said, that in supporting the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Onslow) he was not actuated by any sentimental motive. As his constituents were taxpayers, he could not allow such a motive to influence him. He was guided by a sense of their duty to India in these matters. All he desired was that justice, and only simple justice, should be done to India. He thought justice required that this extraordinary charge should not be thrown on India. When this matter was previously before the House, they were told by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) that the proposed settlement had been accepted by the Government of India. He was sure that the noble Marquess said so in the utmost good faith; but, still, when they came to see the Papers, it appeared that what the Government of India did was not to accept the proposal of Her Majesty's Government as a satisfactory settlement of the question, but to reserve their protest, only thanking Her Majesty's Government for what they got on the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread. The Viceroy and his Council had unanimously expressed, in very strong terms, their view that this charge should not be imposed on the people of India; and, so far as he knew, they still maintained that view. In the matter of Egypt, he contended, India had no interest whatever. The Government of India had in no shape or degree been consulted in this matter, and there was no reason at all why India should be called on to pay. It was quite clear that, as a matter of strict right, it was impossible that we could demand this from the Government of India; and if, as a matter of equity, we said to India that she was more or less directly concerned in the Suez Canal, and we should make that country pay, he would meet that with another plea in equity, and say that India was poor, and that we had already swept away part of her Revenue arising from import duties. Besides, it now turned out in the accounts that India owed this country arrears amounting to £2,000,000. The only possible interest India had in Egypt was in the Suez Canal, and England had a greater interest in that respect; while the Colonies, whom we did not venture to ask to contribute, had equally a substantial interest. The whole of the ordinary charges had already been placed to the debit of India, and would be charged in the same way as in the Abyssinian War. He thought that a sufficient contribution in respect of the Suez Canal. He saw no justice, however, in seeking to lay upon her these extraordinary charges in addition. He was inclined to think, with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), that the Suez Canal would have been as safe, or safer, if Arabi had been the Ruler of Egypt at this moment. If they were going to have a Native Ruler in Egypt at all, they must go on the Darwinian principle of natural selection, and let the strongest man come to the top. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government, in justice to India, to accept, even at the last hour, the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford

agreed that British rule had proved a great blessing to India; but England owed a great deal to India. In his opinion, they ought not to impose upon Indian taxpayers burdens incurred for Imperial purposes. The people of India were not only a poor and highly taxed people, but they were unrepresented in that House. This war was undertaken for Imperial purposes; and as to the keeping open the Suez Canal, that was as important to Australia as it was to India, and yet no contribution had been asked from the Australian Colonies. He heartily supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Onslow), because he thought the people of India ought not to be called upon to contribute to the expenses of this war.

said, he intended to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford, for several reasons. In the first place, he objected to call on the people of India to pay any part of the expense of the Egyptian War, because the Government of India was never consulted as to the war before it was undertaken. It was said that it was impossible to consult them—that there was not time. Still, the fact remained; and he should like to quote what was said by the Viceroy and his Council in the despatch of the 4th of August, 1882. In passing, he wished to say that he could not understand how anyone could read that Paper without feeling how strong was the case of India. It was a most able Paper, and well worth perusal. In paragraph 20 the Government said—

"We are intrusted with the government of India; we arc in close contact with the Indian people; we are in a position to watch the currents of public opinion in India; we are directly responsible for the tranquility of the country; and it seems to us, therefore, that we are better able than anyone in England, however eminent or experienced, can possibly be, to judge of the financial and political effects and bearing of a measure so important to Indian interests as a sudden and unexpected demand for a large and indefinite war contribution. We can scarcely conceive any subject upon which the Government of India, as representing, however imperfectly, the people of this country, can have a clearer or better claim to be heard."

But they were not heard, and that was a strong argument against imposing on them this contribution. Again, he wished to observe that the people of India had no representation in that House, nor in the Government hero, except that one Member of the Cabinet was Secretary of State for India. The interest of India in the results of the war was remote and vague, except so far as respected the maintenance of the Suez Canal. But Australia was just as much interested as India in the Canal, and yet the Prime Minister seemed to laugh at the idea of a subvention from the Australian Colonies towards the expenses of the war. He could not see the distinction. The fact was, he supposed, that they knew that Australia would not pay, and India could not refuse to pay. But that was not all. He considered that the poverty of the people of India was so great that they ought not to impose on them any new burden. So long as they were compelled to put a duty on salt in India he could not help feeling strongly opposed to any such proposal. So thought, also, the Government of India. In their despatch of the 1st of September, 1882, they said, paragraph 13—

"The poverty of the people of India is a fact which is notorious, and, indeed, has been so frequently discussed that it is unnecessary that we should dwell on it at any length. That poverty is abundantly attested by the prevailing low rate of wages, by the statistics which show the pressure of the population on the soil, by the absence of accumulated capital, and by the rough calculation which has recently been made that the average income per head of population is only Rs27 a year [say £2 5s]. It is clear at a glance that to a population so situated, the maintenance of peace is a matter of vital interest."

Again, they say—

"Practically, therefore, it may be said that only two modes of imposing fresh taxation are open to us. We must either increase the salt duty or impose direct taxes. An enhancement of the salt duty at present is, on every ground, most undesirable. Not only would it involve imposing a tax upon the poorest classes to meet the charges on account of a war, the cost of which should, both in our opinion, and, we believe, in the opinion of most people in this country, be borne by the English taxpayers, but we should, certainly, for the time being, sacrifice one of the objects we had in view in effecting the recent reduction."

He would ask the House to consider another proof of the poverty of India. The amount borrowed annually for productive public works was strictly limited to a comparatively very small sum, because it was thought dangerous to run the risk of imposing additional burdens in the shape of interest on loans. And yet the country urgently needed more railways. At this moment there was no doubt that India could send them wheat enough to supply the whole of their requirements, without taking a single quarter from America, were there sufficient railways to bring the corn down from the wheat districts to the ports. As it was, India sent them a greatly increased amount; but the wheat was wasted, and the resources of the country were imperfectly developed, through the want of carrying power. The only excuse was that India was poor; and yet they were imposing on her part of the expense of a war which she had not caused, and as to which her Government were never consulted. He should certainly vote against any such proposal.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) said that the connection between the Indian Government and the Suez Canal was exceedingly vague and indefinite. If I could allow that such was the case, I should not be standing here now to ask the House to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I think the House will understand why the Expedition to Egypt was undertaken. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: NO, no!] The hon. Member may say "No, no;" but I think it will be in the memory of the House that it was undertaken for the purpose of preserving life and property, of maintaining order, and of preserving the direct sea route from India to Europe.

Is my hon. Friend quoting?

Certainly not. I am speaking of what was the general sense of the community at the time.

Might I ask if the hon. Member can quote any words to the effect that the Expedition was undertaken for the purpose of preserving the short route to India? Could he give me any words of the Prime Minister to the effect that the Expedition was undertaken for the purpose of maintaining our rights in the Suez Canal?

No. Where are they?

That is exactly my point.

I did not say that our rights in the Suez Canal were to be maintained. I said direct communication with the East, through the Suez Canal, was to be maintained. It seems to me that the two things are not quite the same thing. Notice has been taken of the contribution which was made towards the cost of the Afghan War. There is nobody in this House who worked harder, or who did more towards getting that contribution granted, than I did myself. I took that action mainly on this ground—that the war was undertaken for Imperial as well as Indian purposes; and I say that the Egyptian Expedition was undertaken for Indian as well as Imperial purposes. Therefore, on the same ground that I asked that England should be expected to give a solid and substantial contribution on account of the Afghan War, I now ask that India may be charged with a moderate sum on account of this war. It seems to me that the Canal is of infinitely more importance to India than it is to England. It is said sometimes that the Marquess of Ripon and the Government of India objected to this Expedition because they had not been consulted upon the matter. It is true that they were not consulted; but that was simply because there was no time to do so. Things went on very rapidly, as the hon. Member for Eye knows very well. Perhaps he may have forgotten speeches that were made in this House. I remember the lion. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) coming down to the House and getting very excited about the Suez Canal. The hon. Member was so earnest about the question, and he had such a strong opinion about it, that many people believed from his speech that the Suez Canal was a fresh-water Canal, and required to be fed from somewhere near Cairo, or else our ships would be stranded. Major Baring's position with regard to the finances of India was a rather peculiar one. You must remember that it was the first year of his full control of the finances, and that the Viceroy only took his position there in 1880. In the first year of his management the war with Afghanistan was over, and he managed to reduce the Expenditure by £6,300,000; and in his Budget for the next year he proposed still further to reduce the Expenditure by £1,200,000. When the notice came to him that, in all probability, a large sum of money would be required to pay for the Egyptian Expedition, I do not wonder that he wrote the somewhat angry despatch on which so much comment had been made, without thinking out the whole circumstances of the case. If I had been in his place I very likely should have done the same thing; but the fact remained that it was impossible to consult the Indian Government with regard to this Expedition. The main question that I have to put before the House is this—Has India such an interest in the maintenance of that route to England as to justify her in paying a large sum for its continuance? The price of the commodities coming from India are not fixed by the price which articles fetch in India; but by the price at which they sell in Europe. Europe is the great market of the world for grain and cotton, and any interference in the intercourse between Europe and India is not paid for by Europe but by India. We will take the price of Calcutta wheat. Calcutta wheat in England at the present time is worth 40s. a-quarter; and the difference in the freightage, if that wheat had to go round the Cape instead of going through the Canal, would be 2s. a-quarter. Does that 2s. rest with the English consumer or the Indian producer? The price in Europe is fixed, and the price in India is equal to the European price minus the cost of carriage. India, therefore, derives the whole of that advantage from the existence of the Suez Canal. I must, however, go further, and point out that the Canal has been of advantage to India in another way, for it has opened the Southern ports of Europe to the Indian Empire. Previous to the establishment of the Canal, very little traffic passed between India and the Southern ports of Europe. Since the Canal has been opened the increase has been very great indeed. In 1872 the exports from India to the Mediterranean ports were £4,800,000; in 1881 they were £11,900,000. It must also be reckoned that the merchants who carried on that traffic to the Mediterranean ports were able to compete with the English merchants on advantageous terms. It is not only as a commercial advantage to India that this charge has been thrown upon the country; but there are other grounds. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the Government of India has to pay a great deal for the carriage of troops from England to India, and from India back to this country. From the day on which our troops leave these shores to the day on which they come back to these shores, they are charged upon India. India brings her troops here, and she brings them, as my hon. Friend says, very dearly. Do not hon. Members see that any shortening of the line of communication between India and this country must be an enormous advantage to India? I was looking at a Parliamentary Paper the other day to try to see what was the cost of taking the troops round the Cape in March, 1865, and what it is now. The cost of conveying troops round the Cape at that time was £23 1s. 9d. per head. In a little time after that we sent the troops by the overland route, and then the cost was reduced to £16 18s. 8d. per man. By an Admiralty Paper, issued on the 9th of February, 1883, upon Indian troops, I find that the amount per head has decreased to £10 19s. 7d. If anyone will reckon what the advantage to the Indian Government is upon the 11,500 troops who are sent each way between England and India in the course of a year, they will find that it amounts to a very large sum. Indeed, the advantage of the Suez Canal 'to the Government of India in the carriage of troops alone is no less than £138,000 a-year. That is not all the advantage. The time taken by the transport of troops by the Canal is very much less than that taken in going round the Cape. The average time taken by a voyage round the Cape is 47 days to Bombay, and the average voyage by means of the Canal to Bombay is 30 days. You, therefore, have fewer men on the water at one time. Now, if you reckon these 23,000 men going to and fro each year, and the saving of time for them being 17 days, you will find it is equal to a saving of £100,000 a-year. You can, therefore, do with 1,000 men less on the Indian Establishment than you could if you had not the Suez Canal, and as each man costs £100 a-year, there will thus be a saving of £100,000. As £138,000 is also saved in the carriage in those two items alone, the Indian Government saves by the maintenance of the Canal no less a sum than £238,000 a-year. The hon. Member for Cambridge departed very considerably from the scope of the Resolution when he went into the question of public works; and I should have very much liked to have followed him to-day a long way into that subject; but it is scarcely germane to the question. It has been stated that most extraordinary taxation is placed upon the people of India; but things are not nearly as bad in India as my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) thinks they are. The hon. Member seemed to think that the people of India are very poor. Well, Sir, as far as I can understand the finances of India, after a somewhat careful examination, I should say they are in a very different position to what they have been in times gone by. Some time ago India was oppressed by war and famine, and the loss by exchange seemed a terrible evil. Happily war has passed away, and, it is hoped, for a long time to come. I do not wish to enter into controversial matters, or say why it has passed away; but the Government has managed its affairs in a way which will prevent us from getting into war, I hope, for a long time. We have managed to reduce the finances of India by nearly £3,000,000 a-year; and still I may inform the House that, notwithstanding, there remains in the coffers of the Government of India £4,500,000, which they have laid aside for famine and famine assurance, only £73,000 of which has been spent in relief, and the rest has been spent on productive works and in the reduction of Debt. In spite of the expenses of the Egyptian Expedition there was a surplus last year of £224,000, and, in the present year, India anticipates a surplus of £457,000. In the last few days I have received a telegram to say that, not only will the surplus be £457,000, but it will be a good round £1,000,000 in addition. This was besides putting aside good round sums for famine assurance, and paying off Debt. I cannot refrain from telling the House what the taxation of India is at the present moment. If we take the rent and taxes of India, what do we find? The rent of the land, the salt tax, stamps, excise, provincial rates, customs, and registration, these are all the taxes that are raised in India. In 1882 they amounted to £42,000,000, and in the next year £39,000,000. If you take off from these figures, as above given, the land tax, which is not a tax but rent, you will find that the taxes of the whole of that part of British India which is under our rule stood in the last three years at £22,700,000; it then fell to £17,900,000, and is now at that figure. The hon. Gentleman opposite my Predecessor in Office the late Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. E. Stanhope) proposed a Resolution some time ago asking the House to declare its determination that the expenditure in India should be reduced. I proposed an Amendment upon that which the House has not thought fit to carry, although I would rather that my Amendment had been carried. I must confess I am not satisfied that the effect of the Resolution which my hon. Friend opposite proposes would be to the advantage of India, and I simply make my per- sonal disclaimer against it. But right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who sit on this Bench have accepted that Resolution. We have accepted it loyally, mind; and we intend, as far as we can, to carry it out. I have endeavoured to show that in the process of carrying out the expenditure of the first year of Major Baring's authority there has been a diminution of £6,300,000. The gross expenditure in his second year of office resulted in a further diminution of £337,000. This year we are Budgeting for a further reduction of £913,000. This being the case, I think we have something in anticipation of the statement of the hon. Member opposite. But there is one thing which I want the House to do. Next year I want to ask the House very early to give its consent to the appointment of a Special Committee to inquire into the expenditure of India, and report upon the recommendation of the Famine Commission, so far as it refers to the extension of railway communication in India. I do not think that I can enter upon this question now, but I wish before next year that all those who were interested in the subject would take the trouble to read the Reports of the Famine Commission; and if we want to prevent famine, we must not only lay by money to relieve distress when it comes, but we must make railway stations in various parts of India, which will enable us to bring food from the districts where there is abundance to the famine-stricken districts. Those who have the direction of the affairs in chief of India in hand have a very great responsibility to India upon them. I do not wish to shirk that responsibility myself. I am somewhat diffident in urging my opinions upon the House; but I hope that by the appointment of a Committee of this kind next year we may be able to come to some definite conclusions, and that we may be able to prevent that vast number of deaths from accumulating again. I have to thank the House for the patience with which I have been listened to, and I trust that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford will not be accepted.

contended that the national people of India were the most miserable of all peoples; and he ventured to say that in that opinion he would be corroborated by everyone who had had the same opportunities of see- ing the condition of India as he had had; they were ground down to the very utmost, hopeless of the future, and completely at the mercy of the Mother Country to impose any taxation she might think proper. It had been said that English rule had benefited the condition of India; but, so far as the national people of India were concerned, he denied that, and he took for his authority, not his own statement, but those of official authorities, among whom was one whose flame he was sure would be received with very great respect in the House—namely, the late Lord Lawrence. He had said that the national people were so miserably poor that they had barely the means of subsistence, and that it was as much as a man could do to feed his family. Sir James Caird, too, who was sent out to report on the state of the country, also bore him out in his Report. What they had to consider, then, was, what was the cause of this misery; and, in his opinion, it was the large sums of money which this country exacted in taxation. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had said that the taxation of India was of a very light character; but it amounted upon the ryots to about 6s. a-head. Another cause of the great poverty of the national people was the circumstance of polyandry. ["Order!"]

The hon. Member is wandering from the Question before the House. I must ask him to confine himself to the Amendment.

said, he was contending that the people of India wore in such a condition that they were not able to meet further taxation, and that any further taxation would increase their misery to a very great extent; and, therefore, with very great respect, he did not think he was wandering from the Amendment before the House. In many parts of India the people were half starving; their dwellings consisted of miserable roofless huts; and the uttermost farthing was already exacted from them by the landlords, who, in their turn, had to pay tribute to the Crown. The disgraceful and profligate expenditure by the Government of India was a by-word in the country; and, under such circumstances, it would be grossly unjust to place an additional burden on the people.

said people of India were very poor when hon. Members compared their returned income of 508. a-head with that of the people of other countries the comparison was misleading, because the conditions of climate and the standard of comfort were very different. He had no hesitation in saying that there were people in England, Scotland, and Ireland who had to contribute to the taxation of the country, and who were just as poor as the people of India. He was glad to find that the Under Secretary of State had promised a Select Committee on the subject; but he hoped that the efforts in the direction of economy would not be limited to that. It had been urged that India ought not to be called on to contribute to the War expenditure in Egypt, because the passage of the Suez Canal was net placed in danger during the recent troubles; but if those hon. Members would take the trouble to read the Parliamentary Papers on the subject, they would find reason for coming to a different conclusion, and they would see therein a fact of great importance which had not yet been quoted. It was contained in a statement by Earl Granville to Lord Lyons, that the Egyptians at one time had three ships in the Canal prepared to destroy it. That statement, made to Lord Lyons, and conveyed by him to the French Government, had never been impugned or contradicted. There was not a man of business in that House at that time who would have guaranteed the safety of a vessel containing his fortune through that Canal at the rate of £5 per ton. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: I would.] He (Mr. Arnold) would not; and he said that against the opinion of the hon. Member for Carlisle. The question arose whether India should make this contribution. It was said that other Dependencies of Great Britain should make a contribution. For himself, he had no doubt that if the Australian Colonies sent a cheque for £500,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would receive it thankfully. He thought it proper that they should do so; but this country had no power to exact such a contribution. In his view India was as much interested in the Suez Canal as this country; and the contribution which she was asked to make to the Egyptian War was wise and reasonable. He believed that the government of India—and lie spoke from personal observation—by this country had been fraught with benefits to the people of India. He recognized it as a beneficent despotism; but, at the same time, he looked forward to the time when an independent Parliament would be established in India. He regretted, however, that the Under Secretary of State for India had not referred in his speech to the question of military expenditure in India, a question which had been repeatedly brought under the notice of the Government, which ought to engage their serious attention, and in connection with which great economy and saving were to be secured.

My hon. Friend who has just sat down has made what I think a very able argument on the subject of this Motion—an argument with which I entirely coincide. But, nevertheless, I desire to ask the attention of the House for a short time at the present moment, because there is a branch of the subject which he, and almost every preceding speaker, has overlooked, and which naturally might not appear to be one of very great importance, or to be very prominent in a discussion of this kind, but which, to a Member of the Government, may naturally appear to be of very considerable importance indeed. At all events, I venture to anticipate a general assent when I say that it is a portion of the subject which ought not to be wholly and entirely overlooked, but ought to be clearly in the view of Members, and not merely with regard to the speeches which they may make, but with regard to the vote which they give when we come to a Division, as I suppose we shall come, on this subject. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) has chosen to combine together two matters which are perfectly and absolutely distinct. One of them is the expression of an opinion that no charge ought to be made upon the Revenues of India in order to meet the expenses of the Expedition to Egypt. That is one of the propositions; but the other proposition is, the Government having thought differently, that the Government ought to be censured and dismissed from Office for having entertained that different opinion. The hon. Gentleman has adopted a form perfectly well understood in this House—namely, "That this House regrets the decision arrived at by Her Majesty's Government." Now, Sir, in the relations between a Government and the House of Commons, it is perfectly well understood, by, I believe, unbroken usage, that when the House reaches a point at which it finds it necessary, by a formal Vote, to record its regret for the conduct of the Government in a particular question, that is a notice to quit to the Government, and that notice to quit is uniformly and promptly obeyed. It has happened to me, in the course of my life, that Motions of different characters have been made which have led to the dismissal of the Government, and that after the Government have resigned in consequence of these Motions, various gentlemen have written to me myself, when I have happened to be in that position, to state that they did not at all understand the character or effect of the Motions, and did not at all take into their view the consequences by which they were to followed. I think it very hard upon gentlemen that they should be placed in that position. Evidently this little expression of regret has escaped the notice of many Members. I wish to set this forth in language that cannot be mistaken, and at the same time in perfectly good-humoured language, free from any tone or feeling of resentment. For, I do not know that to me it would be a matter of personal dissatisfaction if the regret were to be felt; but it is well, at any rate, that the point should be thoroughly well understood. The hon. Member has exercised a right which he was perfectly entitled to use. I make no complaint of his having exercised it, and it is possible that his having exercised that right may, in the eyes of many Members of the House, be an additional recommendation in favour of the Motion; but I repeat that it should be well understood that this Motion is a Vote of Censure, and a Vote which must be followed, if adopted by the House, by the natural consequences. Having said this much—I make no complaint of it whatever, but only endeavour to expound the language of the lion. Member in accordance with Parliamentary usage—I pass on to other portions of the question, for we do not agree with the hon. Member for Guildford upon either part of the question. We do not agree that the Government ought to be dismissed for what it has done, and we do not agree that what has been done is improper. I will go very shortly over the arguments—without repeating what has been so well said by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Indian Department—I will go shortly over the arguments that have peen touched in the course of the present debate by Gentlemen who have given their support to the hon. Member For Guildford. As respects the reference to the Australian Colonies, which appear to be a popular topic with some hon. Members, I am quite content with the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). Sir, it would be no hardship to the Colonies of this Empire if they did contribute to those Imperial wars in which they have a distinct interest. It might even be said that it is some hardship upon the people of this country to have to bear, without assistance, the whole cost of wars in which the whole of the Empire may have, and in some cases has, an interest. But then we have an understanding with our Colonies according to which we have undertaken to defray the whole cost of these wars; and that being so, although we should be prepared to receive, with a perfectly good conscience, a contribution from the Australian Colonies for the war of last year if it were to arrive, I cannot say I confidently expect it; and I say if we were to make a demand for it, we should be committing something like a breach of faith with the Australian Colonies, according to the understanding by which their relations to the Mother Country have long been regulated and known to be regulated. Well, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said—"At any rate, we have got a claim against the English Government—allow this to go as a set-off." Will my hon. Friend allow me to say that it is impossible to put in a more objectionable form upon every economical principle the proposal which he desires to convey? If there is one proposition more clearly established than another for the good financial administration of the country, it is that every transaction shall stand upon its own legs, and shall be settled upon its own merits. But if you come to say—" I have had an indifferent transaction with you yesterday, in which I behaved shabbily to the people of India, but I have another transaction in which I will now, in order to make up for the wrong I inflicted upon you, behave shabbily to the people of England," you not only do not gain any conceivable object by that indirect method of proceeding, but you render all responsibility impossible; and I am quite certain that no one acquainted with financial administration would hesitate for a moment to say that none of these transactions ought to be mixed up with any other, but that every one of them should be settled upon its own merits. My hon. Friend said that one of the reasons adduced in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) is that the Indian Government never were consulted in this matter. Well, it is admitted that it was impossible that they could be consulted—it was absolutely impossible. It would have been entirely absurd. The military operations in Egypt could not stand or fall according to the assent of the Indian Government; and the moment of those operations would have been lost, and the burden of them greatly aggravated, if the Government at home had done anything so absurd as to divide the responsibility with the Government of India by a previous consultation. But the Indian Government has been consulted after the fact, and has been consulted with the effect of giving very great weight to its representations, for those representations, having been received by us, were weighed by us, and the decision at which we arrived as to the arrangement we should ask the House to make was a decision materially influenced by the advice and the desires of the Indian Government. We have proof of that in the Papers before us. My hon. Friend says that the Indian Government reserve their protest. Sir, that is a matter on which he appears to have more knowledge than we have; but we have no sort of protest from the Indian Government against the arrangement as it now stands. We had a protest from the Indian Government against the arrangement, as originally it was projected in a provisional manner, and subject to future consideration; but as regards the arrangement as it now is, all we have is a telegram from the Viceroy, dated 19th January, 1883, and in these terms—

"We have received your secret telegram of the 16th, relating to the cost of the Indian Contingent in Egypt. We thank Her Majesty's Government for the consideration given to our representations, and for the important assistance they are willing to afford us."

That is the communication, and the only communication, we have received in their names; and it is upon the concurrence of the Indian Government in this arrangement that we found a portion of our claim for the approval, and not the disapproval, of the House of Commons in regard to it. The hon. Member has pleaded the poverty of India in support of his Motion. But if the poverty of India is any reason why we should depart from the lines of policy that would, on general grounds, be followed, you cannot possibly stop here. You must go a great deal further. If you want to make up for the whole evil of the poverty of India by putting a charge upon the people of England that they would not otherwise have to bear, it is obvious that you must do a great deal more than this. The fact is, Sir, that the question that you have to ask yourselves is not whether India is a poorer country than this, but whether it is for the benefit of India that she should be attached to this country, and whether we are, or are not, endeavouring conscientiously to govern India for her own benefit. If we are not endeavouring to govern India for her own benefit—if we are endeavouring to make her resources auxiliary only to the greatness of this country, or if we are allowing any regard for the greatness of this country to interfere with the true welfare of India—why, then, we cannot make up for so gross an iniquity as that by any such trumpery proposal, as it would then be, as that of giving £500,000 to India. We ought to walk out of India, and the sooner the better, unless we are prepared to manage the affairs of India for the benefit of the people of India. But that is the very thing that we are trying to do. Only, if we are so trying to act, do not let us think it is a good argument for laying this burden on the shoulders of England, that India is not self-governed. She is not at this moment a self-governing country. Can you make her a self-governing country? Can you at this moment make her a self-governing country? Would it be for her benefit to try? Every one of you would answer "No." Well, then, Sir, if it is not for her benefit that such an effort should be made, it is your business to govern her, and it is your business to govern her on the principles of justice, and to hold the scales evenly between the people of England and the people of India. Has India, then, an interest in this question? Had she an interest in the Egyptian operations, or had she not? The hon. Gentleman quoted me—and I daresay he quoted roe accurately—as having stated that our interest in the Suez Canal was not the immediate cause of the war of last year. I believe he was quite accurate in his reference; but what I said—what I wanted to convey—was this—that the warlike operations of last year had assumed a character higher than that of any question of mere interest. It had become a question directly involving the honour and fame of the British Government; and, consequently, there was a justification and a call for those operations, quite irrespective of any interest that we might have in the matter. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State was perfectly correct in saying—at least in my opinion—it may be a matter of opinion—that the interest of this country in the great waterway of the East lay at the root of the whole question; because I must assume that such arrangements as those which we found subsisting in Egypt at the time when we came into Office were arrangements that never could have been adopted, if it had not been for the vast interests of the country and of the Empire in the waterway of the Suez Canal. Well, Sir, is it possible to deny that India has an enormous interest in the question, and if in the question, then in the operations of last year? Not that I expect any support, or countenance, or quarter from Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) on questions of this kind. He condemns the operations root and branch. He lets fly upon them—if I may use the expression—upon every occasion that presents itself. With him any stick is good enough to beat the Government. This, in his view, is a mode of inflicting punishment upon the Government for having committed what he thinks a great wrong. Therefore, I do not expect to get anything from him. I am perfectly contented that he should turn us out to-morrow morning for this monstrous iniquity that he thinks we have committed. It is perfectly consistent in him. I have no doubt he has in view the object I have described. [Sir WIL- FRID LAWSON: Hear, hear!] But is it possible for a man to have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, and to deny the vast interest that India has in these operations? The Suez Canal has a totally different interest for India from what it has in respect to England. For England the Suez Canal is a most convenient waterway, invaluable for the extension of its commerce, and opening up an easier and shorter road to all parts of the world. But for India the Suez Canal is a connecting link between herself and the centre of power—the centre of the moral, social, and political power of the world. It is a totally different thing to connect England with India, and to connect India with Europe. Then, if I go down to grossly material objects, and to separate items, my hon. Friend, in his excellent speech, has set forth as one item alone that we are now disputing about the question of £500,000 — one-seventh part, I think it is, of the expense of the Egyptian War—which has been laid upon India with the consent of the Indian Government. You are disputing about that; but what is the fact? Why, that my hon. Friend showed you, as regards the Suez Canal, that every year £250,000 is saved by the Suez Canal in respect of Indian military establishments—due to the Suez Canal, and nothing else—so that in two years alone the whole of the subject-matter of this debate and dispute disappears from the simple benefit conferred, not upon England, but upon India, in military expenditure, through the operation of the Suez Canal. If I look again to the general trade of India, and attempt to estimate the relative importance of the Suez Canal to the trade of England, and to the trade of India—I will not enter now into that very interesting and very curious question, by which it has been developed that naturally enough a great deal of trade from India, which used to pass through this country for the supply of Europe, has now been, I may say, lost to this country, and has taken the form of a direct trade between India, and especially the Mediterranean countries—I do not hesitate to say I am extremely glad of that, because any loss we have suffered in respect to that trade is far less than the benefit that India has obtained by the increased facilities that she now enjoys from the shorter passage to the markets of the Mediterranean countries. But surely it is impossible to deny the vast pecuniary interest of India, as well as the moral and social interest of India, in the Suez Canal. I will just take two years. I would not trouble the House with a single figure, except to exhibit the relative importance of the Suez Canal to India and to this country in respect to trade. I know it may be said that the foreign trade of India represents a smaller proportion of its aggregate industry in exchange than the foreign trade of England. I have no doubt it does, and some allowance ought to be made on that account; but, at the same time, it is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the foreign trade of England to India. It is not only a matter of trade; but a matter of civilization, and a matter of her relations to the world. Therefore, to reduce to insignificance the foreign trade of India would he to inflict the heaviest blow that could be inflicted upon her. But the imports which we get through the Suez Canal form 8 per cent of our total imports, and the exports which we send through the Suez Canal form 9½- per cent of our total exports. The imports which India gets through the Canal form 75 per cent of her total imports, and her exports-£26,000,000 in value—form 39 per cent of her total exports. Now, Sir, I do hope that it will not be said after this that India has no interest in the Suez Canal, and that no one will attempt to prove that the question of communication does not stand in the most direct relation to the military operations which we reluctantly undertook last year. I see that the hon. Member has resumed his seat. When I commenced these remarks, I pointed out that he has done what he was perfectly entitled to do by proposing his Amendment. But the effect of that Amendment is not merely the expression of opinion as to a certain arrangement; but it forms a Vote of Censure on the Government. That is a matter entirely within his own option and discretion.

It is only an expression of regret.

My hon. Friend well knows that if he will look up a Parliamentary dictionary he will find that probably among the various senses of the word "regret," the very first would be that which I have ventured to give to it—namely, notice to quit when it is used with regard to the operations of a Government. Against that notice to quit I enter an extremely humble and exceedingly mild, but, at the same time, an intelligible protest. On the merits of the question, what we have done is this—that, with the final consent of the Indian Government, after we had greatly reduced the original proportion, we have charged to India one-seventh of the expenditure. The other six-sevenths are to be paid by the people of this country; and I do say that, unless you are prepared to say that the expenses of every war external to the Frontier of India—however deeply interested India may be—shall be charged exclusively on the people of England, you cannot refuse to acknowledge that there is some reason in the very moderate and limited arrangement which we have made, and which the Indian Government has accepted on the present occasion.

commented on the extraordinary action of the Prime Minister in making a question of Want of Confidence of the Amendment; but he supposed the Prime Minister had been informed by the Whip that unless something of the sort was done, many of his own supporters would vote against him. Hitherto, the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had not shown much delicacy with regard to hostile votes in that House. They had been seriously defeated three times; yet, in a comparatively thin House, the right hon. Gentleman had taken that extraordinary proceeding. For his part, he did not regard the resignation of the Ministry with any very great apprehension. The arguments, both of the right hon. Gentleman and the Under Secretary of State for India, had been founded on two very serious fallacies—on two assumptions which hon. Gentlemen holding the opinion he did would altogether dispute. The first was that the Egyptian War was a necessary or a justifiable war; and the second, that it was net possible to consult the Indian Government upon the policy of that war. He denied that the war was necessary because of our interest of the Suez Canal. The slightest forethought and decision would have averted it. The war was, to use the language of the right hon. Gentleman about the Afghan War, "an unjust and wicked war," the responsibility for which entirely rested with the Ministers of the Crown. Instead of maintaining peace, it had destroyed the National Party in Egypt, had thrown the country into a state of anarchy that was a shame and disgrace in the eyes of the world. Another result—at least, it was an indirect result—was that the Government had granted to a French Company the exclusive right over the Canal, if not in perpetuity, at least for 100 years. The Under Secretary of State stated that Major Baring had written his despatch protesting against India being charged for the cost of the Egyptian War in a fit of indignation; but it was signed by the Marquess of Ripon, Mr. Ebert, and all those academical Radicals who were governing India at present. As for the statements that there was no time to communicate with India, it must be borne in mind that for nine or ten months previous to the bombardment of Alexandria, Egypt had been in a very disturbed state, and during that period it would have been easy and practicable to consult with the Indian authorities. He had listened with the deepest interest to the right hon. Gentleman's striking demonstration of the value and growing importance of British and Indian trade through the Suez Canal. It was unfortunate that the Prime Minister had not thought of all these facts before he concluded that portentous Agreement with M. de Lesseps which had just perished of universal ridicule. The telegraph was always available. And then the Under Secretary of State promised a Committee next Session to inquire into certain portions of Indian Finance. But what had that to do with this charge? It was very much like the promise of the Prime Minister, when he went out of Office in 1874, to remit the Income Tax an ineffectual bribe to public opinion; it had nothing to do with the question. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who in times past used to convulse the country with his passionate advocacy of oppressed nationalities, was the Minister who now came down to the House and, affecting to assume high moral ground, defended this charge upon the people of India, a charge respecting which neither they nor Their "despotic rulers"—the phrase was not his, but that of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold)—were consulted. The act was one of extraordinary and unprecedented inconsistency.

said, he had always understood that Indian questions should not be made Party questions; and it was, therefore, with extreme regret he heard the declaration of the Prime Minister, a few minutes ago, that this was distinctly a Party question.

I did not say so; what I said was, that the Amendment was a Vote of Censure.

observed, that he had always thought that Votes of Censure were Party questions. But whether it was a Party question or not, it was a question of the greatest importance that could be brought before the House. He agreed that after the despatch of the Marquess of Ripon, protesting against saddling India with any of the extraordinary expenses of the Egyptian Expedition, there was really nothing more that need be heard on the subject. All their attacks on the proposal of Her Majesty's Government were merely elaborations of that most able State document. The only question they had to trouble themselves with was — Was this expenditure for the good of India, or was it not? What had they done for the people of India in return for this money? Before the debate was adjourned the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, who never spoke about the Egyptian Expedition unless compelled, said that it was desirable this money should be brought from India, because she had benefited by the military operations carried on for the pacification of Egypt, and for the security of the Canal. In the first place, he had to say that there was no disturbance in Egypt till they sent their Fleet there, and began meddling in affairs. They were the amalgamated anarchists who caused disturbances in Egypt. In the second place, he would ask who it was that protected the Suez Canal? Lord Wolseley the other day said that if Arabi had blown up the Canal he would probably have been in Egypt still. Arabi did not infringe upon the Canal rights; but we did when we sent our ships into it. Until the despotic Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) discovered three ships laden with explosives in the Canal somewhere, no one heard of the danger. But probably the three ships were only three black crows. As to the rights of the people, he should have thought they were self-government, and that that would satisfy the Radical Member for Salford.

I said I hoped the time would come when they would be.

Oh, yes. Everybody hoped that; but the time never came. It was always in the future. He believed in self-government now. The fact was, as he had often said before, the war was a bondholders' war, and had been no benefit to the poor Indian people, who were now asked to pay. Those people were so poor that 40,000,000 of them were said to go through life without sufficient food; and yet they talked about the blessings they had conferred upon the people of India. They all remembered what was said by the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) in regard to burdens which were imposed on the wretched ryots of India; but that was before the right hon. Gentleman degenerated into the Government man that he was now. Where, also, was the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that he was not present to make a speech in support of the Amendment? He wished the Prime Minister would lend him two or three men from the Treasury Bench to discuss this question from the old standpoint. One short afternoon of freedom would be enough. They might go back to slavery on the Government Bench the next day; but, meanwhile, the Postmaster General, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and one or two others, would make such a debate that it would be impossible for that House to assent to the Government proposal. Having quoted the declarations of the Members referred to on the subject of placing charges on India, the hon. Baronet said he wished to quote a few words of the Prime Minister himself. They were to be found in Hansard, which generally was correct. What did he say?—

"Can I bring myself to vote that the expenses of this struggle, which is wholly our act, shall be placed upon India P I say 'No;' and I will go freely into any assembly of Englishmen and tell them I say 'No '"

—[Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!]—

"and appeal to them whether they will not say 'No' also. Nay, I am persuaded—such is my opinion of their generosity—that when they thoroughly understand the facts of the case they will say distinctly that those who make the war should pay for the war."—(3 Hansard, [243] 904.)

He thought he had quoted enough. What he maintained was that the Egyptian case was far stronger than the Afghan one, on which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so strongly. Why should they go to the wretched Indians for any of the cost? We had had all the fun, and fame, and folly, and glory of it to ourselves. How delighted the English people were at one great victory! There we were five times as numerous as the Egyptians, and 50 times as strong; and we licked them, like five big bullies licking a little fellow in the street, and everybody was delighted. There were banquets, Peerages, and processions, and addresses; and now, when we had all this intense pleasure and rejoicing over the slaughter of our fellow-creatures, we called upon these wretched Indians to help us to pay the bill. Reason, equity, and justice demanded that the people who made the war should pay for it. It was, in his opinion, to be regretted that the Prime Minister had treated the question in a way to frighten hon. Members from voting according to their conscience. It would be extraordinary if the Government felt themselves called upon to resign because the Representatives of the people of this country agreed to pay the money instead of getting it from another quarter he was not to be frightened by the right hon. Gentleman. Let them be just, and. fear not—not even the Prime Minister. The people of England would give the money. All classes would vote for it; the Nonconformist ministers, who wrote that the war was a policy of righteousness; the Archbishops, who made a prayer thanking God for the slaughter of the Egyptians—["No, no!"]—the middle classes and the working men, whom the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) called upon to support the war. Let them pay for what the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) called a violation of international moral law. Do not let them go to these wretched Indians and make them pay by extracting from them their wretched earnings. We ought to pay for our own folly and our own pride.

, in explanation, said, he did not at all dispute that at the time of the Afghan War he stated that it would be unjust to lay the charge on the people of India; and so he admitted that the hon. Baronet, who believed the Egyptian operations were unjust, was quite consistent in saying the expenses should not be laid upon the Indian people. But the hon. Baronet appeared to him to be generalizing, and putting upon him in that statement the laying down of a general principle, that because we were the authorities who made the war, therefore we should pay for it. That was not correct.

said, the statements which had been made about the poverty of the people of India were much exaggerated. Hon. Gentlemen had sought to excite commiseration by describing the dwellings of the people of India as mud huts with thatched roofs; but in a hot climate no place was so comfortable as a mud hut with a thatched roof. It must be remembered, too, that of the £70,000,000 which constituted the Revenue of the Indian Government, only £20,000,000 was, in the strict sense, taxation, and that was not very exorbitant with a population of 250,000,000. He would have been glad if the whole of the war expenses were charged to the English Exchequer; but, at the same time, he could not, as a matter of principle, support the Amendment. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 210: Majority 155.—(Div. List, No. 237.)

said, as the House wished to proceed to the Business, he would not make all the observations upon the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanhope) which he would have liked to have done; but he could not allow to pass without a protest a Motion which implied a Vote of Censure upon Lord Ripon, a conscientious, faithful Viceroy, who had been doing, was still doing, and would continue to do, all in his power to reduce the Expenditure of India. If this Motion were passed, he, for one, wished to say that it was only a Motion of the same character as the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) which had lately been moved with regard to English Expenditure. Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that early steps be taken to reduce the expenditure of India.

moved, in page 18, after Clause 54, to insert the following Clause— (Restriction in respect of improvements.)

"Subject as in this section mentioned a tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of any improvements, other than manures as defined by this Act, begun by him, if he holds from year to year, within one year before he quits his holding, or at any time after he has given final notice to quit, and, if he holds as a lessee, within one year before the expiration of his lease.

"A final notice to quit means a notice to quit which has not been waived or withdrawn, but has resulted in the tenant quitting his holding.

"The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of any such improvement as aforesaid—

(1.) Where a tenant from year to year has begun such improvement during the last year of his tenancy, and, in pursuance of a notice to quit thereafter given by the landlord, has quitted his holding at the expiration of that year; and

(2.) Where a tenant, whether a tenant from year to year or a lessee, previously to beginning any such improvement, has served notice on his landlord of his intention to begin the same, and the landlord has either assented or has failed for a month after the receipt of the notice to object to the making of the improvement."

New Clause brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

said, the new clause proposed did not carry out the effect of the Amendment he moved in Committee, and which he withdrew on the understanding that the Government would bring up a clause on Report to meet it. He pointed out at the time that the object of his Amendment was twofold; first, that it was obviously fair that a tenant should not be allowed to claim compensation for the expenditure of a large sum of money in improvements which had been made at the time when he was going to leave his holding; and, secondly, that it would give the landlord in extreme cases, especially in those in which money was lavishly and unwisely spent, a general control over the execution of improvements. As the clause stood, he did not see any power of the kind given; and, therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the undertaking that was given—that he would substantially carry out the Amendment he (Mr. Chaplin) moved. If he had known that was the clause to be placed upon the Paper he should have pressed his Amendment, and from the support he got he should have taken a Division upon it. He would now move to add in the fourth line, after the word "given," the words "or received." If this was done it would meet the object he had in view.

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member in Committee, because in the case of a tenant who might have begun and nearly completed an improvement, and who then received notice to quit, the landlord, by giving that notice, might deprive him of all right to compensation. The clause, as drawn, he thought solved the difficulty, and was not open to that objection. It fairly met the hon. Member's object; because if the improvement were begun after the notice to quit by the landlord the tenant would not be entitled to compensation unless he had given notice beforehand to the landlord of his intention to make the improvement, and the landlord had not objected.

said, the Government were prepared to accept the words moved by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire; and, under those circumstances, he hoped the clause would be accepted. Clause read a second time, amended, and added.

moved, in page 15, after Clause 43, to insert the following Clause:—

said, the Government could not accept the clause as it stood, because it provided really that the landlord could not act until after the expiration of the tenancy, which would have the effect of defeating distress altogether he would, however, accept the clause in this form—

"where the compensation under this Act to a tenant has been ascertained before the landlord distrains for rent due, the amount of such compensation may be set off against the rent due to the landlord, and the landlord shall not be entitled to distrain for more than the balance."

said, he was sorry to interpose; but, to put himself in Order, he should conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate. They came down to-day under the full impression that they were to discuss one or other of the Agricultural Holdings Bills, if any time should be left; but in the course of the debate on the Indian Question, which lasted longer than was expected, hon. Members began to inquire what subject should be taken. All he could say was that many Members en his side of the House were led to believe that the Scotch Bill would be taken; and, under the full impression that the English Bill would not be taken, they left the House. In the circumstances, he did not think the House was fairly in a position to discuss a good many of the important questions on the Paper. He moved the adjournment of the debate. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Stanhope.)

protested against the interpretation which had been put on the arrangement for Business by the hon. Member. It was distinctly stated over and over again yesterday that, if possible, they would proceed with the English Bill. The only doubt had arisen that afternoon, as the debate on India was prolonged, and the time becoming short he hesitated and intimated to some Members that he thought it would be better to proceed with the Scotch Bill in Committee, because he was afraid that they should not complete the other. It was in deference more especially to applications from Member after Member on the other side of the House to the Prime Minister and himself that they decided to go on, though they were late with the English Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not only withdraw his Motion for Adjournment, but acquit the Government of any unfair motive or intention.

said, he did not see the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) in his place; but lie had no doubt the noble Lord would confirm what he was about to say. As they were going into the Division Lobby on the Indian Question, unsought by him, the noble Lord was kind enough to say to him, in so many words—"We are going to take the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill immediately after the Division." In consequence of that, the matter having been told to him distinctly, he mentioned it to many of his hon. Friends, particularly to Scotch Members, in the Lobby. He believed the Lord Advocate was under the impression that it was the Scotch Bill that was to be taken. Instead, however, of the Scotch Bill proceeding pari passu with the English Bill, the former was placed unfairly in the background. In the circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend was perfectly justified in moving the adjournment of the debate.

remarked, that nothing had been said publicly on this question, and the idea was that it was best to proceed with the Scotch Bill. During and immediately after the Division, however, it was suggested that the English Bill should be brought on in deference to entreaties made to them, and as they considered it was the most convenient to the House the English Bill was brought on.

appealed to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire to withdraw his Motion. In deference to the wishes of a large number of hon. Members, he himself' went to the Prime Minister and asked him to take the English Bill, and he was bound to say that the Government had done their best to consult the desires and convenience of both sides of the House.

said, he had no doubt the Government intended to act for the best; but the question was whether they had acted for the best? More than one Member of the Government stated to Gentlemen on this side, up to the last moment, that they meant to go on with the Scotch Bill. That being so, he did not see how it was possible to go on with a Bill of this kind now. The right hon. Gentleman said it was taken in deference to many Members sitting on this side of the House; but the difficulty arose from the Government not having made up their minds. There were strong reasons for the House agreeing to the Motion of his hon. Friend.

said, he hoped the Government would defer to the evident wish of the House, and, delaying the English Bill, proceed at once with the Scotch Bill. Members had no opportunity until that morning of considering the Bill as amended.

said, that he also was under the impression that the Scotch Bill would be taken on the conclusion of the Indian discussion, and for that reason left the House after the Division, so that he was not present when the English Bill was again brought up. They were now approaching matters of great controversy in regard to this Bill, and many Members who took a warm interest in the measure were absent in consequence of the misunderstanding that had arisen. The next Amendment, for instance, if adopted, would reverse a decision previously arrived at in Committee; and it would be unfair, therefore, to take it under the circumstances. At the same time, he acquitted the Government of any intention to act unfairly in any way.

said, it seemed that a mistake had been accidentally made, and it was the desire of the House and the Government to proceed with the English Bill; and if the Government liked to take a snatch Division upon the Amendment coming on, he would withdraw the Motion for Adjournment. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

asked for leave to withdraw his clause in favour of that of the Government. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause (Mr. Dodson) added.

said, the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had been kind enough to insinuate that the Government wanted to obtain a snatch Division on the Amendment.

said, he had not said anything of the kind.

, continuing, said, that to avoid any misunderstanding on the subject, and so that there might be no suspicion as to the objects of the Government, he would move the adjournment of the debate. Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dodson.)

said, it was he who used the expression to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He was now satisfied the Government had no such intention; and he, therefore, hoped they should proceed.

said, he thought that since they had settled down to the consideration of a Bill, it would be better to proceed with it. Motion agreed to. Further Consideration of Bill, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

moved the adjournment of the dedate. The majority of the Scotch Members, he said, were absent; and he appealed to Scotch Gentlemen opposite whether they did not think it was putting Scotland to considerable disrespect to resume the consideration of this Bill in Committee at a quarter past 6 o'clock on a Morning Sitting? Of course, if Scotch Members thought a discussion of such importance should be taken at that hour he had nothing more to say; but he thought if the argument that a good many Members had gone away not knowing what was to come on was a good reason for postponing the further consideration of Amendments on the English Bill, there was surely still greater reason for postponing this Bill, which had come on quite unexpectedly. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.

pointed out that the proper form of the Motion would be that Progress be reported. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Hertford. The fact was that a number of Scotch Members had left the House, and he did not think the opportunity a favourable one for discussing the very important matters that were about to be proceeded with. He, therefore, appealed to the Government not to go on with the Bill at present. He had heard it said that they might run through the Bill in half-an-hour; but that could only be done by avoiding discussion on the 6th clause.

regretted that the hon. Member for Hertford had made this Motion. He thought a sufficient number of Scotch Members were present. They might not be able to get through the Bill by 7 o'clock, but they might at least make some progress; and the Scotch Members were always eager to get on with the work they had in hand.

said, he did not see why they should not put to the best use they could the part of the Sitting that remained. The practical character of his countrymen was well known; and he thought if they tried they might get through a good deal in the time that remained.

expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Hertford would withdraw his Motion. It was not often Scotch Members had the chance of half-an-hour, and he thought they should take advantage of it when they had.

said, he was willing to withdraw his Motion on the condition that the Government would not bring on anything but non-contentious Business.

replied, that he could not agree to make any such condition.

agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as to the advisability of postponing the discussion of the Bill.

said, he was not aware that there was anything of a very controversial character to come on. He hoped the Committee would allow them to proceed and go as far as they could in the time that remained.

supported the proposal to proceed with the Bill, observing that unless they did so, it was extremely likely they would have a Morning Sitting to-morrow.

objected to the Bill being brought on in this way, and said it would be unfair to Members representing Scotch constituencies.

said, he hoped they would be allowed to proceed. If the proposal were to run through the Scotch Bill in half-an-hour, it would certainly be objectionable; but it was only intended to go as far as they could. The Motion was made by an excellent Scotchman, though not by a Scotch Member; and the general feeling of the Scotch Members present, undoubtedly, seemed to be that they should take advantage of the portion of the Sitting that remained.

requested his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he wished to point out the great inconvenience to which the House was put by the vacillation of the Government. Nearly all the Scotch Members on that side of the House had gone away, not knowing what Business was to be taken. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

indicated that he should not propose the Amendment which stood in his name.

moved to leave out Sub-section (b.), which stood in the following terms:—

"In the case of compensation for manures the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding of any hay, straw, roots, or green crops sold off the holding within the last two years of the tenancy or other less time for which the tenancy has endured, except in so far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such produce sold off."

The hon. and learned Member said, this sub-section had excited a good deal of hostility among agriculturists generally throughout Scotland; and the view taken of it by the Scotch Chamber of Agriculture was that it would be a source of great injustice to a large number of tenants. He must say he considered that view well-founded. The sub-section might be right and proper when they were dealing with a state of matters such as that which existed in England; but he held that it was not applicable to the conditions under which tenancies were held in Scotland. These matters were regulated in distinct language, and there was no reason whatever why the tenant, when he had not contracted to consume a certain quantity of hay, straw, roots, or green crops on his holding, should be held to do so. [The hon. and learned Member read an extract from an agricultural paper in which it was contended that this sub-section would entail great injustice to farmers in Scotland.] He considered that if the subsection were cut out altogether, full protection would be given to the landlord, in all cases where the landlord desired that protection, by the sub-section immediately following—Sub-section (c.)—because that stipulated that where a tenant made a claim for compensation, the landlord should be able to make a reduction on any contract relevant to the lease. The landlords were thus really protected; and he, for one, thought it perfectly unnecessary that the Committee should protect the landlords when they were perfectly able to protect themselves. Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(Mr. A. Elliot.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said, he was afraid he could not assent to this section being entirely omitted. Members of the Committee would observe that he had given Notice of certain important Amendments upon the section as it stood. He quite saw that the section, as it stood, was open to criticism; because it had been pointed out that under the section as it was in the Bill, there might be a claim of deduction in respect of potatoes, and hay, and straw, and other things that in many parts of the country were regarded as sale crops. That would be unfair; but he thought the injustice would be obviated by the Amendments he had placed upon the Paper. The question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire was simply this—whether it would be proper for a tenant to sell off everything grown on the farm, and then claim for all the manure he might purchase and apply to the land as an improvement? He did not think to omit this sub-section would be fair; because this Bill throughout was directed to provide for compensation for improvements. It was for something that was done, either in excess of contract or custom, or ordinary and average administration. It was quite plain that unless some such provision were made as that which had been introduced into the Bill, it would be competent for the farmer to sell off everything, and even to sell off manure, and then to make a claim for all the manure he had brought on to the farm, although it was absolutely necessary manure, and not in excess of what would have been produced by the consumption on the farm of the part of the crops usually consumed there.

supported the Amendment. He confessed that he was not convinced by the argument of the Lord Advocate, though the Amendments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to introduce would, no doubt, remove, to a great extent, the injustice that would otherwise arise under the sub-section. He had received strong representations with regard to the injustice of the sub- section, and felt bound to support the Amendment.

said, he was glad that the Lord Advocate would not accept the Amendment. He thought great injustice might be done under existing leases, which permitted the sale of all those crops, but which had been negotiated on the understanding that the tenants would have to bring on to the farm a considerable quantity of manures if they sold a large part of the produce off the farm. Such tenants would be able to charge the landlord with part of the cost of that manure, which it was absolutely necessary they should bring on to the farm, in order to keep it up to an ordinary state of cultivation. As regarded leases made after the passing of this Act, he did not think the sub-section mattered much, for, of course, special stipulations might be made.

said, he thought it was desirable that the words in question should be omitted, because, if the sub-section were admitted, it would drive every tenant to make an agreement with his landlord.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, as he thought it would be more convenient to take a Division on the clause as amended. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, that he had to propose several Amendments, which, he hoped, would obviate the main difficulty which had been felt in regard to the clause. He wished, first, to insert after "holding," in line 14, the words "according to the rules of good husbandry;" secondly, to omit the words "hay, straw, roots, or green;" and, thirdly, after "off," to insert "or removed from." The sub-section would then run as follows:—

"In the case of compensation for manures, the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding, according to the rules of good husbandry, of any crops sold off, or removed from the holding, within the last two years of the tenancy, or other less time for which the tenancy has endured, except in so far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such manure so sold off or removed therefrom."

The effect would be this—that without defining the particular descriptions of crops which were usually sold from the farm in fair and ordinary administration, it would be competent to sell such crops, without any obligation, to substitute manure for them in stating the account. On the other hand, 'such crops—and they varied in different parts of the country—as according to the rules of good husbandry, were consumed on the farm, and made manure on the farm, would be taken into account, and the manure which would have been so produced debited to the tenant in making out the account. That would not at all operate against leases of the kind referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot); because if the lease permitted everything to be sold off the farm, still the same necessity would lie upon the tenant, unless his farm was to become barren, of laying a fair and reasonable amount of manure on it. While he admitted the propriety of omitting any words which might define, adversely to the tenant, the particular crops which should be acknowledged as sale crops, he maintained that it was proper to provide that a deduction should be made from the tenant's compensation, in respect of such an amount of manure as would in due course be produced and used on the farm. Amendments proposed,

In page 3, line 14, after the word "holding," to insert the words "according to the rules of good husbandry;" line 14, leave out the words "hay, straw, roots, or green;" line 14, after the word. "off," insert the words "or removed from."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he did not think there was much objection to the clause as proposed to be amended by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. But he wished to call the attention of his hon. Friends to this—that the clause did not say that the value of the manure produced was to be deducted from the compensation; it was only in the nature of an instruction to the referees to take into account the manure which would have been produced on the holding had those crops been consumed upon it. He thought it was unnecessary to put in such an instruction, as all referees worth having would take this into account, even if there was no instruction in the Bill. If, however, the Government wished the instruction to be inserted lie had no objection.

pointed out, as a practical objection, that the subsection applied not only to root or green crops consumed on the holding, but to all crops—as, for instance, wheat and oats.

said, it was not according to any rules of good husbandry that he knew of that wheat should be consumed on the holding.

said, lie thought the expression "the rules of good husbandry" was utterly unintelligible.

said, the expression was absolutely familiar in Scotland, and was heard every day.

said, that, having an Amendment in his name to this sub-section, he wished to remark that the Lord Advocate had very happily solved the great difficulty which this clause would have caused in Scotland. He hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) would not persist in his intention of dividing on the clause. Amendments agreed to.

moved, in page 3, line 19, to leave out from "any" to "landlord," in line 30, and insert—

"The amount of compensation payable to the tenant shall be subject to deduction of any sums duo to the landlord:

(1.) For rent payable in respect of the holding;

(2.) For any taxes, rates, or public burdens payable in respect of the holding for which the tenant is liable as between him and the landlord.;

(3.) For the breach of any stipulation of the lease, or of any contract relative to the lease, committed by the tenant;

(4.) For any deterioration committed or permitted by the tenant;

"There shall be added to the tenant's compensation any sum due to the tenant for compensation in respect of a breach of any stipulation of a lease, or other contract relative to a lease, committed by the landlord."

This, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, was not intended to alter, in substance, the provisions of the clause as it stood before; but it was to express more clearly—and, he ventured to think, more accurately—the intention of the clause. According to the terms of the clause, as it originally ran, it might have been held to express the idea that rent and other liquid claims, such as taxes, were to be taken into account in striking compensation. It was expressed more accurately by saying that they should form deductions from compensation. Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he should like some explanation as to what was meant by—

"Taxes, rates, or public burdens payable in respect of the holding for which the tenant is liable as between him and. the landlord."

He had had a good deal of experience in these matters, and did not know what was meant by that language.

said, there were sometimes agreements by which one of the parties undertook liability for the whole of the taxes, part of which was by law pay- able to the Revenue authorities to the other. Amendment agreed to.

moved, in page 3, line 30, after the word "landlord," to insert—

"(e.) When the tenant of any holding held by him under a yearly tenancy or on the expiration of a lease is disturbed in his holding by the act of his landlord, he shall be entitled to such compensation as the county court judge of his district, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned;

"When the rent is thirty pounds or under, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent;

"When the rent is above thirty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent;

"When the rent is above fifty pounds and not exceeding one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent;

"When the rent is above one hundred pounds and not exceeding three hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding three years' rent;

"When the rent is above three hundred pounds and not exceeding five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding two years' rent;

"When the rent is above five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding one year's rent.'

The hon. Member said, he proposed this clause chiefly in the interest of crofters and the aboriginal inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands. It was notorious that some landlords turned many miles of their estates into deer forests or sheep farms. That system was disastrous and ruinous to the interests of the population, and it was one which the House ought to do its best to make impossible. There was no doubt at all that these unfortunate people were descendants of families who had, in many cases, lived for many generations on these holdings, and who had endured very grievous suffering and wrong. He certainly thought that it was the duty of the Government to agree to his proposal in the interests of the crofter description of tenants. Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, that the Amendment was of a character deserving consideration. It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.

asked the Lord Advocate whether the Bill was to be brought on again at the Evening Sitting?

said, the Government were very anxious to proceed with the measure, and would do their best to bring it on, but not after half-past 12 o'clock. The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock. The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

, in rising to move—

"That the unforeseen and growing amount of the school rate; its unequal pressure upon various districts and various classes of the community; its failure in some cases to meet the requirements of the most necessitous classes; and the circumstance that it involves expenditure not originally anticipated, call for the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government with a view to the relief of the burdens of the ratepayers, while maintaining, in accordance with the original intention of ' The Education Act,1870,' the efficiency of elementary education,"

observed, that it was a matter of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to express his regret that he should have the trouble of a second discussion upon education. If he could have communicated with him (Mr. Salt) some days ago that he proposed to take the Education Estimates so soon, nothing would have been wanting on his (Mr. Salt's) part to meet his views as far as possible. At the same time, he must observe that it would have been difficult to frame the Resolution so as to be applicable to a Vote in Supply. He trusted, therefore, that, on the whole, the course that had been adopted would not be found inconvenient. In bringing this subject under the notice of the House, he was actuated by no desire to make a Party attack upon the right hon. Gentleman—on the contrary, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would entirely agree with roost of his observations, although he might object to the conclusions which he drew from the facts of the case. He desired, at the outset, to meet two objections that might he raised to his Resolution. In the first place, it might be said that in bringing forward this Resolution he showed that he was no friend to elementary education. It, however, was because he was a real friend to elementary education that he had framed this Notice. In the second place, it might be supposed that he was opposed to the amount of the Parliamentary grant. Had that been the case, he would have raised the discussion upon the Estimates on the previous night. It was not the amount he intended to criticize. Possibly he might criticize its application and use. Of course, if it could be said a very large expenditure of necessity produced an excellent and valuable system of education there would be nothing to do but to look to the grant; but it by no means followed that a grant, growing in amount year by year, was administered in the most economical and efficient manner. Large expenditure did not necessarily imply sound education. If the House gave this money with no ungrudging hand it behoved them to watch carefully that it was expended to the best advantage. In his Motion he had referred to the expectation held out by the Act of 1870, and he would quote two passages from the debates of 1870, often quoted before, but which he should quote in a somewhat different sense. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), speaking on July 5, 1870, said it was not probable that any charge for the purposes of the Bill would exceed 3d. in the pound. Then, on the 7th July, 1870, the Prime Minister said—

"I only speak of the limit of the permanent burden, and it is reduced by the proposition of my right hon. Friend to 3d. in the pound."

Now, those statements he could not claim as pledges. No Minister, however powerful, could possibly limit the amount of the rate for the future. Nothing could do that but a clause in the Act itself; but he could not but think that those statements had been incautiously made, and that, proceeding, as they did, from right hen. Gentlemen of such eminence as statesmen, they had greatly misled public opinion. They must remember by whom these expectations were held out. The one was one of the most remarkable statesmen that Europe had produced in this century. The other was not only an eminent statesman, but also, as they had been told, an eminent philanthropist. Upon the suggestions made by such persons, compromise was effected, and action was founded. The expectation from the Act of 1870 was that the rate, as a general rule, would not exceed 3d. in the pound; but what was the result 12 years later? The School Board rate of London was 6d., gradually rising to 7d.; and so far from the scale throughout the country being anything like 3d., there were 1,491 School Board districts where the rate was above 3d., and only 252 where the rate was below that. The cost of building school board schools had been enormous, amounting, on the average, to £12 per child; whereas the cost of building voluntary schools only amounted to £57s. per head. In the Education Report for 1882 one of the Inspectors said the cost to the ratepayers for the erection of 26 permanent board schools built in Southwark was £397,679, and the account was not closed. The average cost of building a school was something like £15,295, and the average cost per child £16. In one large town, a board school had cost £23 148. 8d. per scholar, another £20 9s. 7d., and another at a cost of £53 1s. 9d. per scholar. Contrast with these schools built at Birkenhead for 976 children at a cost of £5 10s. per head, and a British school to accommodate 761 at a cost of £3,480. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Does that include the site?] He believed it did, but was not quite sure; but he would give the right hon Gentleman the correction if he was mistaken. But he would take other figures, where there would be no difficulty as to sites and small details. It was stated in the Education Report for 1882 that between 1839 and 1881 a stun of £1,766,000 was given from the public funds for the purpose of building elementary schools—Parliamentary grants of that kind had now ceased—for the education of 1,233,000 children, the remainder being made up by voluntary contributions; but under the new board system, from 1870 to 1881, the expenditure in building schools by the money derived from rates had been £13,784,000, and the number of scholars provided for was 1,124, 000 only. Under the old system, the money spent did not take a penny from the pockets of the ratepayers, and it left no debt behind it; but under the second system there was a large burden, a debt of £13,000,000, which would continue for 50 years at least. Certainly the Act of 1870 was productive of many blessings. He willingly acknowledged that; but he contended the working of the Act had been most expensive. He would now take another line of figures, which he thought could not be challenged. While the average cost per scholar in attendance before the passing of the Act had been £1 5s. 5d., it was now £1 16s. 8d. Thus in board schools in 1872 the cost per head of each scholar in attendance was £1 8s. 4d., whereas it was now £2 1s. 6d. throughout the country generally, and £2 17s. in London. There was, however, one crumb of comfort, and that was that the average cost had remained almost stationary during the last three years. In 1870 it was estimated that the cost per head would rise from £1 5s. per head to 30s. per head, to be made up of 15s. from the public funds, 7s. 6d. from the parents, and 7s. 6d. of rate in school board schools, or of subscriptions in voluntary schools. The result showed where the pressure really lay. Thus in 1881 the grant to board schools amounted to 15s. 10d. per head, and to voluntary schools to 15s. 7d., just what it had been anticipated it would be. The ratepayers, however, had been called upon to pay 16s. 11d., instead of 7s. 6d., while, in voluntary schools, the parents had had to pay 11s. per head and the subscribers 7s. 1d. per head. He would observe there were many things which had happened that were not anticipated in 1870 when the Act was introduced. He by no means blamed those who originated the Act, still less did he blame those who from year to year had administered it; but in this year of 1883 they found many things in existence which would have astonished men if they had heard of them in 1870. Amongst others, that the ratepayers were powerless to prevent excessive expenditure; that a different class of persons sent their children to the board schools than it was expected would do so; that such extravagant sums should be spent on buildings; that head masters received £242 a-year instead of £100; that there should be in the Metropolis alone a staff of scores of Inspectors and Visitors; and that ebonized pianos and Turkey carpets should be the necessary furniture of a training ship. He did not mean to say that much of the expenditure that had been incurred was not necessary; but what he did say was that there was a state of things that was not contemplated when the Act of 1870 was passed. They had plunged into the stream, and the stream had carried them very much farther than they expected. Another point to which in his Motion he had called particular attention was the varying amount of the rate in different districts. There were 148 places in which it amounted to 1s. and upwards; 214 where it was 9d. to 1s.; 519 from 6d. to 9d.; 610, 3d. to 6d.; 200 from 1d. to 3d.; and 52 where it was below 1d. These latter, as might be expected, were places where there were school boards, but no board schools. That rate, varying in amount from ½d. to 2s. 3d., was purely national in character. The object of the system was the education of the poorest children in the country. He must notice just for one moment the effect of this heavy school rating upon the supporters of voluntary schools. They had made four complaints. They complained, in the first place, that they were compelled to pay rates for board schools and, at the same time, to support their own school. This, in effect, frequently meant that they were paying twice over. Secondly, many supporters of voluntary schools complained very strongly that they were in favour of a definite religious instruction, and that they were compelled to subscribe to board schools, where there was such religious education. Those complaints came from persons worthy of the highest respect, who made great personal sacrifices for the cause they had at heart. The third ground of complaint was that building grants were withdrawn from them—they had to build at their own cost, and could not borrow; whereas school boards had unlimited borrowing powers, with repayment spread over 50 years. The fourth complaint was that the operations of the board schools had so increased their expenses that they found it almost impossible to carry on their own schools. In the Province of Ontario our Colonists had a method of solving that question which, though he did not recommend it for our adoption, possessed merit and ingenuity. Five heads of families were empowered to summon a meeting and appoint three trustees, who, on application to the district school authority, could be constituted a Corporation, establish schools and levy rates on the subscribers and on the parents of the children. Persons so contributing were exempt from the general school rate. There was one curious effect which the school board rate had upon a well-deserving class of the community. He referred to the middle class. The middle class shopkeeper in the town in which there was a school rate was in this position—he paid for the education of his own children, and he also paid for the education of the poor people's children. The result of this was that the children of the poor people received an education which enabled them to compete with the tradesman's own sons. Now, the Act of 1870 had done both too little and too much. One of the great objects of the Act was to reach the gutter children. [Mr. MUNDELLA: All children.] In point of fact, there had been a complete failure to reach those children. The right hon. Gentleman himself, speaking at Birmingham on January 15th, 1883, admitted that there was scarcely any change in their criminal statistics, and that they still had to bring the poor Arabs out of the streets. Mr. Wilks, of the London School Board, said that the system had failed to reach the waifs and strays of society. Sir Edmund Currie, speaking of the Tower Hamlets, said there were as many poor children in the streets now as there were eight years ago. Notwithstanding all that, no less than £31,285 was spent in 1882 for the purpose of getting the children to attend the schools. The present system of elementary education had erred in doing too much in two ways. It had imposed too much labour both upon teachers and scholars; and next it had aimed at subjects not suited for mere elementary instruction, children who were scantily fed and scantily clothed, and who could not be expected to exert their brains like the children of parents well-to-do. What he complained of was the wholesale system of treating all children alike, whatever their mental capacities or social circumstances might be. He did not say that every child was overworked; but a great many children suffered from this high pressure of education, and sufficient care was not taken to adapt the instruction to the capacity and strength of the child. He believed the object of the Act of 1870 was to give an education suited to the children of persons who were to obtain their living by manual labour; but in many cases the instruction given could only be of use to persons in a far higher position. There was, however, one of the specific subjects that at first sight promised to be practicable and easy; and in regard to that he had made a careful search among the Reports of the Inspectors. He referred to domestic economy, and he would proceed to give the result. One Inspector reported—

"Only one-third of the girls presented in domestic economy passed; more nonsense has, I believe, been written in answer to questions on this subject than all the rest put together."

Another wrote in a way to illustrate that opinion—

"A girl of Standard V., in one of the most favourably-situated schools, when asked to write a short account of soda, replies, 'Soda is an utensil with which we wash ourselves.' Another, in the same Standard, whilst writing very neatly and speaking correctly, in answer to the question, 'What points should be borne in mind in looking for a house?' replies, 'You should always sec if the drains do not smell, and the ventilation are cleaned out; because, if not, perhaps we should catch fever or any other degrees.'"

These girls would have been better employed in cleaning their mother's house. He would give only two more short quotations. One Inspector said—

"I am fully persuaded that, unless several hours can be added to a day, and the school staff materially increased, to take up specific subjects is a positive injury to the proper teaching of elementary and extra subjects."

And another—

"Physical geography. This has been a favourite subject with teachers, for one obvious reason at least—namely, that more money can be got with less trouble in physical geography than in any other way."

Complaint had been made, in eloquent terms, by a recent French writer of the effect of excessive pressure in the elementary schools. He compared the present with 10 years ago, and with what might be expected 10 years hence. He showed how great the stride in expenditure and how great the change in teaching had been; and then, looking forward, said that in another 10 years every child would be expected to know many things of which the Senators and Deputies who passed the Education Laws were themselves ignorant. He described the fatigue of an examination. Every day beforehand added something to the burden. The child bore it bravely, he staggered along without turning right or left, without thought or care for anything else. At last the day arrived. Breathless and exhausted, he threw down the burden at the feet of the examiner; he felt relief; he stretched; he was at ease again; he emptied himself at once of all this cram, once and for ever, so completely that he forgot it all, and retained neither the will nor the power to study more. The school board system had been making great progress during the last 10 years. It was now a recognized system, though it was originally created to supplement, not to supplant, the voluntary schools. He was not prepared to say that it was right that it should embrace the whole education of the country. In 1872 there were only 82 board schools in England; in 1877 there were 2,089; and in 1881, 3,075. Again, in 1872, the school board rate amounted to £3,254; in 1881 it amounted to £738,737. At the same time, 959 or more voluntary schools had been transferred to school boards. The system was a great and growing system, which, under existing circumstances, must increase and strengthen every day; for the voluntary schools had not sufficient vigour to withstand the great money power that the school boards possessed. The question then arose, was it desirable that the country should be entirely handed over to the school board system? It was very much a system of grind and of work. He did not mean to say that the school boards had not been of great value to the country; but he should be very sorry to see the old-fashioned schools altogether abandoned. He believed it was most desirable for the country that, if possible, the two systems should exist in vigour and thrive side by side together. His desire had been to put forward some ideas and suggestions which he believed to be worthy of consideration. He hardly, at that moment, expected a very definite reply from the Vice President; but he did hope for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he would give serious attention to the points that he (Mr. Salt) had ventured to lay before the House. In the interests of elementary education, in the interest of the poor who were taught, and of the poor who paid, and, he believed he might venture to add, for the credit of Parliament and of the Government of the country, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in seconding the Motion, said: The desire I have long felt to see some effectual curb put upon the imposition of school rates, and the excess of school board expenditure, would not have induced me to second this Motion if it were of a Party or sectarian character. Great and grievous discontent prevails among the ratepaying community, especially in London, at the breach of conditions on which the Act of 1870 was passed; and as far as I know there is hardly a subject on which there is more unanimity of feeling. But as one of those who steadily supported that measure, and who did not shrink, when difficulty arose regarding its application in the Metropolis, from lending aid which was frankly accepted by the Government, and from taking my full share of work in bringing the Act into operation, I feel bound to raise my earnest remonstrance against the gradual perversion of the system to purposes that were never avowed, and I hope never intended. We were asked to impose on the occupiers of rateable property, the bulk of whom may be fairly designated as the struggling classes, a charge previously unknown in aid of primary education. Voluntary schools, with the help of grants from the Privy Council, had done a great deal; but confessedly they were unable to reach a poor and helpless outlying mass; and Parliament was asked by the right hon. Member for Bradford and the Prime Minister to set up board schools, not to supplant those existing, but to supplement them, and to gather up the waifs and strays of childhood, that nothing should be lost to the usable strength of the State. As far as that purpose was really meant, and to whatever extent it has been attained, I commend and I am ready to sustain it as cordially as ever. But I regret to be compelled to say that, like other young institutions, that of board schools has wandered frequently and far from the straight path of its duty. The questionable and, I think, Quixotic ambition to obtain control of higher education, for which it is unadapted, and which it has no just means of supporting, diverts continually its thoughts and its resources from the proper objects of its care; and causes a yearly augmentation of burdens which ratepayers, already overtaxed, feel to be intolerable. Rates, we are sometimes told, come out of rent; if a man pays so much more rate, he gets au abatement of rent, and so there is no hardship. Put in a rising market for houses this is not true; and when you propose to put on a rate for the first time for primary schools, it was certain enough that the charge would come out of the householder's pocket. I well remember, in a conference at the house of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), the fitness of rates to bear the newly proposed burden was fully discussed, upon the objection that if primary instruction be a public duty it is a national obligation, and ought to be discharged out of the Ways and Means of the nation at large. The objection was overborne. But, speaking for the largest section of the ratepaying community represented in this House as part of the Metropolitan area, I say, deliberately and distinctly, that if you had not held out the lure already named, and if you had not held out the positive inducement that the rates should never exceed 3d. in the pound, I, for one, would net have agreed to the Act of 1870; and I do not believe that my Metropolitan Colleagues would have been authorized by their constituents to give that measure their support. I am not making any charge of wilful breach of faith; I deprecate language to that effect whenever it is used. Our duty here is to deal with tendencies and results, not with intentions or miscalculations. It is right, however, that the fact should be recalled when we are taking stock of our progress, and seeking to bring back daily practice to the original design. The 3d. maximum rate does not rest upon vague recollection of words spoken in debate, but is capable of absolute proof, as I undertake to show. I hold in my hand the original Elementary Schools Bill, introduced on the 17th of February, 1870, and not finally passed until the end of the Session. The 84th clause of that Bill promised a guarantee that when, in any parish, the 3d. rate did not produce more than £20 a year, the deficiency should be made up, not by an extra rate, but by an extra grant from the Privy Council. In a word, the great broad and wholesome principle was professed, and, as we hoped and believed, faithfully laid down, that primary instruction of the needy classes was the duty of the whole Kingdom, and was to be undertaken substantially for the national good. Localities were to pay a limited rate in order to create a check on expenditure; but it never was whispered that localities were to be left to the caprice of temporary and, therefore, irresponsible school boards; or that these were to be used by the Government as a machinery for trying fantastical experiments and empirical theories in the system of over-cram. It never was contemplated seriously by Parliament that, under the misleading pretence of screwing up the general standard of book knowledge, tested by competitive examination, a furtive and insidious means might be found for sapping and mining religious schools. At first, when the legal limit of local rates was exceeded, excuses were made that the excess was only a little; and when all sorts of subjects of higher education were one by one added under the expanding Code, we were told that it did not signify, for it was only this, and only that, and only t' other. A College friend of mine accused his servant once of making free with what did not belong to him; the man protested his innocence often; but, being at last found out, declared he meant no harm, for he never meddled with any but three things, which he really thought were allowable, tea and sugar was one, wine and spirits was two, and coals and candles was three. But public patience is worn out at last, and endurance has reached its limits. The Committee of Council stimulate rather than chock the overstrain, which I believe to be a most pernicious infatuation; and in this and other ways egg on the school board to ever-augmenting expense. In London the rate is more than double what we stipulated for, and new schools on the most expensive pattern are continually erecting, where they are not really wanted, apparently to break the heart of the existing voluntary schools. Within the last month, in the parish of St. Giles's, Bloomsbury, what has occurred? Many years ago a central building was raised at a great expense, capable of accommodating from 900 to 1,000 children, and when the Act of 1870 was passed I can bear witness that it was constantly full. A portion of the parish, however, was overcrowded with poor, and the London School Board, of which during the first year I was a member, along with Mr. Samuel Morley, Viscount Landon, and Mr. W. H. Smith, were told that an additional school house was wanted. To provide for the wastrals and the necessitous provision was accordingly made, part out of rates, part out of fees, and part out of grants, no one, as far as I know, complaining. Other board schools were built in adjoining parishes close by, and the general effect on the old establishment in Endell Street, was to drain it of half its scholars. Still we forbore to complain; but what have we now? Within the parish, whose population is greatly diminished in the last decade, the Board supply accommodation already for 2,892 children, though the average attendance is but 2,100; nevertheless, they are going to add 441 additional places, at a cost of £24,470 for site and building, with a probable outlay besides of £4,500 for a new playground; and this while 400 places are actually vacant in the old voluntary school. You will never persuade an intelligent people that this is all needful and right, or that you ought thus egregiously trifle with the means of livelihood of the peaceful and hard toiling community, while one-half the Kingdom is wholly exempt from liability to the burden thus mounting up year after year. Nineteen out of 20 common-sense people you talk to—whether Anglican, Catholic, or Wesleyan—declare that you are rather unfitting than fitting thousands of poor children for honestly earning their bread; and I grieve to add that the suspicion deepens daily among men of various creeds that the rates are misapplied with the unconfessed purpose of steadily reducing all primary instruction to the French dead level of secularism. I do not say that all who are engaged in the operation realize the ultimate purpose; but I say that the experiment thus 'making is unwarrantable and unwise; and now that at last silence on the subject has been broken, I am convinced that Parliament will have no peace until means are taken to bring back the expenditure of school boards within proper bounds. It is quite true that voluntary schools, by the help of earnest and munificent friends, are trying to keep their ground; and it is to their infinite credit that in some cases they still succeed in doing so. But everyone who watches steadily what is going on around him, and who candidly tells what lie sees, must own that the high pressure of board school competition daily threatens to squeeze the voluntary schools out of existence. Members of school boards, and all who hold office under the Committee of Education, avow their belief in the course of events; but say it is inevitable. Inevitable is the most good-for-nothing word in the language. Nothing in legislation unjust, inexpedient, or wrong is inevitable, if we only make up our minds to arrest or amend it. If you will not make rates universal instead of partial, and if you will not allow each parent to pay his rates, like the fees of his children, into whatever school he pleases, then there is the other alternative of charging the whole expense between fees, benefactors, and public grants, which I, fer one, believe would be a fairer and wiser plan. Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the unforeseen and growing amount of the school rate; its unequal pressure upon various districts and various classes of the community; its failure in some cases to meet the requirements of the most necessitous classes; and the circumstance that it involves expenditure not originally anticipated, call for the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government with a view to the relief of the burdens of the ratepayers, while maintaining, in accordance with the original intention of The Education Act, 1870',' the efficiency of elementary education,"—(Mr. Salt,)

—instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, that it would have been impossible for anyone holding the views of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) to have expressed those views with greater moderation and fairness to his opponents. The hon. Member urged that the original object of the Education Act was to supplement, and not supplant, the voluntary schools. He had himself, in carrying the Bill through, stated that as its object over and over again. But his hon. Friend was quite mistaken in saying that the result had been otherwise. The Act had, in fact, supplemented, and not supplanted, denominational schools. In 1870 in the National schools the average attendance of children was 882,000. Now the number had risen to 1,552,000. As he saw his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Sir Charles Russell) present, he would refer to the Roman Catholic schools. He had no figures for 1870 with regard to them, but in 1873 there was an average attendance of 90,000 children in Catholic schools; but now, greatly to the credit of that religion, the number was 163,000. He thought it was matter for Congratulation that, although the school board system was absolutely necessary, voluntary effort had not been discouraged, but had increased in far greater ratio than the population. He admitted that he had expressed his belief that the rate would not exceed 3d. in the pound, and he was supported in that opinion by those who had the largest experience of educational questions. His hon. Friend seemed to be under the impression that in the original Bill there was a clause limiting the rate to 3d. That was a mistaken idea, as the 84th clause was, in the end, substantially the same as when the Bill was introduced. He had, however, since that time had so much experience of political life that he should not be inclined, on any subject, to venture upon prophecy again. There were several reasons for the mistake into which he had fallen. The first was that a far greater educational destitution existed than anyone imagined, and he could only congratulate the country that adequate efforts had been made to provide for that destitution. His Predecessor (Lord Robert Montagu) had estimated that there were in the country about 350,000 children to be provided for. But the increase in the number of children being educated had risen from 1,700,000 in 1870 to 4,500,000 in 1883, and the average attendance from 1,150,000 to 3,000,000. Then schools had to be built. Then there had been an increase in the cost of educating the children, which had risen from 25s. 5d. to 36s. 8½d. a-head. The main cause of that increase was the higher salaries now given to masters and mistresses. The salaries of masters had risen by 26 per cent, and those of mistresses by 28 per cent. He might be charged with want of economy, but he could not but rejoice at that result. The increase in salaries had arisen partly from the fact that teachers were formerly underpaid, and partly from the greatly increased demand consequent upon the passing of the Act. They certainly had a much more efficient educational staff for their schools than existed before the passing of the Act. He did not believe that the very poor children were being neglected. There might be some "gutter" children still out, but nothing like so many as there were. Large numbers were being brought in, and these children required more teaching power to be brought to bear on them than children coming from more comfortable homes; and in order to get the work done it was found necessary to have a larger staff of masters and mistresses, and, perhaps, fewer pupil - teachers. Hon. Members who had spoken thought that the special subjects had a good deal to do with the cost, but he was certain they had very little. Almost every special subject was met by the Government grant. The first and most important business was to give a thoroughly good elementary education—reading, writing, and ciphering—and he trusted the day was far distant when there would not be alongside that a Scriptural education. The Act of 1870 had not resulted in a purely secular system; but, as he believed, in a more thoroughly Scriptural and religious teaching than existed before. But he should be sorry to suppose that the country would be satisfied with mere reading, writing, and ciphering. The hon. Member had quoted examples of ridiculous answers. Such instances could be found in any examination in the Kingdom, if anyone chose to amuse himself or the House by seeking for them. A few ridiculous answers were no proof that knowledge was not being taught. The boys now at school would be the voters of the future, and it was not desirable to debar them from a knowledge of the history of their country, or the geography of that Empire with the management of which they would probably have something to do. In no respect had the Vice President shown his absolute fitness for the Office more than by the way in which he had considered both sides of this question—acknowledging that the chief object was to give a really good elementary educa- tion, not discouraging special subjects, but not pestering the children with too many subjects. He rather expected that the hon. Member for Stafford would have suggested what changes he thought ought to be made in the mode of raising the money. When the Act passed it was stated that an increase would be given in the Government grant, and that pledge had been thoroughly fulfilled. The average attendance had increased 260 per cent; the Government grant, 320 per cent; voluntary contributions, 70 per cent; and the fees, 210 per cent. Ought they to take a larger proportion out of the taxes than they did at this moment? The Government grant was then 35 per cent of the total income, and was now 40 per cent; and he confessed that he thought it would be a disadvantage to education to give a larger proportion out of the public taxation. He would give, very briefly, one or two reasons why there should not be a larger increase in the taxes. The result of it would be that one set of people would be managing, and another set spending; and that meant extravagance to begin with, and also, in his belief, inefficiency. In his opinion, it was most desirable to keep up the local management, and he was sure that the management would be much less efficient if the money were mainly paid by the State. Then it had been said how much fairer it would be to the subscribers to voluntary schools if the taxes supplied the money; but they would only be taking out of one pocket instead of the other, taking taxes instead of rates. Under the present system if people thought there was extravagance they had the remedy in their own hands, and could vote for Members who held with a policy of "strict economy," which, however, often really meant starving education; and the large majority of the constituents in London, and, he believed, in every large town, had decided against that policy. He had only one other remark to make. Allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Stafford to what he called the "Canada" system. There was a great deal of attraction in the proposal; but he believed that the more it was looked at the more generally those interested in education would come to the conclusion that it was utterly impossible to work it in this country. Practically, there were only two denomina- tions in Canada, and the number of denominations alone would make it impossible in England. It was, also, contrary to the very principle of rate management, which was that the ratepayers should choose the persons who were to dispose of the rates. But he was quite sure of this—that a proposal more likely to injure the interests of denominational schools could not be conceived. He did not wish to refer to the old controversies that bad taken place, mere than to say that he was sure that, for the interests of denominational schools, the more they had them separated from the school boards the better it was for them. It was easy to find theoretical faults, but, in so doing, they must set one against another; and he would be prepared, in the interests of education, to uphold the view he held before, and would only state that they must, if they looked at the theoretical unfairness on one side, look at it also on the ether. He might, perhaps, be considered conceited; but he had seen nothing in the working of the Education Act since it was passed to lead him to think that they did not arrive at the best system. At any rate, they might have the comfort that, although there was much yet to do, there had been more done in the last 12 years than any man interested in education could suppose possible to be done.

said, he hoped the House would allow him to make a personal explanation on behalf of the London School Board, which had been attacked. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) referred three or four times in the course of his speech to the secular education of the London School Board, of which the hen. Member had been a member, and must, therefore, have been familiar with its debates on the question of religious instruction. The London School Board passed a resolution with reference to Scriptural instruction, which became a pattern for all the school boards throughout the country. That resolution was, in substance, that the principles of religion and morality should be taught from the Bible, but that the teachers should be warned against proselytizing; and on that resolution the Board had acted ever since. It was in reference to the Scriptural instruction that the Vice President of the Council, when distri- buting prizes to the schools a few days ago, complained that it was, perhaps, a little too ambitious, and went too minutely into the facts of the Bible. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Finsbury must either have been very forgetful or very hasty when he spoke several times during his speech of the dead secular level to which the London School Board were striving to drag down the education of the children of London. With regard, also, to the combined charge of gross extravagance and of malicious unfairness to voluntary schools which the hon. Member brought against the London School Board, he was completely in error in the statements lie made, and in contending that the Board were erecting schools in the neighbourhood of voluntary schools, with the object of driving the voluntary element out of the field. The supporters of the Church schools had no justification for the complaint of the increasing pressure in consequence of the competition of the board schools. In 1870, before board schools were established, their subscriptions amounted to 7s. 6d. per child; in 1883 they paid exactly the same amount. But the general taxpayer paid them an increased sum of 14s. 9d., instead of 8s. 9d. per child; while the children in average attendance were paying 10s. 5d., instead of 8s.; and by the utilization of public property, in the shape of old endowments, the miscellaneous contribution to the total cost of £1 14s. 9d. per child had increased from 1s. 4d. to 2s. The Church schools, by raising their fees, had taken the pick of the pupils, and had sent the unsatisfactory children to the board schools. He would briefly give the history of attendance in the London board schools up to the 1st of July, 1883. In December, 1871, there was an average attendance of 174,000 in all the schools of London; in June, 1883, the number was 430,000. In June, 1883, there were 175,000 in voluntary schools, as against 173,000 at the beginning of the school board system, notwithstanding that many voluntary schools were, in the interval, transferred to the board schools. In the board schools the average attendance was 255,000. With respect to the enforcement of attendances, he would say that the average of attendance had risen to 72 per cent of the whole number on the books throughout the United Kingdom. But, in London, the average attendance was 81·3 in the board schools, and 80·2 in the voluntary schools. Thus a comparatively regular attendance had been attained. But even that was not satisfactory. Paris, where compulsion had only been introduced in the last year, had an average attendance of 94 or 95 per cent; and in Holland there was a similar high attendance. As to the cost of school buildings, no doubt that was a very great item; but it must be remembered that the sites were very costly, especially as compulsory powers were exercised. It was also the duty of the School Board to see that the schools were thoroughly well built. Curiously enough, it was the fact that the Education Department required more space and cubic feet of air for board schools than for voluntary schools. In a voluntary school 8 feet of superficial space per child was required, whereas in a board school it was 10 feet per child; and, therefore, the same amount of space in a board school was required for seating 80 children that was sufficient in a voluntary school for seating 100 children. He thought the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) would, therefore, see that the sanitary arrangements in the board schools were so good as to be worth the money spent upon them. He would just say one word upon the complaint of hon. Members as to the injustice of taxing people for the general State education of the country who were maintaining the private education of their own children in accordance with their own religious principles. No doubt, the argument was a popular and an intelligible one; but it led directly to the Disestablishment of a State Church, because if it was unjust for Episcopalians to contribute to the rates for maintaining unsectarian schools, it was an injustice towards Jews and unsectarians to require them to contribute towards a State Establishment from which they derived no benefit and which was repugnant to their feelings. He had other arguments in his quiver whenever the Disestablishment debate came on, which he should be glad to discharge for the benefit of the hon. Members who supported a State Church. He had expected to have heard a little more from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) as to the injustice of the incidence of taxation. He thought the incidence of taxation in towns was pretty nearly fair upon rich and poor alike; but in the rural districts, where the taxation was placed upon the land alone, which formed the capital of the farm, while other forms of property were untaxed, it appeared to be unjust; and when the great question of Rating and County Government, and other cognate topics, came up for discussion, he hoped some method would be devised by which local burdens might be more fairly distributed over various classes of property. It was a large question, however, involving many considerations; and he trusted that some day it would be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. He thought there was one matter in which the State might make a subvention in connection with the burden of school board taxation, and that was in the way of defraying the cost of enforcing the school board by laws in reference to attendance. It was in the nature of a police charge, and not an education charge; and although he did not care to have it put upon Imperial instead of local funds, yet he saw in it no such danger of diminishing the efficiency of the schools as would result from the transferrence of other burdens.

wished to remind the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) that in that House he sat as a member of Parliament, and not as a Member of the London School Board. He therefore declined to follow his hon. Friend into the wonderful statistics which were exhibited by the management of the London School Board. He prefered to advert for a moment to some of the statements of his right lion. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster,) who had made a confession in regard to the false prophecy lie had made in 1870. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman mended the matter by saying that other people had been false prophets as well as himself. He thought the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had been compelled to declare that he had pressed the Bill upon the House upon false calculations was sufficient to induce the House to support the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) in declaring that the matter did require the serious reconsideration of Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Leighton) approached this question not as a Churchman, but as an educationalist, as a philanthropist, and as a taxpayer. He impugned the existing system, both as to the manner in which it had been originated and as to the manner in which it had been carried on. He did not say that all the abuses which at present existed were the creation or the fault of the right hon. Gentleman; but the right hon. Gentleman was the representative of the system, and he was never tired of declaring that it was, as nearly as possible, perfection. He thought it was almost unworthy of Parliament, and almost a discredit to the nation, that there should, every year, be a paean sung on the state of education, when, after all, it was open to the gravest criticism. Viscount Sherbrooke, when a Member of the House of Commons, specially warned the House against creating a great Government monopoly of education. But what had they done? They had created a great Government Department, which had under its command 40,000 teachers and 9,700,000 pupils, and this enormous Department—larger than the Army or Navy—was one which must surely exercise a tremendous influence over the people of this country. With regard to the rates, the expectation with which the Act of 1870 was introduced had entirely failed. Of that he would speak later on. As to the quality of the education, it was originally intended to be elementary education. What was elementary education? He would not use his own words, but those of the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright)—

"That a child should be taught to write so as to be read, and to read so as to be understood, and to cipher without mental effort."

Yet he found, among the subjects taught in the board schools, Latin, French, botany, chemistry, and elementary science. These were special subjects, but they were subjects paid for out of the rates, and they entered into the elementary education of the country. Then, again, let them test the sincerity of the regard of the Department for the really elementary subjects by the action of their own Inspectors. The other day, in a country school in a remote part of the Kingdom, an Inspector paid a visit of inspection, and the first question he asked the children was to explain the solar system. Of course, the managers and the teachers and everyone else were aghast at that question; but the Inspector declared that he could not satisfy his conscience without putting such questions. He was producing no exceptional example of the method and spirit in which rural schools were inspected. What did men like Mr. Francombe, of Redcliffe, say—

"The number of subjects now being taught in our schools greatly impairs the results in the three Ws, and few boys leave school able to read well or spell correctly."

The Chairman of the Committee of the National Union of Elementary Teachers, speaking as the representative of that Union, stated that the New Code was distinctly higher now than the Old Code, and the Secretary of the same Society asserted that serious pressure went on under the system. Therefore, whether for good or whether for evil, there had been a departure from the plan laid down in the original Education Act. He would examine the question, not vaguely, but on evidence which would be received in a Court of Law. First, he would call the attention of the House to a Petition lately presented to them. He would only read the words of the Petition, and not in any way use his own. The words of the Petition were so hideous that he thought they would scarcely be credited. These were the words of the Petition, and the Petition itself came from the Bradford School Board—

"Information has reached the board of the undoubted existence of prostitution amongst the girls of school ago in the borough of Bradford, who are in actual attendance at schools."

And that experience he believed was borne out by the experience of London as well. Passing from that most shocking result of gathering 300 or 400 girls together, without placing them under moral influences, he would go on to another result, not so shocking, perhaps, but which seemed to him to be still more sad. What did the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Chairman of the Lunacy Commission, say—

"Insanity generally has diminished; but the proportion of lunatics among the teaching class and children has risen."

Many people had begun to see that the forcing system in schools, and the burning competition for places among teachers, were producing mental injury. What did other testimony from Scotland prove? It showed that insanity had increased among the teaching class through overpressure in the schools, and there had been a large increase in the percentage of deaths among children of school age from brain disease. That was not given as the result of a careless investigation, but as the result of comparing the six years before the Education Act with the last six years. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council received the cheers of the House the other night when he described how many children were gathered together in the schools; but the doctors said that if the system was persisted in, without reforming it, the development of the children must suffer. Was it surprising that mothers said — "You are killing our children?" And was it surprising that the teachers said—"We want our grant, and we must make them pass?" This came of the system of paying by results, without regard to circumstances. They had heard how the system had failed in gathering together the gutter children, and in getting them to enter the schools. To use the words of the Rev. Mr. Cox-head—

"The poorer class of children is gradually being thrown upon the streets."

But the very first duty of school boards was to gather in the Arabs of the streets, the children of the poorest of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that, so far from supplanting, he had really supplemented the voluntary system. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was sorry that the Charity Commissioners, who ought to know quite as well as the right hon. Gentleman, held an entirely different opinion on the subject. This was what they said in their last Report in describing the competition of the board schools with the higher elementary education—

"The third grade of endowed schools will be practically emptied and rendered practically useless by a competition such as we have indicated, a contingency which we cannot but regard with anxiety;"

and then the Commissioners went on to describe the serious mischief that was being done, and the great waste of pecuniary resources which would inevitably follow. If the system was doing good, if the system of pure elementary education was really being promoted, he should have very little to say; but, even in connection with the London School Board itself, Mr. Thomas declared that the result of the administration of the London School Board was a failure. The extravagance of the School Board, and their ambition, had greatly increased the rates, and had greatly injured the poor. It was not the fault of the principle of the Act of 1870, but the fault of its administration. He did not think that people fully recognized the enormous increase of the education rates. He would refer to one individual case, the type of hundreds throughout the country—namely, the country parish of Stoken Church, in Oxfordshire, where the school board rate was 2s. 1½d. What did that mean? It meant enhanced house rent. It meant that the cottager had to pay 10s. a-year more for his cottage. And what did it mean in regard to farmers? A farmer with a ratal of only £500 a-year, paid £50 to the school board rates. If a man had £10,000 a-year, he considered £50 a considerable sum to pay, as a subscription, towards a school; and yet here a farmer whose rental was only £500 a - year, and whose income was probably about £300, had to pay in the parish of Stoken Church upwards of £50 a year in school board rates; the sum came upon him suddenly, without any provision having been made to meet it. He would ask if that was fair towards the ratepayers? He concurred very much with the suggestion which had been made by the Home Secretary when the Education Bill was under discussion in 1870; and he did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had ever withdrawn his opinion since that time—

"The education rate should be limited, and the pressure of the residuary charge, whatever it is, should be borne by the Treasury."

He would put a question to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this case—we were within a measurable distance of this contingency—what would be the result if the supporters of the voluntary schools withdrew their subscriptions? And he (Mr. Leighton), for one, would certainly be ready to support that step. The result would be that it would throw £2,000,000 on the rates of the country in a single year; and he did not believe that even a Government so strong, so wise, and so self-satisfied as the present Government, could stand a blow like that. £2,000,000 would be thrown on the rates if the support given to volun- tary schools by voluntary subscribers was withdrawn and these schools were thrown upon the educational rate. It had been said that no remedy for the existing state of things had been suggested. He could suggest several. First of all, let them limit the rate, and increase the grant; then let them keep elementary separate from secondary education; let them make it easy for the children to pass from one stage to the other—that was to say, from the elementary and State-aided schools to the higher grade schools; let them abolish overtime and home lessons, and let thorn encourage half-time and physical education. These seemed to him to be the methods by which they should endeavour to reform the system of education in this country. It was the dual control—half Governmental and half local—which increased the expenditure, and made it almost impossible to carry on the education of the country properly. The Government, with the generosity which always belonged to Departments of the State, laid all the blame of failures and abuses on the local managers; but, in point of fact, the local managers were helpless. They were at the mercy of a superior task-master in the Department, and were forced to make all they could out of the undeveloped brains of the children, and the result was the physical exhaustion of the children. In the face of, and against the protest of, such men as Mill and Herbert Spencer, who always declared that there should not be a Government monopoly of education, a Government monopoly was being inaugurated. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would not oppose the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), for all that the Resolution declared was that the matter required the serious consideration of the Government with a view to its amendment.

said, that, in rising to address a few observations to the House upon this question, he desired to make his attitude in regard to it perfectly clear. He regretted that the Question before the House was not that suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the working of the Act of 1870. That Act had been in operation for some 13 years, and the school boards had spent a good many millions of money in carrying it out, in addition to having incurred a considerable amount of debt beyond the sum actually raised by taxation. He recognized that, under the operation of the Act, great work had been done; but he thought it was fitting, after 13 years' experience, that they should inquire how far an Act of Parliament, which in its nature was experimental, had worked; whether the large SUMS raised by taxation under it lied been raised in the best way, whether they were applied in the best manner, and whether the State was getting full value for the cost. He (Mr. Charles Russell) was specially interested with reference to its operation upon the voluntary schools, and particularly upon the voluntary schools of, en the whole, the poorest class in the country, — namely, the Catholic community. The House and the country would be generous enough to recollect that those schools stood in an unique position. Catholics could not conscientiously avail themselves, and they did not, of the board schools. They believed that religious should accompany secular teaching. They did not admit that the school board Bible-teaching was religious education, properly so called, although the religious sense of some classes in the community was satisfied by it. But it was clear that, even if it were, it was not the religious education which Catholics desired to give their children. Indeed, was it not also clear that in proportion as the school board teaching did assume a definite religious character, so as to satisfy Protestant requirements, so in proportion must it be unacceptable to Catholics? It was now admitted that the Act of 1870 did not profess to be antagonistic to voluntary schools. By the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) it was again and again stated it was intended to supplement, not to supplant, voluntary schools. The Prime Minister had, further, fully recognized the claims which voluntaryists had upon the consideration of Parliament. It was they, indeed, who had done for education all, or nearly all, that was done before the State had recognized its duty to see that its children did not grow up in ignorance. But what did the Act of 1870 do? Did it, or did it not, contain the germ of a principle which, if allowed to grow unchecked, was destructive of the voluntary principle? This was a serious question. The Act of 1870 gave an unlimited power of taxation to school boards, the proceeds of such taxation to be applied solely—although the Bill as brought in provided otherwise—to board schools, and, at the same time, such schools had the right to come pari passû on the Privy Council grant, on the same principle as the voluntary schools. Was it not obvious, therefore, that the board schools, with means practically unlimited at their backs, must, in the long run, in the matter of buildings, higher paid teachers, and so forth, hold out inducements not within the reach of the voluntary schools, with their share of the Privy Council grant, supplemented only by private beneficence, and so supplant the latter? No doubt, some would rejoice at that result; and some, he feared, because they would regard it as the triumph of secularism over denominationalism in education. He (Mr. Charles Russell) declined to discuss the question as a contest between secularism and denominationalism in education. He had no objection to secular education, pure and simple, for those who desired it; but he would not have those volunteer agents unfairly handicapped who desired to see religious attend secular training. He would be glad to see the voluntary principle evoked in regard to each mode of education, and the State supplementing private effort to extend education, whether in a secular or a denominational form—the State paying only for the work of which it received the benefit in secular teaching. Fairly considered, no question of religious difficulty arose. He (Mr. Charles Russell) submitted that so long as the State had efficient guarantees that in the matter of secular education the teaching was sound from the State point of view, and was full value for the money it cost, the State should, in all directions, and on whatever system given, help the work of secular education. They would, in that way, give fresh impulse to that important factor, the voluntary spirit of the people, which, he feared, the Act of 1870 had somewhat checked. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had said 1,000 Anglican schools had been given up to the school board. [Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: Voluntarily.] He (Mr. Charles Russell) so understood; but that meant that in the case of these 1,000 schools the voluntary effort to help the work was relaxed. No Catholic voluntary schools had yet shared that fate, although paying rates for that which, conscientiously, they felt themselves unable to take advantage. The poorest part of the community had strained every nerve to meet the new difficulties and competition which they encountered. He was not sorry there was the competition. It would do good to the voluntary schools; but there was a point beyond which, on existing conditions, the competition could not be maintained. He gratefully recognized the fact that the increased sums received from the Privy Council grant had helped the Catholic body to extend greatly their educational area. In 1870 there were only 666 inspected Catholic schools in Great Britain, with accommodation for 119,599 scholars, and an average attendance of 75,127 scholars. In 1882 the schools wore 1,562, with accommodation for 314,519, and the average attendance 190,540. At the same time, the yearly cost of instruction had risen from £1 0s. 6d. per head on the smaller number in 1870 to £1 10s. 2½d. per head on the much greater number in 1882. He (Mr. Charles Russell) need not point out that the school board cost was much greater than this, and that went some way to account for the increased cost in Catholic schools in the endeavour to keep pace with the board schools. He was glad also to find that the grant per head earned by Catholic children represented a higher percentage on cost of instruction than in the case of any other class. It would appear, too, that in reading, writing, and arithmetic, the Catholic average was higher than that of the rest of the country—in reading, 90·85, against an average of 89·22; in writing, 82·78, against an average of 81·92; and in arithmetic, 77·83, against an average of 77·22. There was still here room for improvement. He (Mr. Charles Russell) did not believe the House or the country, whatever prejudice might prevail, would wish to see such voluntary efforts as these interfered with. He claimed adequate help for these schools on a principle which he believed to be sound. The State now recognized that it was its duty to give at least secular instruc- tion to its children, and particularly to the children of the poor. Amongst those children were the children of the Catholic poor. He claimed that the State should, in fairness, and in sound policy, pay for the secular instruction of these Catholic children according to its value, and upon the same principle that the State paid for similar education in the board schools. In other words, secular education in Catholic schools should not be underpaid, because Catholics desired to see religious teaching attend and follow secular instruction. They asked no help in the work of religious teaching—that must be left purely to voluntary effort.

said, that his reply to the challenge of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Russell) was, that there was no section of the community which had received such generous consideration as that to which he belonged; and that, speaking for his Predecessors in Office as well as for himself, to the Roman Catholics in England exceptional consideration had been shown. They had been allowed wherever they desired, in spite of all rules, to have their own schools, and to receive the grants. At the same time, there was scarcely a school board in England upon which the Roman Catholics were not represented; and a degree of liberality had been extended to them which he thought deserved recognition. With regard to the speech he had delivered at the Crystal Palace, he would repeat now what he had then said—that, since the passing of the Act of 1870, the religious instruction in England had increased as largely as, and even more largely than, secular instruction, which, he thought, some hon. Gentlemen would regret. From 1,600,000 children on the rolls, the number had risen to something approximating to 3,000,000, and the operation of the Conscience Clause had made religious instruction a reality. There were 3,000,000 children, and 1,200,000 were instructed in the principles of Christianity according to the Gospel; and these children were taught to read and understand the Scriptures; and of the whole of the children 1,300,000 were to be found in the Sunday schools on Sunday. The religious instruction of to-day in England was many-fold better than it was before the Act of 1870; and he hardly knew of anything that could be said in answer to that. The hon. Member (Mr. Salt) had not made a speech in support of his Motion, for a great deal that he had said had no bearing upon the Motion. The hon. Member's Motion pointed to the burdens of the ratepayers; but he believed the whole bearing of that speech was to increase rather than reduce those burdens for the benefit of denominational schools. In the interest of those schools, he thought it would have been better if this debate had not taken place. He stood up for the Act of 1870 against all assaults made upon it; and he believed that if the matter were thrown into the crucible the result would not be favourable to those who would oppose that compromise. With respect to the cost of schools, the hon. Member was quite mistaken in putting the cost of building schools at £6 10s. per head. Then the hon. Member spoke of those supporting voluntary schools not being rated for board schools; but the principle of exemption could not be and was not carried out. With regard to the classes of children that ought to be brought into the schools, there were tens of thousands of children in the schools coming from most miserable families of six and eight and ten children. There were 2,700,000 children of the poorest class brought into the schools since 1870, although he admitted that there were still many thousands of the same class of children still outside the schools. In respect to the question of over-work, he had in his possession statistics to show that from 10 years before to 10 years since the passing of the Act of 1870 the death rate of children between 5 and 15 had diminished by more than 19 per cent. There was nothing more remarkable in the history of the health of our population than the decline in the death rate of the children. This was due to the Factory Act, the Mines Acts, and the Education Act. During the last 20 years the death rate of children from brain disease was so small as not to be more than 0·5 per 1,000 of the population; so that these stories as to over-work were absolutely illusory and without ground. With respect to specific subjects, who introduced them? Viscount Sandon and the late Government, and he thought they deserved credit for having introduced them. He had, however, taken them from the lower Standards, and allowed young children to take them in the Fifth Standard; and was it for this that the hon. Member came down and denounced him for murdering the children? He did not know which had been the most striking—the language or the attitude of the hon. Gentleman. As to the cost per child, he maintained that the increased cost per child had not been 1s. 4d. per head. The voluntary subscriptions had increased from £419,000 in 1870 to £723,000 in 1883; and the schools had received from public funds an increase of £1,750,000 a-year. He thought it was not necessary to urge the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion, for nothing would be more unwise than to go to a Division. The Acts were working well, the voluntary schools were most successful; and he would challenge anyone to say they had not been fairly administered by every Vice President of the Council who had been in Office, and he was sure it would be allowed that good results had followed.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council disbelieves that managers of voluntary schools have a grievance; but he supports his disbelief by disproving a proposition which is not the basis of their complaint. They complain, not that the Government grant as now adjusted aggravates their difficulties, but that it does not mitigate them. The weight of the pressure on voluntary schools was admitted by the Government in 1870, and they promised that it should be alleviated. And now the Vice President of the Council triumphantly declares—"We promised an increase of one-half in the former grant, and we have fulfilled our promise." "True," we answer, "you have enlarged your grant; but you have, at the same time, enlarged your requirements, so that our increased expenditure upon each child permits no mitigation in the amount of voluntary contributions pressing with greater severity, owing to the extension of voluntary schools, and the multiplication of scholars." We are told, indeed, that we have no right to complain of an additional burden of our own creation. But why did we multiply our schools and scholars? Because we were assured that our burden would be lightened, and that an education rate, estimated at 3d. in the pound, would be supplemented by the Government grant. The Government deny that there is any provision to that effect in the Education Act. Of course, there is not; if there were such a provision we should make our appeal to the law, and not, as we now confidently do, to the Legislature; for, assuredly, the founders of Church schools would not have spent £6,000,000, except upon the assurances of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and the Prime Minister. But, even had no such expectations been held out, the claims of voluntary schools would be not the less entitled to satisfaction; for what, in plain terms, is their position? The State decrees a compulsory education; it assigns a provision by rate for board schools, and a subsidy from the Exchequer for board schools and for voluntary schools alike, measured by their results—an arrangement which leaves voluntary schools dependent for their existence upon individual liberality. We do not ask that this burden upon individual liberality be wholly removed; but we do ask that the weight of it, almost unbearable in some cases, shall be lightened. The State demands the production of children instructed in secular knowledge. The voluntary schools present their scholars efficiently instructed. Why should they — producing the article demanded by the State—be at so large a pecuniary disadvantage as compared with board schools? The board school receives for its scholar 14s. 5½d from the Government grant, and 17s. 1¼d. from the rates. The Church school receives for its equally instructed scholar 14s. 10½d. from the Government grant, and nothing from the rates. Why should it be mulct because it adds religious to secular instruction? Churchmen pay now £600,000 in voluntary subscriptions, and they pay as much more in their share of the £800,000 education rate. We ask, as a remedy to this unequal treatment, that the school board expenditure be subjected to a vigilant control, and that the Government grant be enlarged, so as to throw the cost of elementary education more fairly on the wealth of the country, and to diffuse more generally the burden of maintaining voluntary schools, now pressing upon a comparatively few. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 74: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 238.) Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Committee deferred till Monday next.

said, he should not have attempted to detain the House at that late hour were it not that this important measure had passed the second reading without any discussion whatever. It was an important Bill affecting a large number of contracts relating to the sale of land and mercantile transactions for the sale of goods; and it ought not to pass without evidence that the change in the law which it contemplated was required by mercantile men. In past years it had been denied the support of important organizations representing the mercantile bodies of the country. The question had been discussed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce several times, and there had been great divergence of opinion upon it. When it was last discussed the majority were against any change in the Statute of Frauds; and since 1872—now 11 years ago—the subject had not been brought forward, and this was pretty good evidence that there was no desire for a change in the law. It appeared to him that if the law was to be altered, it should be amended on much broader lines than those upon which the Bill proceeded. They ought to make up their minds whether it would be to the interest of the public that verbal contracts such as were affected by the Bill should be enforced or not. If it was right that they should not, the law should remain as it was at present; but if the House was of opinion that these contracts should be enforced, the Statute of Frauds itself should be amended. His opinion was that this change of the law, if effected at all, should certainly not be brought about by the indirect and roundabout process proposed in the Bill. If it should be thought to be desirable that these contracts should be enforced in our Courts of Law, he could not understand why the plaintiff should be confined to the one proof pointed out in this measure—he meant the admission of the person against whom the contract was sought to be enforced. It seemed to him that these contracts should be equally capable of being enforced without the admission of the defendant; as he could conceive cases in which the plaintiff would be in a position to bring satisfactory evidence of the verbal contract having taken place without the admission of the defendant. Conversations might be taken down by persons present when verbal contracts were made, or the terms of a contract might be reduced into writing, and all that might be wanting might be the actual signature of the defendant, and in such a case there would be no doubt whatever as to the real terms of the contract; and yet in these cases no remedy was proposed. Another objection he took to the Bill was that the remedy it proposed would be very partial. In many cases, it would be no remedy whatever to persons seeking to enforce verbal contracts. Large numbers of gentlemen in business in the City of London were represented by agents, and a man who was so represented could not be made a party to an action under the Bill. Therefore, no remedy would be provided for the evils in cases of that description. He also considered that the Bill would tend largely to an increase of perjury. They would be putting an enormous temptation in the way of a defendant against whom a verbal contract was sought to be enforced, to give a simple denial, because that would have the effect of enabling him to escape altogether from the conditions of a verbal contract. In regard to contracts for the purchase and sale of real estate, this Bill would produce bad results. Hon. Members acquainted with the facts relating to the sale and purchase of real estate would know that no cautious person would enter into a written contract without taking legal advice; because, if he entered into an open contract, he would very often render himself liable to grievous mischief, either in the way of abatement of purchase money, if any error had been made, or of being called on at great cost to produce documents of title which might not be in his possession, or a longer title than he might be able to produce. A written contract for a sale was necessarily preceded by a verbal bargain, and a man might run great risks if, by an Act of Parliament, they made this antecedent verbal contract legally binding. That was what the Bill would do. He thought the measure would be a trap for incautious vendors, who would find very frequently that, by virtue of its provisions, they had been parties to that which would produce disastrous results. He held in his hand a Report on the Bill which had received the unanimous approval of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. He would not trouble the House by reading the whole of the Report; but, in effect, it pointed out that, in regard to those contracts, the Bill was most objectionable. In conclusion, he moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Lewis Fry.) Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

said, that certain contracts were required to be in writing, otherwise they could not be enforced against either of the persons party to them. In cases where verbal contracts were entered into dishonestly — and roguery was very often displayed by parties who, though admitting the contract, refused to carry it out, because it was not in writing—the object of the Bill was that in such cases as these, where the defendant put up such a defence, the plaintiff might ask him on his oath—"Is it true or not true that you entered into a contract with me?" If he said it was not true, then the plaintiff was defeated, there being no written contract to substantiate the plaintiff's claim; but if the defendant admitted that he had made a verbal contract, he would be liable to the extent of his admission to fulfil that contract. Of course, if a man chose to be a rogue, although he had entered into a contract, he might deny the fact. He did not think many hon. and learned Gentlemen differed from him upon this subject; and the proof of that was to be found in the fact that his Bill had reached its present stage without opposition. What were the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Lewis Fry) against this Bill? He complained that it did not go far enough. But with regard to that complaint, he would undertake to support any proposal his hon. and learned Friend might suggest in order to make it go further. All that the Bill would do would be to prevent persons from dishonestly availing themselves of a technicality in order to evade the performance of what was morally a binding contract.

said, he thought the Bill was open to very grave objection. It seemed to him to revive the worst part of the old system of the Court of Chancery in his recollection — namely, the system of interrogatories, which had been called torturing the consciences of defendants. The system was one of setting up equitable contracts, by endeavouring to extract from the defendant admissions in the course of examination. He deprecated any attempt of that kind for the purpose of arriving at information. Under the law, as it at present existed, some written evidence was required of a contract—it might not be a formal agreement, but something to show an agreement. He thought it was but right and just that there should be some evidence of a contract having been entered into between man and man. What was proposed in this Bill? It was this. They might meet a man in the street and ask him if he would sell his corn, or his produce, or whatever he dealt in; and if the man gave them even a negative reply they could administer to him an interrogatory, putting to him—"What did you say?" "Did you not say—?" "How did you say—?" "Did you admit such-and-such a thing?" "Did you not admit such-and-such a thing?" or "Do you deny such-and-such a thing?" They might put these questions to a man in such a way that it would be a very difficult thing for him to get out of the interrogatory to which he was subjected without risk of perjury. It would become a matter of ingenuity on the part of learned gentlemen either to constitute a contract by means of interrogatories, or to get out of a contract entered into by means of interrogatories — learned gentlemen might set themselves to work to prove or disprove facts by means of the power contained in this Bill. He had seen that kind of thing done very frequently in his Chancery practice, and he himself earnestly deprecated anything which would tend to revive that system. He believed that to be the result of the present Bill, and on those grounds he strenuously opposed its adoption.

said, he opposed the third reading of the Bill on two grounds —first, because he was satisfied it would bring no relief to those persons whose contracts the hon. and learned Member desired to enforce; and, secondly, because he thought it would bring about that result which it was the object of the Statute of Frauds to prevent—namely, an increase of perjury. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Reid) said that if a contract was admitted, why should it not be enforced? He agreed with that; but his lion. and learned Friend knew perfectly well that if he interrogated a dishonest man be would deny that there had been any binding arrangement, and would say that the contract had been merely a matter of negotiation, and that it was never intended that it should be binding until reduced into writing. He did not believe that in one case out of ten they would ever get an admission to suit the plaintiff who brought the action. The Statute of Frauds was passed for the purpose of preventing perjury being committed in cases of this kind. Cases of the evil effects of administering these interrogatories might be multiplied indefinitely. In Common Law cases, for instance, he had rarely been engaged in a case in which a verdict was given for the plaintiff where he did not find that interrogatories had been administered, and answered in the negative that which the jury answered in the affirmative. In many cases they found contracts in writing with the exception of the name, and the Statute worked an injustice. In his opinion, it would be better to repeal the 4th and 17th sections of the Act. He felt strongly, however, that if this Bill passed it would only bring about increased disorder and largely increase the crime of perjury, which, as things at present existed, was by no means decreasing at the present moment.

said, he was sorry to be obliged to disagree with his hon. and learned Friends. He was certain that the Bill would not bring relief. It would be the simplest thing in the world to get out of it, because, as an hon. and learned Member had said, it would only apply to cases where people did not want to get out of contracts. If a man did not wish it to apply he would say—"I did not enter into a contract." He might admit that there had been some negotiation, and might even say that the terms of a contract had been put down in writing, but that he had not actually made a contract. He (Mr. Grantham) hoped the House would not accept the Bill. It was a matter for consideration whether a change should be made in the Statute of Frauds; but he could not recommend this Bill, which, he thought, would increase perjury tenfold. In nearly every case where the Statute of Frauds was set up, to his mind there would be direct perjury under this Bill.

owned he could not altogether share the views expressed by several hon. and learned Members in regard to the terrible results which would follow the passing of a Bill of this kind. Many of the fears to which hon. and learned Gentlemen had given expression were the kind of fears which were always heard from some lawyers whenever a change in the law was passed. When they had spoken about some change in the method of examining witnesses, it was said—"You should not do that—it will tend to develop perjury." The matter seemed to him an extremely simply one, and he could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken that the man who would set up a defence on the Statute of Frauds would be prepared to commit perjury. As a rule, if a man were asked whether or not he had entered into a verbal contract, if he had done so he would not deny it. He (the Solicitor General) did not think the Bill would produce any great results; but the question was this—what was the object of the Statute of Frauds? It was this—that a man who made certain bargains should not be bound by them unless they were in writing, signed by himself and the other contracting party. This was passed because of the fallibility of memory, and differences of opinion as to what were the terms agreed upon, and many other difficulties of that kind, rendering it uncertain whether a contract had been entered into or not. But where was the hardship in binding a man to a contract he admitted, whether it was in writing or not? That was all this Bill sought to do—to ask a man who set up the Statute of Frauds as a defence—"Did you make a contract?" If he replied "No," there would be an end of the thing; but if he admitted that he had made a contract, that admission could be enforced against him. He (the Solicitor General) would leave the matter in the hands of the House; but he had thought it his duty to point out, as clearly as he could, the nature of the measure.

said, he did not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General with regard to the object of the Bill. To his mind it went further than simply putting it to the defendant whether or not he had entered into any contract; because he found that, according to Clause 2, a plaintiff could interrogate an officer of any Corporation, and his answer, whatever it might be, would be binding on the Corporation. An agreement might have been negotiated between a plaintiff and the Directors of a Company; and yet, if the Secretary of that Company, on being questioned, said that a contract had been made, that admission would be binding on the Directors. Was that an alteration in the law which the House should sanction? Any officer of a Company or Corporation, who might overhear part of a conversation between his Directors and the plaintiff, might say "yes" when an interrogatory was proposed, and so seriously and unfairly prejudice the interests of his employers. He (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), as he had stated, could not agree with what had been said as to the object of the Statute of Frauds. The Preamble of that measure stated that its object was to prevent perjury. If the present law was to be altered, it should be done in a way different to that laid down in the present Bill.

said, he should like to ask one of the lawyers what was the law in Ireland on this matter—he did not pretend to know it himself. To the best of his belief, in Ireland, if a man came to buy a number of head of cattle, they did not let him have the cattle unless he paid the money for them. If this Bill were te pass, a rogue might come up to a dealer, buy some cattle, and refuse to pay for them until they were delivered. He might say—"You have not fulfilled your contract until you have delivered the cattle." So far as he (Colonel Nolan) understood the Bill, it would bear that construction, and such a thing as that would very materially interfere with ordinary business arrangements. It would be very objectionable to change old customs in this way. If his doubts on this matter were removed, it would be satisfactory. Question put. The House divided: — Ayes 43; Noes 47: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 239.) Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Third Reading put off for three months.

said, he wished to move an Amendment. The power to ascertain whether the charities were for ordinary or for ecclesiastical purposes was vested in the Charity Commissioners, who had this power for three years. If they had any bias, it would be seen that they possessed very great powers in regard to determining the character of the Act.. If the Commissioners were adherents of the Church of England, what security was there as to their decision upon a charity of a doubtful character? The time had gone when an appeal ought to be made to the fairness of any body of men; and, seeing that this Bill required every Commissioner to be a member of the Church of England, he should propose to introduce a provision that they should not be adherents of the Church of England. The number of Commissioners was to be increased from six to eight; and if this Amendment was agreed to there would be some security that the character of the charities should not be determined by men of one religious community. Why should the question of religious denomination be introduced into this matter at all? He had raised this question scores of times, for his object was to was to destroy the one-sided character of these public Bodies, and to insist that, if we could not rely upon the individuals, there should be protection against religious injustice being done. The great mass of the people desired to have this security, and it would be a great advantage if the Committee would accept his proposal. If that was done the matter would not rest here; but some further steps would be taken with regard to such Bodies as the Endowed Schools Commission, and a crowd of others, and a new and better state of things would be commenced. Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 31, after the word "two," to insert the words "not being adherents of the Church of England." — (Mr. worth.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

sympathized very much with the view of the hon. Member; and he hoped that, on the next vacancy, the Government would see their way to gratifying the Nonconformists by appointing one of their members. But he could not say that he thought this a happy Amendment, because it would very much hamper Her Majesty's choice. He did not think there was any likelihood of any question arising under this Bill, which would make it necessary to bring again to the front those denominational questions which would seem to make this Proviso requisite.

said, he could recall cases in which it was proposed to exclude the masses from dealing with matters in which public property was concerned; and he had uniformly voted against such proposals. His object was that all classes of Her Majesty's subjects should be provided for. The hon. Member (Mr. Bryce) expressed a hope that the Nonconformists would be considered by those with whom the matter rested, but the same hope had been entertained for generations; and it was because nothing had been done that it was necessary to take such action as this, in order to prevent one-sided arrange- ments. He stood upon the high ground of fairness and justice.

said, he scarcely thought the hon. Member was serious, for his proposal would introduce into the statute a disqualification of a very peculiar character; and it would be the first time that any such words had been put into any statute.

said, it was a very curious thing that Ministers always seemed to think it was a sufficient answer to say that it was the first time such a thing had been proposed. They must understand that we were an aggressive nation. In matters of religion he had no sort of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. There were already six Commissioners; but how many of these were Dissenters? [An hon. MEMBER: Not one.] Not one. How many members of the Church of England? Six. It would, no doubt, be said that they happened to be the best men; but unless a protest was made now, and this Amendment was distinctly inserted in the Bill, it was certain that the two new Commissioners would be Church of England men, just as the present six were. Question put. The Committee divided:— Ayes 26; Noes 57: Majority 31. — (Div. List, No. 240.)

proposed at the same place to insert "of whom one shall be a Roman Catholic." He did so, he said, on the ground that most of these charities had come from Roman Catholic foundations. The pious donors in most of the cases were Roman Catholics; and when there was so much bigotry displayed, he thought one Roman Catholic Commissioner should be insisted upon. He hoped to see in the Lobby in support of that view those Gentlemen who had objected to all the Commissioners being members of the Church of England. Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 31, after the word "two," to insert the words "of whom one shall be a Roman Catholic."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he had walked out of the House on the last Division, as he did not like to be a particeps criminis in the sham vote of the Nonconformist English Radical humbugs.

The hon. Member must not apply such terms to hon. Members of this House.

said, he would withdraw "humbugs," and substitute for it "sham Liberals." he hoped the Conservative Party in the House would support this Amendment; and he should be anxious to see whether the Amendment would have the support of the enlightened and chivalrous Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), who always supported Liberalism in profession, but the very opposite by his votes.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would not persist in his Amendment, particularly as a Great many poor Catholics would be benefited by the Bill. The best service the hon. Member could render his co-religionists in the City would be to support the measure.

said, there was no difference between this proposal and that which had been made previously. There was already a Charity Commission in existence, the whole of the Members of which were confined to one religious body; and the object of his Amendment had been to enable Her Majesty to make selections front the whole range of Her Majesty's subjects—that was to say, she should be free to accept other than members of the Church of England. There was no partiality or injustice implied in his Amendment; and he should not like to at all narrow the choice of selection in any way. He should, therefore, feel himself bound to go against the proposal of the hon. Member, which was by no means as liberal as that which he had himself proposed.

said, he should support the Amendment. [Laughter.] Hon. Members around him might laugh; but he was serious in what he was saying. He should endeavour, as far as in him lay, to break down the exclusive character of the appointments that were made upon this Commission and upon other Bodies. No Dissenter ever found his way to any responsible position, members of the Church of England being always appointed; and as he could not get the wider proposition of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) accepted, he would support the narrower one, and would show his genuineness in the Lobby by voting with the hon. Member for Monaghan.

said, there were a large number of Catholics in the Metropolis who were interested in these charities; and he should like to know why, if that were so, they should net have a Representative on the Commission? he had voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), whose proposal he should have very much preferred to this one. It seemed to him that, logically, they could not avoid voting for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). It was regarded as a preposterous thing, even amongst Gentlemen who took extreme views as to religion, that out of eight Commissioners there should not be one Catholic. He should like to see a Catholic on the Commission; but he had no doubt that unless this Amendment were passed such a thing would never happen. Just as he had voted for the hon. Member for Bradford because he had exceedingly little, he might almost say no confidence in the application of religious principles by Her Majesty's Government, so he should vote for this Amendment.

wished to point out one thing that might increase the confidence of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) in Her Majesty's Government upon these matters. He would remind the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government had only recently placed a Roman Catholic on the Bench.

said, with regard to the observation which had just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, he was sorry to be obliged to say that some of the very worst appointments the Government had ever made had been appointments of Catholics. If the hon. and learned Member had anything to do with the patronage of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland, particularly with regard to the Bench, he (Mr. O'Connor) should be very much obliged to him if, on all occasions in the future, he would select Protestants for those appointments and not Catholics. He must say he had been very much astonished to hear the First Commissioner of Works say that a Motion of the kind proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) similar to that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) was unprecedented in its character. Was it not a fact that there were several offices confined to members of the State Church? The Office of Representative of Her Majesty in Ireland was still expressly excluded from being bestowed upon a nobleman who might happen to be of the same religion as the majority of the Irish people. He could not understand the objection of the hon. Member for Bradford to this Amendment, taking it side by side with the objection of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). He (Mr. O'Conner) maintained that the claim of Roman Catholics to have a Representative on the Commission was stronger than that of any other body, and that for two reasons. First, because a great deal of the money which came from these charities was Catholic money; and, secondly, because a great many of the poor, for whose benefit the charities were intended, were Catholic poor. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets admitted that a certain section of persons for whom this Bill was intended would be Catholics. He (Mr. O'Connor) ventured to say that nearly half the poor of London who would have a right to make a claim under this Bill were of the Catholic religion; and, therefore, they had a right to have a Member upon the Commission. His hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) did not, he was sure, view this Amendment in the same light in which the hon. Member for Bradford viewed his. They meant to stick to this Amendment, and to carry it if they could; and if they succeeded in their object they intended to force the Government to grant further reforms.

said, he wished to point out to a limited number of Members the consequence of the vote they might give upon this question. The question was as to whether there should be a Catholic on the Commission or not; and he would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Stalybridge (Mr. Summers), and other Members from Lancashire districts who professed Radical principles—[Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Do not go into that.] The hon. Member for Galway asked him not to go into this matter; but the hon. Member had been a Radical himself at one time. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR.: And so were you.] It was true he had been a Radical, and he hoped the hon. Member was as sorry for his old profession as he was. He regretted ever having given support to the Liberal Party. He would call upon hon. Members opposite, who represented constituencies largely composed of Catholics, to vote for this Amendment. He would ask those hon. Gentlemen to remember, and he would ask the Catholics of Lancashire to remember, that the Solicitor General gave as the Government objection to the Amendment that the Government had already appointed a Catholic Judge on the Bench. Mr. Justice Mathew and Mr. Justice Day had won their promotion in spite of their religion, and net because of it. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to hear that cheer from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that those gentlemen had won their promotion despite their religion; and now, forsooth, the hon. and learned Gentleman threw this fact in the face of Catholic Members when they were asked to put a Catholic on the Charity Commission. He would ask who put the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General on the Front Opposition Bench opposite—what votes had placed him on the Treasury Bench but the Irish Catholic votes of Durham? Therefore, what presumption it was for him to come and throw in their teeth that a Catholic had been placed upon the Bench. He trusted that the Irish electors and the Catholic electors, not alone of Lancashire but of Durham, would remember this at the next election. He trusted that the vote the Government gave to-night upon this question would be remembered against Liberal Members who seemed to be anti-Irish and anti-Catholic. Question put. The Committee divided: — Ayes 14; Noes 61: Majority 47. — (Div. List, No. 241.) Clause agreed to.

The Question is that Clauses 4, 5, and 6—

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether you are not in error in dealing in this way with a Bill which is seriously contested? ["Order, order!"] I am in Order in asking whe- ther it is right to put these clauses en bloc?

The course is perfectly in Order, as there are no Amendments to these clauses. Each clause is named separately and slowly, so as to give any hon. Member who chose an opportunity of proposing an Amendment. The Question is, that Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 be added to the Bill. Clauses agreed to. Clause 14 (Provisions to be inserted in schemes relating to parishes in Second Schedule to this Act).

said, he wished to propose an Amendment in page 6, line 28, leave out all after "thereto" to end of line 38, and insert—

"With the consent of the trustees to declare by a scheme under this Act that it is desirable to apply for the advancement of education the whole or any part of such property, and thereupon the same shall be deemed to be an educational endowment, and may be dealt with by the same scheme accordingly."

The effect of the Amendment would be this. In the City, besides the ecclesiastical endowments, which had a certain amount of utility, and which could be applied within the parishes for which they were established, there was also a large amount of surplus or useless ecclesiastical funds — money left, for instance, for the preaching of a sermon annually on the defeat of the Spanish Armada, on the discovery of the Guy Fawkes conspiracy, and for the purchase of fagots for burning heretics, all of which had become obsolete; and there were others which, though they were not obsolete, applied to areas which had so shrunk as to render it impossible to apply the money. Everyone knew that the City was full of small parishes, which had endowments which had become entirely obsolete. In the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 this clause he was now proposing had been in principle adopted. It was provided in that Act that if any fund became obsolete for the purpose for which it was originally granted, or if the parish had become so large that the money could not be usefully applied to it, power was taken, with the consent of the trustees, to apply the funds to education. His proposal was that where charities of this kind existed in the City, and there were surplus funds which could not possibly be applied within the parishes, the principle adopted in the Endowed Schools Act should operate, and the money should be devoted to unsectarian education. The answer might be given to him that the contrary principle of applying ecclesiastical endowments over the area of greater London which were intended for the City had been adopted in the case of the City churches. In that case, however, the endowments were a portion of the general ecclesiastical establishment of the Church of England as by law established. They were part of then general ecclesiastical property of the Church, just like the property of the Deans and Chapters. But these charities were not part of the ecclesiastical property of the Church of England, and in many cases it was quite accidental that there were Church bequests. Amendment proposed,

In page 6, line 28, to leave out all the words after the word "thereto," to end of line 38, in order to insert the words "with the consent of the trustees to declare by a scheme under this Act that it is desirable to apply for the advancement of education the whole or any part of such property, and thereupon the same shall be deemed to be an educational endowment, and may be dealt with by the same scheme accordingly."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said, that these funds, which were left for the purpose of burning heretics and things of that kind, were to be inherited by the Church of England; but what right had the Church of England to them? Surely such funds ought to be devoted to the purposes of education, so that the people might be instructed how wrong it was to burn heretics or anybody else. There was no reason in the world why the Church of England, which already owned vast millions of property which belonged to the nation, should be endowed with further powers and emoluments. He would infinitely rather vote these funds to the Catholic Church, or the Quakers, or any single section in the world than to the Church of England; because the Church of England was the one sect that held, and insisted on retaining, property which belonged to the whole nation. It was all very well to bring on Bills of this importance in the small hours of the morning, when the reporters were not present, or, at any rate, were not reporting the proceedings of the House; but they ought, he thought, to seriously consider whether they should allow, either now or at any other time, such abominable proposals as were contained in this Bill to become law? He had no doubt that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had put these proposals in the Bill in the hope that he would acquire votes by so doing; but, at any rate, the hon. Member, by this course, had not succeeded in acquiring his (Mr. Labouchere's) vote. He thought the whole subject should be discussed more seriously than it had been up to the present. He protested against the Church of England holding the money bags which belonged to the nation; and so long as he had the honour of a seat in the House, whenever he heard of an attempt, direct or indirect, to give the Church of England one single farthing more than it had a right to possess, he should do his best to oppose the proposal. And when he heard any proposal in that House to deprive the Church of England of that which it at present possessed, he should always do his best to support it.

said, there was a clause in the Bill which directed the Commissioners to ascertain what was ecclesiastical and what was not. It was not proposed to give to the Church of England anything which it did not now possess.

said, he was afraid the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had not had much experience of the claims made by the Church of England. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 30: Majority 17. — (Div. List, No. 242.)

proposed, in page 6, line 30, to leave out all after "applied to," to "generally to," in line 34, inclusive. The Committee having decided that these funds should not be brought under the same provisions as those which were contemplated in the Endowed Schools Act, he supposed the funds were now to be applied for the purpose of the Church of England. His Amendment provided that there should not be constituted new vested interests which might require to be compensated. If the time should come when the Church was disendowed it would be necessary to compensate the interests it was by this Bill proposed to create. Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, to leave out all the words after the words "applied to" to the words "generally to," in line 34, inclusive.—(Mr. Firth.) Question proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment, in favour of which he voted in the Select Committee. He was obliged, however, to stand by the Bill as it now appeared; and he was bound to say it seemed to him to represent all that could be carried.

said, he hoped the Committee would decide in favour of this Amendment. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Amendment had anything to do with the Disestablishment of the Church of England. The Amendment would simply prevent the building of new churches, and the establishment of poverty-stricken ministers, in districts where they were not required. In point of fact, this was a question of the exercise of common sense in the application of the funds.

said, he thought they might very fairly and wisely leave it to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to say how the money should be spent. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 32: Majority 6. — (Div. List, No. 243.) Clause agreed to. Clauses 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 19 (Commissioners need not specify in scheme the precise objects to which general charity property shall be applied).

said, this clause provided that Commissioners should not specify in the scheme they drew up the precise objects to which the charity should be applied. It seemed to him such a provision as that was one of the most mischievous which could possibly be inserted in a Bill of this description. They knew perfectly well that most of these charities, because "ill gotten, go ill." If this clause were passed unamended it might reasonably be concluded that the door would be opened to fraud and misapplication of charity funds. He, therefore, proposed to omit the word "not," in line 42, so that the clause should provide that the Commissioners should be bound to specify in every scheme the precise objects to which the charities were to be applied.

The hon. Member had better negative the whole clause, for the omission of the word "not" would really negative the clause.

said, the clause read as follows:—"Shall not be bound to specify." His hon. Friend merely proposed to omit the word "not."

said, his object was to insist upon the Commissioners doing what the clause now said they should not do.

said, he would put the Question as the hon. Gentleman wished. Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 42, to leave out the word "not."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.) Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."