vice President's speech seemed to afford general satisfaction to the House—his expressed desire to render educational endowments more generally useful, and his statement that he would bring in a Bill next year. Although he did not now propose to go into the question of endowments at any length, he would submit to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to do something in the meantime. The facts were these. Whereas the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) hoped that the Endowed Schools Commission would be able to deal with all the endowed schools in five years, 10 years had elapsed and less than half of the schools had been dealt with. He would, therefore, submit to his right hon. Friend whether it was not possible to increase the number of the Charity Commissioners so that there might be some more rapid progress made. Unless that was done it was perfectly clear that they could not hope that any more rapid advance would be secured. He hoped it would not be supposed that he was complaining of the Charity Commissioners. He believed they had worked with all due diligence, and that they were not to blame in the matter. At the same time, the question was one of much importance. It was one thing to prepare a Bill, and another to pass it through Parliament; and, therefore, even if his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was prepared to introduce a Bill next year, it was still very desirable to hasten the action of the Endowed Schools Commissioners in the meantime. There was one point connected with higher education upon which he should like to say a word—namely, as to the great desirability of knowing what was being done in the schools of the country. He did not desire to interfere with the action of the head masters and Governing Bodies of schools; but he thought that parents should have the opportunity of knowing what kind of education their sons would receive. They had Blue Books containing interesting and valuable statistics as to the property, land, and buildings belonging to the public schools; but they really had not, until the Returns given him by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) two years ago, any information as to the system of education pursued in the public schools, and he regretted to say, in spite of all that had been said as to the desirability of introducing modern languages and science, only two or three hours at the most were being given to each of them. Those who felt with him in that matter would be sorry to see literature excluded from the public schools; but as there were 42 hours devoted to study he would hope that some greater amount of time would be devoted to those branches.

I must point out that the hon. Member is now dealing with the question of secondary schools, whereas the Vote before the Committee is one for the elementary schools.

thought the Vote included the expenses of the Education Committee; and, therefore, he had considered that he was justified in alluding to that question. He would, however, not pursue the question, but would only ask his right hon. Friend to give attention to the subject. Coming to the question—namely, of specific subjects in elementary schools, there was one point connected with the Inspectors to which he would like to call the attention of his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend had told them that evening that he proposed to deal with that subject. Last year he (Sir John Lubbock) troubled the Committee with statistics showing conclusively that the introduction of specific subjects, so far from interfering with reading, writing, and arithmetic, really benefited the merely fundamental subjects; and he thought the statistics which had been produced that day showed that experience had proved that the introduction of specific subjects had not had the effect of interfering with the study of other subjects. Although the hour was late, he hoped he might be permitted to mention one little anecdote which showed how well children were able to follow a little instruction in this matter. A friend of his, the wife of a distinguished Member of that House, had given lessons in mechanics to one of her children only about four years old. Some time afterwards she told him the story of the fox and the crane, and how the crane extracted the bone from the throat of the fox. "When she came to the end of the fable the child said—"Well, Mamma, was it a hand crane, or was it a steam crane?" He regretted to find from their Reports that some of the Inspectors were very unfriendly to the specific subjects. He did not wish to quote any names, because he did not wish to make a personal attack upon the Inspectors. According to the Blue Book, for instance, one of the Inspectors said he had no sympathy with the desire to add science to the subjects already taught; another said that it would be ridiculous to see 3,800,000 children assembled listening to sermons on stones; another stated that children could not understand scientific questions at all; another did not regret that specific subjects were not taught in his schools; and another could not see what business a Fourth Standard child had to be dabbling in science. All this showed how very little appreciation there was of the instruction proposed to be given. He would not weary the Committee with other quotations to the same effect; but he would submit that these gentlemen had such strong views on the matter that they could hardly be expected to give to these specific subjects a fair trial when they were brought before them. He heard one or two expressions which fell from his right hon. Friend in his opening address with great regret. At the same time, he did not think, on further discussion, that it would be found that they differed very much after all. At any rate, he was glad to hear the proposal that technical knowledge should te continued from the commencement of school life until the close. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) as to leaving the school committees as free in this matter as possible. He objected strongly to the proposal to make grammar a compulsory subject. No doubt a very large proportion of schools would take grammar as one of the class subjects; but still he should like to leave the school committees the option of doing as they pleased in that matter. He did not understand how many specific subjects could be taken in addition to class subjects.

Two.

Maya third class subject be taken as a specific subject?

Yes.

said, he was glad to hear that that was the case. Of course, they could not now discuss all the details of the proposed arrangements. It struck him in looking through the Code that it might be improved in details; for instance, that it made rather too little reference to plants; but that question they would have an opportunity of considering afterwards. He was glad, as a University Member, to see the step which his right hon. Friend proposed to take in that direction; and, on the whole, he thought they might fairly congratulate his right hon. Friend on the fact that the alterations he proposed were likely to be of benefit to the education of the country. He thanked the Committee for allowing him to make these observations; and in sitting down he would only add that they might all congratulate themselves on the energy, ability, and zeal with which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President was conducting the important duties of his Office.

said, he trusted the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) would excuse him if he expressed some pain at the observations which the hon. Member had addressed to the House. It seemed to him that the hon. Member was bent on invading the voluntary principle. He might be wrong; but that was the impression that the speech of the hon. Member conveyed. He was old enough to remember when the representatives of the denominations strove earnestly for the recognition of that principle, and he very humbly aided them in that object; but now the hon. Gentleman pointed with jealousy to the success of that very principle, because the most successful denomination had been the Church of England. Next to the Church of England, the hon. Member pointed out, not as a subject of congratulation, but as a subject of regret, the amount which the Wesleyans had earned for their Training Colleges. Now, if that was not a recognition of the voluntary principle, he (Mr. Newdegate) knew not what was. The hon. Gentleman would carry the point at issue to this—that not equality of treatment, but numerical equality, should be insisted upon; and that was a most tyrannical principle. The hon. Member would excuse him if he asked the hon. Member to glance back at the period of the Commonwealth. Surely he would accept Cromwell, advised, as he was, by his chaplain, Owen, and his secretary, Milton, as in favour of religious freedom up to the point when freedom became irreligious. If the hon. Member would study the history of the Commonwealth he would find, that Cromwell, advised by Dr. Owen, and with Milton for his secretary, was compelled to restrain with a strong hand that denominational jealousy which that great man clearly foretold would, if gratified, prove fatal to all religious freedom.

said, it was stated that they had little to do with economy, but that their great point should be efficiency. The Education Department had to consider both economy and efficiency, and the attention of the country had therefore been properly directed to the increased expenditure for educational purposes. The grant in 1870 amounted to something like 9s. 8d. a-head. It had now risen to 15s. 8d. a-head; and he was afraid, from some indications which his right hon. Friend had given, that he did not contemplate any limit to the amount to which the grant might go. He should be sorry to object to any expenditure that would secure the efficiency of the schools; but as there was a growing tendency towards extravagance in the local administration of the educational expenditure of the country, and as it arose, to a great extent, from having the Imperial Exchequer to fall back upon, he did think that that was a point deserving of attention. He did not propose to pursue that matter further; but with respect to the challenge given to him by the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to call attention to one sentence contained in the Report of the right hon. Gentleman himself, which the right hon. Gentleman did not read to the House, but which he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) regarded as very unsatisfactory and very depressing. The Report said that—

"Whereas, out of 1,900,000 scholars examined, there were 969,000 over 10 years of age who ought to have been presented in Standards IV., V., and VI., but that only 461,000 were so presented."

said, he hoped it would not be thought disrespectful if he did not reply to many of the questions which had been addressed to him in the course of the discussion. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) had made some useful suggestions, and also the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot). He should very much like to allude to those suggestions if it were not for the lateness of the hour. He had only time to answer the question which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard). Before doing so, however, he would say in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who asked him to put more pressure on the schools of the country in order to bring more children into the higher standard, that that was not where the pressure was required. The pressure should be put first on that House, and next on the local authorities. If they wanted the children to pass in the Six Standards they should have the courage to do what was done in Switzerland, Germany, and other countries, and say to the children that they must continue at school from the 6th to the 14th year, until they had passed through all the curriculum laid down. It was of no use saying to a child that it might work half time as soon as it had reached the Second and Third Standards, and full time when it had reached the Fourth, and then complain that the schoolmaster did not make all the children pass the Sixth Standard. It was not the fault of the secular schoolmaster, but of Parliament which seemed to have a low estimate, of what the education ought to be, and had never had the courage to do its duty to the children. They talked about foreign competition, and yet they still sacrificed their children to that foreign competition. When Parliament exhibited more courage his faith in the principles of a higher education would be considerably strengthened. What they ought to do was to keep their children at school up to their 14th year. That was his answer to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and the whole answer he had to give him. He certainly believed that their system and their schoolmasters were quite as good as those of any other country. He was sorry he was not able to give as complete an answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) as he should like. He confessed that the question of the Training Colleges had not occupied his attention. He was assured, however, that school board teachers did go to the Training Colleges, 123 male and 224 female teachers having passed through them, according to the last Return. He was told that legislation would be necessary on this subject; but that depended on the will of the House. He thought no teacher ought to be debarred from the Training Colleges on account of his other religious opinions, and he was prepared to consider what was necessary to be done in that matter. If his hon. Friend would give him a little time he would look into the question. His noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) had complained that he had set a bad example by making his Statement with the Speaker in the Chair; but he could assure him that this course was adopted after much consideration, and with due regard to the convenience of the House, for had not his Statement been made under these circumstances, he was sure, having regard to the number of Motions on the Paper, that he should have been making it now. He hoped, after the satisfactory discussion which had taken place, that he might be allowed to take this Vote.

said, he regretted that this most important subject of education had been brought on so late in the Session, and at so late an hour of the night. He thought it was a reflection on Members of the House that when small matters were under consideration, there was, as a rule., a full attendance, but that when subjects of the deepest interest were before them they found themselves reduced to scarcely a quorum. The Vice President of the Council had not absolutely closed the door against his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard); but he was bound to say that the assurances he had given were of a very vague character. Now, in these days, when religious tests had been removed in every direction, it was impossible that in such a matter as elementary education those who were qualifying themselves for the position of teachers should be debarred from entering any public training institution they pleased. Sooner or later some change must come. He thought his hon. Friend had put his proposal in the mildest form, having regard to the prejudices of those who sought to maintain the denominational character of the Training Colleges; but if it was found that some relaxation of the present tests was not conceded, he was certain that some radical change must be made in the direction of establishing Training Colleges against which the objection now urged would not lie. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had reproached his hon. Friend with having gone counter to the voluntary system. But he did not see how this could be said, seeing that 95 per cent of the maintenance of these institutions came from the public funds, and that there only remained 5 per cent upon which they could hang their claim to be considered voluntary institutions. They were not voluntary institutions; they were public institutions controlled by denominations and maintained by public money, and they were, therefore, anomalies. It was only fair on the part of his hon. Friend to say that, unless some substantial proposal by way of relief were made, it would be necessary next year to proceed much further than his hon. Friend now proposed. Let hon. Members look at the possible injury done by the present system. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) truly stated that the object should be to provide the highest class of teachers which the country could find; and what had been the result of the Test Act so far as our Universities were concerned? The last 17 years would testify. In 11 of those years the highest honours had been taken by Dissenters, who, before the Act was passed, were denied the right of entry. There had been gross injustice done to men belonging to the Dissenting Bodies of the country in placing obstacles in the way of their entrance into suitable training institutions. Again, he must say that the right hon. and other hon. Members were by no means entitled to call the denominational schools of the country voluntary schools, because they were only so to a limited extent; and they knew that a great proportion of their cost came from the taxes of the country and the payments of the children. The great blot on the Education Act of 1870 was the leave given to denominational bodies to claim and occupy as much ground as they liked; and the country, as was well known, was startled by the sudden zeal shown by denominationalists to occupy ground which ought to have been really occupied by a national system of education. In the rural districts it was notorious that this denominational zeal had been shown for the purpose of keeping out board schools and the representative system. He himself had a curious instance of this presented to him in conversation with a clergyman in the North of England, who said—"Although he was certain the change must come, he had been round to all the farmers to put them on their guard against the possibility of having board schools in the parish." That was evidence of the strongest kind of the prejudice which prevailed in certain quarters against the board schools. It was now asked that what was maintained at the public expense, and what was established by national authority, should be put under national control. He deeply regretted that their Episcopalian friends did not take up their position side by side with their fellow-citizens in the maintenance and furtherance of national control with regard to the educational system of the country. In conclusion, his right hon. Friend pointed to the sum of £18,000 a-year contributed in aid of the Training Colleges; but he thought he must know that that sum represented but a small percentage of their entire cost, and by no means entitled him to defend their present position. He believed that those who were favourable to national education in this country would be justified in putting entire confidence in his right hon. Friend, knowing that he would hold the balance fairly, and that justice would be done.

wished to know whether, in addition to the grants upon class subjects, aid would be given towards instruction in specific subjects in night schools?

asked, in reference to the statements of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), whether it had been brought under notice that the real reason why children were prevented from passing in the higher Standards was that they were compelled, owing to the inherent difficulty of our orthography, to pass the first seven or eight years of their lives in learning to read? He asked, also, whether anything had been done with regard to the Memorial from 130 school boards for making use of a concurrent phonetic system of spelling? He should be glad to know whether the Department had made any inquiries into the matter, and whether they were prepared to give that proposal recognition side by side with the old musical notation? He might as well give Notice that he would take an early opportunity of moving that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the desirability of establishing a phonetic system of spelling.

said, it was now after 2 o'clock, and he therefore begged to move that the Chairman report Progress. It was unreasonable to keep them sitting here at this hour, when they had most important Business to get through tomorrow. They would, at their next Sitting, have the Land Bill before them again, and it was desirable that they should be able to give that attention to it which would enable them to deal with it satisfactorily. In the last Parliament they were never asked to vote money after 1 o'clock; but now the Government seemed to think it the proper thing to ask them to sit up all night voting money.

said, the question of Science and Art was thoroughly discussed in the early part of the night. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had sat there a very long time to discuss the British Museum Vote.

said, he did not wish to be unreasonable. The Government were anxious to make a Jew's bargain; but he (Mr. Biggar) desired to be perfectly reasonable. Therefore, on the understanding that after the Science and Art Vote had been disposed of Progress would be reported, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), who had interested himself in the matter, and who, if he had been present, would have called attention to it, he wished to say a word with regard to the General Pitt Rivers' Correspondence. A Committee, upon which were to be found some of the very best names from a scientific point of view, was appointed to consider whether General Pitt Rivers' offer should be accepted or not. The Committee unanimously recommended that the collection should be taken over, and one was rather surprised to find that the Department had not adopted that course. They gave as their reason for not accepting the collection, first of all, want of space; but that was a bad argument in connection with a National Museum, especially now that something was being said about enlarging it. The next reason given was that there was a collection of a similar kind at the British Museum. Well, that was entirely disputed not only by General Pitt Rivers himself, but by the Committee, who stated that the collection would not interfere with any existing collection. It was arranged on different principles, and illustrated different points. He would not detain the Committee, but would urge most strongly on the Government the desirability of reconsidering their decision. He trusted they had not given a final answer.

said, that, as Chairman of the Committee to which reference had been made, he hoped he should be allowed to say one or two words. He had heard one or two murmurs, and if hon. Members were to discuss these Votes, he trusted the Committee would allow them to do it without interruption. This collection of General Pitt Rivers was, perhaps, one of the finest collections in the world. The collection was offered to the nation by General Pitt Rivers, and not only that, but this gentleman undertook, if the collection were accepted, to provide a curator at his own expense. The Committee unanimously decided that the collection was of the greatest value and interest, and should be accepted; and, having done that, the Government then declined to receive it, on the ground of want of space. It would have been much better if the Government had made up their mind not to accept the collection at the outset, instead of appointing a Committee of scientific gentlemen, whose time was of great value to them, whose recommendation had been ignored. He did not suppose the hon. Member wished to divide the Committee on this Vote; but he (Sir John Lubbock) would like to know whether the decision of the Department was final, or whether the matter was still open? General Pitt Rivers did not care whether the collection was under the South Kensington authorities or those of the British Museum; but, having got together a most interesting collection, he wished to present it to the nation, and it appeared to him (Sir John Lubbock) very unwise to decline it, and not to see whether some arrangement could not be made under which it could be accepted. If the Government did not care about putting the collection in the South Kensington Museum or the British Museum, arrangements could, perhaps, be made for exhibiting it permanently at Liverpool or Manchester. He therefore ventured to express a hope that the Government would not look upon this matter as absolutely finally closed, but would place themselves in communication with General Pitt Rivers, with a view to seeing whether some arrangement could not be made for the purpose of accepting this very valuable collection for the benefit of the nation.

The Department quite recognized the public spirit of General Pitt Rivers; but the ground on which they have declined the collection is that it is not suitable for preservation in the Museum at South Kensington, where the collections have reference to Art and applied Science. It is an ethnological collection, and can be of no kind of value in the work South Kensington has to do. As to want of space, the hon. Member is mistaken about that. The gallery in which the collection is arranged belonged to the Commissioners of 1851. They at first allowed us to have it without rent; but they now ask us to pay £2,000 a-year for it. More than that, General Pitt Rivers says the collection requires a certain amount of space, and that amount of space seems to us to be altogether out of proportion to the advantages of possessing the collection. He says he will require almost double the amount of space he at present occupies at once, and then he desires to have the collection entirely under his own control. He requires that the collection shall not in any way be dispersed, or dealt with otherwise than as he pleases. He insists on having it entirely under his own management during his lifetime. It seems to me that gifts made to the nation in this form should not be accepted. No one, however generous he may be, has a right to impose these conditions. A gentleman, in giving a collection, should say, as many people have said before—" You may take my collection as a whole, and I will have no connection with it whatever." As it is, General Pitt Rivers wants to have the collection under his own control, and we are to pay the expense of its maintenance. The proper place for the collection is the British Museum, where there is already a small collection. Why should not this collection go with the National Collection? No doubt it is a very interesting collection; indeed, it afforded me considerable pleasure when I went to see it; but, at the same time, South Kensington is not the place for it.

said, what a pity it was that General Pitt Rivers did not go to the University of Oxford, where he would have got abundant room and better treatment than he had received from the stingy autocratic body he had gone to.

said, the collection was at South Kensington already, so that the objection of want of space was not a good one. If they accepted the collection, and desired to part with it, the Government could give it up again at any time. General Pitt Rivers had offered to provide a curator; and, again, on the question of space, hon. Members would see, if they referred to the Report of the Committee he had referred to, that they had expressly guarded themselves against the demand for so much space. If it was understood that the refusal was on the part of the South Kensington authorities, and not on the part of the Government as a whole, they would have gained their point. Whether the collection was put in South Kensington or the British Museum was not a matter of importance. What they desired was that this valuable collection should not be lost to the nation.

said, he entirely agreed with the view which had been taken of this matter by the South Kensington authorities. The collection was entirely different to anything at South Kensington, and it took up an enormous amount of room. It was utterly unsuitable, and the Government was right in not accepting it. It was said that General Pitt Rivers would provide a curator. So he would; but at his death the authorities at South Kensington would have to look after the collection themselves. As to the British Museum taking the collection, that was entirely a matter for General Pitt Rivers and the Museum Trustees. The Government could not control them, and if General Pitt Rivers wished his collection to go to South Kensington, he had nothing to do but to go to the Trustees. It would be putting their funds to an improper purpose to accept the collection at South Kensington.

said, there was an item of £150 for house rents for Sir Richard Wallace's Collection, which was removed in 1873. Why should the Vote have gone on since 1873? This Vote embraced the Dublin Museum of Science and Art, and he was sorry that the Vote should have been taken, as the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), who was not now present, was very much interested in it. The hon. Member would be in his place to-morrow, and he (Mr. Healy) had hoped that he would have been able to speak upon this matter. There was a strong feeling in Ireland on the subject of the Science and Art Museum of Dublin, and it would have given his hon. Friend much satisfaction if he could have had an assurance with regard to it.

said, that on page 314, in what was supposed to be a resumé and analysis of the Vote, there was an item of £30,380 for "purchases, catalogues, &c. There was not a line, however, in the Estimates showing what the purchases had been. They knew that South Kensington and the other Departments must purchase specimens; but it was desirable that the details of those purchases should be shown, as, owing to jealousy, the different Departments might compete with one another.

As to the question asked by the hon. Member opposite, I stated about a month ago that we had sent a person over to Ireland to see what amount of space was required at the Dublin Museum, and to prepare a ground plan. We have received from the Treasury a notice that the Office of Works in Dublin is prepared to put out an advertisement inviting tenders for the building of a new Science and Art Museum forthwith. Nothing can be done until that matter is decided.

wished to have an explanation of the item £6,234 for "Simpkin's Defalcations," and of the item £500 for "Solar Physics." What did these Votes mean?

said, he was sorry to state that "Simpkin's Defalcations" was an item which had appeared in the accounts for many years. The defalcations were only wiped out last year. With respect to "Solar Physics," he thought that explained itself.

said, he saw in the Vote the item of £150 for house rent, and he would suggest that if it was to be a permanent item it should be transferred to the Buildings Vote.

said, he thought the noble Lord was right in saying the solar physics spoke for itself. It was evident he had not much to say in support of it, and all the best authorities in the country thought that this item ought not to appear in the Estimates. The ex-Astronomer Royal, writing on this subject, said—

"I think that the granting of public money for scientific research ought not to be sanctioned, unless in one of the following cases:—Either where it appears probable that results useful to the public will be obtained, or whore it appears that scientific investigations, interesting to the educated classes, and commensurate with the probable cost, are beyond the reach of private persons or societies, but may be undertaken with advantage at the public expense. My objection to the establishment of the Committee on Solar Physics is intended to apply only so far as it is a paid Committee; I do not object to the purpose for which the Committee was appointed, or to the payment of a secretary, or to expenses incidental to an office. The Committee, I believe, have faithfully discharged their understood duties, and I shall willingly co-operate with them to the best of my power."

"(1.) That, in the opinion of this Society, the granting of public money for scientific research, in cases where it does not appear that results useful to the public will be obtained, or where the researches proposed are likely to be undertaken by private individuals or public bodies, does not tend to the real advancement of science. (2.) That this meeting considers it inexpedient that a Physical Observatory should be founded at the national expense. (3.) That this meeting is of opinion that the Government grant to the Committee on Solar Physics at South Kensington should be discontinued. (4.) That, in the opinion of this meeting, full accounts should be published of all money expended by the Government for scientific purposes, and that in all cases the nature of the work to be undertaken should be defined as clearly as possible."

"You may employ anybody if you like to amuse himself with looking through a telescope and a spectroscope, and there may be no definite work expected;"

"On the other hand, if a man is to be paid for only amusing himself, in order that he may every now and then publish a book on some solar theory, or something of that kind, there is no sort of security that he will be employed usefully."

"There was the great object that was to be obtained by what has been called in later times by the amusing name of the science of sunspottery. I do not know that that science so-called has done much for mankind."

"Considered that those who asked for endowment ought to be able to show the usefulness of the researches upon which they were engaged—for instance, that the study of solar physics was useful to prevent periodical famines in India, and so on."

"Having listened to the letter of the Astronomer Royal, he thought it was directed to discouraging" the grant of money to gentlemen of a scientific turn who had no particular definite object in view, but who desired to promote in a particular manner the science in which they were interested, without any evidence of its being for the benefit of mankind in general. No doubt, many would be very glad to spend more of their time in scientific experiment, and to dignify it with the name of scientific research; but there should be an adequate motive of public utility for making an application for a grant of public money."

thought the observations of the hon. Member ought not to pass without comment by one who knew Mr. Norman Lockyer. He did not like to hear an hon. Member, who knew nothing about this matter, speaking of the labours of scientific men in a most insolent manner—

rose to Order, and asked whether the term "insolent manner" was a proper term to use?

I do not know whether it is un-Parliamentary, but it is not becoming.

would withdraw the words, and substitute "most unbecoming manner." He was sure that if the hon. Member knew anything at all about the branch of science to which Mr. Lockyer had contributed important discoveries, one of which had been crowned by the medal of the French Academy—a body that was certainly a good judge—he would see that something had been done by the gentleman of whom he spoke in such a flippant manner. He did not think any £500 could be voted for a better purpose than that of promoting such research.

said, he certainly would not withdraw his Amendment. He knew it was Mr. Lockyer who was concerned; but he had not gone upon his own opinion, but on those of the ex-Astronomer royal and other members of the Society.

said, this Vote was made on the special recommendation of a special Committee of distinguished gentlemen.

said, he had been talking to the ex-Astronomer Royal a few days ago, and thought he expressed an opinion rather the opposite of those given in the passages quoted by the hon. Member.

repeated that what he had read had been the proceedings of the Royal Astronomical Society in April last. Mr. Christie, the new Astronomer Royal, read the letter of the ex-Astronomer Royal in the sense in which he signed the first of the third resolutions.

said, he differed somewhat from his hon. Friend the course he had taken; but he thought the hon. Member was as much entitled to be heard on the subject as the hon. Member for Cricklade (Mr. Story-Maskelyne). His hon. Friend had known Mr. Lockyer for 15 years as a friend; and he was, therefore, perhaps, competent to know what that gentleman's capabilities were. He himself would not oppose any Vote for scientific research; for he did not think this country spent enough in that direction. He believed every one of Mr. Lockyer's theories had been confuted; but they could not expect to get truth without discussion, and he would respectfully ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would also appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw. What this country had done in science was highly valued in India.

said, he was perfectly convinced that this was money thrown away; but as he did not think he should have anyone to "tell" with him he would withdraw.

You are about to move, Sir, the Vote for the British Museum, and there are two points upon which I wish to speak. The first is on the apparent increase in the Estimate. That is not an increase proper, but is an increase entirely, or almost entirely, on account of the removal of collections to the South Kensington Museum, and for the necessary increase of the staff. At the same time, I expect this increase will go on for a few years until the whole of the collections are removed. The other point arises out of an observation which I understand was made earlier in the discussion upon the grants to private local institutions. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council will probably be pleased to hear what I am going to say. Two or three years ago power was given to the Museum to give duplicates to these local institutions. I understand that something has been said this evening to the effect that the Trustees of the Museum neither give duplicates nor lend any part of their collections to these institutions; but the Trustees are forbidden by Parliament from lending their collections, and are bound to preserve all collections in the Museum to all posterity. With regard to duplicates, when we transferred the Natural History Collections, we took care to see what duplicates could be given, and several have been sent to six or seven of the largest institutions in the country. The question of loans is one involving much greater considerations than can be discussed on a mere Vote. Those loans can only be made by Act of Parliament, and then you will have to consider whether you will entirely alter the British Museum as contrasted with the South Kensington Museum, the one being a repository where everything is to be found for the purposes of study; the other being a place more or less for the granting of loans. I venture to sug- gest this for the consideration of the Committee.

said, he fully recognized the force of the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole); but it was only fair to say that the position taken up by the Trustees of the British Museum in regard to the lending of books and manuscripts was regarded by most foreigners as singularly churlish. They could get the loan of MSS. from Florence, Vienna, Berlin, and other places; and the University of Oxford, with which he was connected, was also willing to lend any rare books or MSS. it possessed. A rigid rule against lending prevailed, however, in the British Museum, and it was an exceedingly churlish rule. He hoped that the Trustees would be induced to make some arrangement by which important MSS. and documents might be lent to other Museums, where they would be copied and kept in perfect safety. He only made these remarks in consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and also in connection with the fact that a large amount of the treasures of the British Museum was rendered practically useless to the great mass of scholars throughout the world in consequence of the great expense attending a journey to London, that being the only place where there was a possibility of seeing them.

said, he wished to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), as one of the Trustees of the British Museum, to induce the Museum occasionally to part with some of its MSS., and also to extend the hours during which the building was allowed to remain open. He thought the adoption of such a policy would be of material advantage to the country, and conduce to promote the interests of the Museum itself. If the Trustees were of opinion that at present they had no power to do this, a short Act of Parliament might be brought in giving them the power, and he believed it would be hailed with great satisfaction. The library of the Museum was at present rich in the possession of MSS., and only wanted one other collection to be quite perfect. He believed that a good collection of Spanish MSS. was the only absentee, and he trusted that steps would be taken to remedy the deficiency.

desired to say a word in regard to the transfer of the collections from the British Museum to South Kensington. The transfer commenced more than a year ago; and at the time when the last year's Vote was taken the collection of minerals with which he had been connected for a period of 32 years had been already removed to the South Kensington Museum without the slightest accident, and had been arranged in accordance with plans previously made for its exhibition and safe-keeping. He was sorry to think, however, that this was the only collection which had yet been completely transferred. He believed that the Geological Collection had been transferred, but that it had not yet been completely arranged. The Botanical Collection was nearly transferred; but in biology not a single specimen had as yet been removed. He thought it was a great pity, seeing that an important and costly Museum had been built at South Kensington for the reception of these collections, that so long a time should elapse before it was in a position to fulfil the purpose to which it had been dedicated. At present the space to be vacated at the British Museum was still incapable of being devoted to the collections remaining at that locality. It was very much to be regretted, and he wished to know whether any steps towards completing the transfer were about to be taken? He believed that the keeper of the Department had an idea that he must move all at once or not at all. It seemed to him (Mr. Story - Maskelyne), however, that it would very much help the transfer to move part, and that a good deal might be done in arranging such a part in the course of the next few months. He understood that most of the cases were now very nearly ready for the reception of the specimens; and he hoped to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the transfer was to be soon begun and be rapidly and properly carried on. He believed that there would be plenty of room in the Museum for General Pitt Rivers' Collection, if it was a collection of a kind desirable to be incorporated with those now at the British Museum—a point on which there seemed to be much question.

said, the difficulty in completing the removal of the Natural History Collection arose from the fact that it had been found impossible to induce the late Government to give the money that was required for providing the necessary cases; and it was impossible to remove the various specimens of birds and animals until cases were fitted up for their reception. He thought that hon. Members would hardly wish that some of the specimens should be removed before the whole of them could be transferred. If they were removed bit by bit they were likely to sustain injury. As to the desirability of allowing the precious MSS. possessed by the British Museum to go abroad, although a good deal might be said in favour of it, still there were various considerations of great weight which had hitherto induced those who had looked into the matter to believe that it was better to keep them in England. At any rate, the Trustees could not fairly be blamed for not doing so, because at present they had no power. To lend the MSS. as suggested would be contrary to the law.

thought the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would not object now to report Progress. There were several other Orders upon the Paper which it would be necessary to dispose of, and the hour was late—nearly 3 o'clock. He did not mean to argue that the next two or three Votes were likely to give rise to much discussion; but they would occupy no larger amount of time on the next Supply night than they would then. He would therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of reporting Progress.

said, he did not propose to take any of the succeeding Votes, except the Vote for Education in Scotland. He would take that Vote, which he believed would not require discussion, and he would then move to report Progress.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council how Scotland would be affected by the new arrangements in regard to the Education Code? Nothing had been said in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman before the House went into Committee as to Scotland; and he was afraid that it was not intended to extend the advantages of the New Code to Scotland. He trusted that no length of time would be allowed to elapse before Scotland received a scheme somewhat similar to that which was now offered to England. He wished, further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that the Education Department had not yet put in force two of the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1878, relating to the examination of higher class schools—which were part of the Scotch educational system. One of these provisions related to the examination of higher class schools which were not under school boards—private schools—and gave power to the Department to appoint Examiners to such schools, provided that the managers of the schools offered suitable payment for the examination? There would thus be no expense to the Department in carrying out this provision of the Act. The second provision related to the examination of higher class schools under school boards. In that case, there would be some additional expense to the Education Department; but it would be very little compared with the great advantage which the cause of education would derive from having an examination of the higher class schools conducted by officers of the Education Department, and having all the schools examined on one uniform system. If this were done, it would give the school boards a much higher sense of the importance of the schools of this kind under their charge. He would, therefore, ask if the Education Department contemplated putting in operation these two provisions of the Education (Scotland) Amendment Act of 1878?

said, the scheme contained in the New Code was intended to apply to England and Wales only; but if the Scotch people approved of it there would be no difficulty in extending it to Scotland. The necessity, however, for a New Code was not so urgent in Scotland as in England, because many of the provisions contained in the new arrangement were already adopted in Scotland. The Scotch Code was very much more liberal than the English Code; but if the New Code was found to work satisfactorily, he should be perfectly ready to make the two systems thoroughly uniform. As to the other question of the hon. Member in regard to the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Amendment Act of 1878, the hon. Gentleman would probably be aware that some doubts had been expressed as to the provisions in regard to the examination of higher class schools and the power of inspection possessed by the Department under the Act. He should be happy to take the question into consideration.

said, that he should like to ask the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) to postpone it. He made this appeal because he intended to bring forward a Motion which, unfortunately, he had not yet put on the Paper. He did not, however, think he should be out of Order in reading it to the House, and the House would then see why he made the appeal. The terms of the Motion were as follows:—

"That in view of the increasing importation of foreign and Colonial food-stuffs, and the consequent decrease in the value of agricultural property in Great Britain and Ireland, it is expedient to appoint a Committee of Experts to inquire into and report upon the probable effects of foreign competition on British agriculture, and the rentals of English and Irish land."

said, he saw no possibility of being able at any other time to bring on the Report of Supply earlier than that. Therefore, it would be useless to postpone the Vote. If the hon. Member wished to bring forward his Motion and make a speech, why did he not do so at once?

said, it would take a week to prepare the speech.