Mr. Watkin Williams (who was interrupted by an attempt at a "count-out") argued that the Act had been strictly complied with; and the Attorney-General dealt with the Oxford statutes to show that Mr. Harvey's qualification was complete. Mr. Scourfield remarked that a most dangerous precedent had been set; and

Mr. Bouverie, while admitting the conscientiousness of the Prime Minister, regretted that he should amuse his leisure hours by driving coaches-and-six through Acts of Parliament, and that he alone should take such curious views of the meaning of Statutes. There was no doubt whatever that the Act contemplated an Oxford man in the ordinary sense of the word, and he had authority for stating that Lord Salisbury had consented to the words of the limitation on the understanding that they meant men who had gone through the Oxford curriculum. "Would any private patron," he asked, "have suggested such an evasion of the Act?" Mr. Bouverie also animadverted on Mr. Gladstone's declaration that, rather than agree to this limitation, he would have advised the Crown to veto the Bill. This called up

Mr. Bruce who, in Mr. Gladstone's absence, explained that what he meant was that he would have withdrawn the Bill.

Mr. Raikes, Mr. Hunt, and Mr. Greene strongly condemned the appointment, and, Mr. Gladstone having returned to the House, Colonel Barttelot repeated to him the charge that he had spoken of exercising the Royal veto rather than submit to such a limitation on the patronage of the Crown.

Mr. Gladstone warmly denied that he had said any such thing. It was the Royal assent necessary to Bills affecting the rights of the Crown which he had spoken of withholding. To this Mr. Bouverie and Lord J. Manners replied that the Queen's consent must have been signified long before the Bill got to that stage; and here the controversy came to an end.

The other dangers from within that had most directly threatened the Government dispersed as harmlessly. The first Lord of the Admiralty visited with severe censure the officers whose neglect had caused the disaster which occurred before his accession to office.

The menace of a Nonconformist secession proved, as might have been anticipated, to be innocuous. Mr. Dixon brought forward his vote of censure on the Elementary Education Act. This was contained in six Resolutions, of which two complained of the failure of the Act to secure the general election of School Boards and compulsory attendance; two objected to the operation of the 25th section, and two censured the use of public money for the teaching of denominational religion; and he stated that while he himself dealt with the first topic, he had allotted the second to Mr. Leatham, and the third to Mr. Richard. After repudiating the charge that the League was by the present agitation violating some compromise, he entered into an elaborate comparison of a Denominational and a National system, stating his objections to the first-that it gave the control of Education to irresponsible managers, provided a very in

efficient education at a great cost, and left many children without any education at all, &c. Without School Boards everywhere and universal compulsion, he maintained it would be impossible to establish an adequate and satisfactory system of Education, and it was on those who opposed compulsion and School Boards-the Conservative party and the Church-that he fixed the responsibility of impeding the spread of education. Admitting that the Education League had now definitely committed itself to the separation of religion and education, he defended the action of that body, disclaiming all jealousy of the Church, and asserting that its object was to raise the education of the working classes.

Mr. Richard, in seconding the motion, also spent some time in combatting the suggestion that he and his friends were violating a compromise. He objected not so much to the existence of denominational teaching as to the encouragement of denominational schools by the State. This led him into a sharp attack on Mr. Forster for the partiality he had shown to the denominational schools even in his administration of the Act as it stood, as was shown by his appointment of inspectors and the proceedings of some of his officials. Moreover, he objected to the quality of the denominational teaching likely to be given by some clergymen whose Protestantism was growing very faint; and in support of this Mr. Richard quoted a passage from a book, which he supposed to be issued by the Church of England, but which turned out to be a Roman Catholic schoolbook. Nor did he believe that religious teaching could be secured by confiding it merely to schoolmasters. Finally, Mr. Richard warned the Government against breaking up the Liberal party by alienating and disgusting one of its largest sections.

Mr. Forster met the motion by an amendment that a sufficient time has not elapsed since the passing of the Act to allow of a judgment being passed on it, pointing out that if the Resolutions were carried it would be necessary to pass a new Act this year. But to do this before it was seen how the Act worked would be to throw everything into confusion, and to bring the educational system to a dead lock. By quotations from his speech on introducing the Bill he showed that he had always contemplated making use of the existing schools and of all educational forces, and that compulsion was not to be used until voluntary action had been exhausted. After describing the difficulties and labours of the Education Office in getting the Act into operation, he urged the inexpediency of throwing the machinery into confusion just when the gaps had been discovered and were about to be filled up. In relating what had been done under the Act, he pointed out that ten millions of the population had already come under Sehool Boards-six millions of them voluntarily and he defied anybody to point to a case of violated conscience, or to suggest legislation which would have done so much in so short a time. Certainly it would have been impossible in 1870 to pass a Bill with compulsory attendance and compulsory School Boards, or to work it if it had been passed. Though in favour of

both, and believing that we should in the end come to both, he had preferred to lead rather than to drive; and as to making School Boards universal, in many of the rural districts it would be better that education should be in the hands of school managers than of a reluctant School Board, created against its will and disliking the prospect of a Rate. He was of opinion, however, that by next year we should be ready for a general compulsory Act, and perhaps the best way of carrying it out would be through School Boards. But certainly it would first be necessary that schools should be provided. Passing, next, to a defence of the 25th clause, he maintained that its sole object was to assist parents, to get children to school, and to make the working of the compulsory principle more just. The grievance was, he maintained, infinitesimal, because no appreciable part of the Rates went to pay for religious education. The Government, however, would be prepared to consider a modification of the clause when the general compulsory law was brought forward, but he never would consent to deprive the poor man of his right to choose to what school he would send his children. Over the religious difficulty Mr. Forster passed somewhat lightly, appealing to the notorious fact that the country is not prepared for the secular system, as was shown most recently by what the School Boards had done, and in conclusion he defended the impartiality of the Department in working the Act.

Mr. Liddell, in supporting the amendment, maintained that there had been a compromise when the Act passed, and that the Church had made considerable sacrifices. If the secularists believed in their own nostrum, why did they not set up schools of their own?

Mr. Backhouse also took the same line, and deprecated any change until we had more experience of the working of the Act.

Mr. Corrance also supported the amendment.

Mr. A. Herbert narrated some circumstances within his own experience to illustrate the partiality of the department for the old schools. Mr. Forster, he held, had got into his difficulty by trusting too much to practical common sense, overlooking principle. In his opinion, secular education alone could do justice to all sides.

Lord Robert Montagu animadverted on the sudden fondness for compulsion displayed by the ultra-Liberals, and maintained, from the statistics of the Roman Catholic schools, that the best secular results were obtained where most time was given to religious teaching.

Mr. Leatham, admitting that the scope of the resolutions was too wide, addressed himself in a tone of no little acrimony to the operation of the 25th clause, which he condemned as adding enormously to endowments already too large. He provoked much ironical cheering by declaring that he would have preferred the postponement of the question for another year, and that the people should have been left in ignorance to a settlement such as this. Repudiating the charge that the Dissenters had "revolted" from the Government, he did not deny that such a grievance left unredressed

might be too much for their patience, and appealed from Mr. Forster to the Prime Minister.

Mr. W. H. Smith denied that the 25th clause carried any endowment; it merely gave the poor man the liberty to say to what school his child should go. At the same time, he admitted that it had been badly worked in some places. He deprecated premature interference with the working of the Act, and expressed a decided opinion that immediate compulsion and unnecessary School Boards and rates would provoke a reaction.

Dr. Playfair vindicated what he considered the marvellous success of the Act, and, with regard to the 25th clause, maintained that though it was not the duty of the Privy Council to give the indigent child a sectarian education, it was not its duty to prevent his receiving religious teaching. He ridiculed the grievance of the "ratepayers' conscience," which, he believed, was only stimulated into activity by political agitation, and asserted that by all the experience of Europe direct compulsion could not exist without denominational schools. Pointing out that the leading Dissenters were not unanimous among themselves, and vigorously condemning in passing what he called school Christianity-the Bible without comment-Dr. Playfair denied that they had any right to break down a system which was working well, until they had a substitute for it.

Mr. Fawcett admitted that the opponents of the Act in 1870 had committed a great mistake in setting up the programme of "the Bible without comment," which was a mere subterfuge. Personally he did not attach so much importance as others to the religious difficulty; but he objected to this 25th clause, because it offered a premium to free education, would weaken parental responsibility, and foster the Socialistic idea that the State should pay instead of the individual. The Act was not adequate to providing education for the rural districts, and, accepting Mr. Forster's assurance that general compulsion was to be proposed next year, he exhorted all parties not to waste time in striving after miserable sectarian triumphs, but to unite for the solution of this difficult problem.

Mr. M. Henry and Mr. Greene supported the amendment, and on a division Mr. Dixon's resolutions were negatived by 355 to 94. Mr. Forster's amendment then became the substantial question, and a second division being taken, it was carried by 323 to 98.

An injudicious attempt by Mr. Candlish, some weeks later, to revive the contest was easily defeated, and it would seem that the most zealous Nonconformists have wisely considered their purpose of secession.

Besides the Alabama Claims, the only question of external policy which arose during the Session was the conclusion of the treaty with the Netherlands for the transfer to England of the Dutch Settlements on the Gold Coast of Africa, and a proposal by Mr. M'Arthur for the annexation of the Fiji Islands. Both matters technically concerned the Colonial Department, and Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen

had the opportunity of exhibiting a creditable knowledge of the business of his office and a laudable sympathy with colonial interests. Shortly after the commencement of the Session Mr. BonhamCarter became Chairman of Committees, on the retirement of Mr. Dodson, who had for several years discharged the duties of the office to the satisfaction of the House. Shortly before his resignation Mr. Dodson moved a series of resolutions providing for the transfer of the jurisdiction of Parliament over Private Bills to some permanent tribunal; but, as on former occasions, the House of Commons hesitated to delegate to an unknown authority an important branch of legislation, and the House of Lords, which would probably regard with jealousy any diminution of its powers and functions, was not even consulted. About the same time Sir Roundell Palmer, after a debate almost exclusively sustained by members of the legal profession, was defeated on a motion for the incorporation of his new Legal Association. Both the Attorney-General and the SolicitorGeneral spoke against the motion, and Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the Government, declined to support the proposal. In the middle of the Session the Lord Chancellor introduced his scheme for the constitution of a Supreme Court of Appeal, which would have combined the judicial elements of the House of Lords and of the Committee of Privy Council. After a searching and hostile criticism from Lord Cairns, the measure was, with the acquiescence of the Lord Chancellor, shelved for the Session by reference to a select committee. Mr. Fawcett made a spirited and hopeless attempt to abolish the great Parliamentary law offices. Other laymen besides Mr. Fawcett have probably thought that the legal advisers of the Government ought not to devote a large portion of their time and energy to the conduct of private forensic business, but a Government which should dispense with the Parliamentary and official aid of some of the leaders of the profession would be exposed to the risk of blunders in policy and of disaster in debate. Mr. Lowe, speaking, perhaps, from personal experience, assured Mr. Fawcett, with paradoxical truth, that the practical capacity of an able man is always exactly proportioned to the business which he is required to transact; and Mr. Gladstone, after applauding his colleague for the liveliness and humour which he had introduced into the discussion, gravely assured the House that during his long experience he had known no instance in which a law officer had not found ample leisure to advise the Crown and the various departments of State. Mr. Vernon Harcourt solemnly protested against the levity which he imputed to Mr. Lowe, and denounced the slackness of the Government in promoting law reform; but the House of Common in general seemed to be of opinion that it was sufficiently provided with occupation, and the just esteem which is accorded to Lor Hatherley is founded on other qualities than those of a zealous and successful law reformer. In the latter days of the Session Mr. Harcourt renewed the discussion on law reform by a resolution which he supported in an able and comprehensive speech. He sketched