the expenditure of the London School | subject was discussed the better for the Board, the proper course would be to future of education. But to take a write to them, and not by a side wind, Division on the adjournment would be by a Motion of this sort, to inflict upon thereby to decide what would, practhem censure. There were a variety of tically, be a vote of censure on the most circumstances which made it undesirable, important local representative body in he thought, for his hon. Friend to push the country, without its own representahis Motion to a Division. He (Lord tives having been heard. As a matter George Hamilton) was sorry that he of fact, at I o'clock they had had but should have detained the House at some four speeches, no member of the Board, length; and if they could so shape their or representing the Metropolis, having proposal as to make it applicable to the spoken. Under such circumstances, it whole of England, he did not think any- would be taking the House at a disone would have cause to complain that advantage to force a Division. it would, in the smallest degree, affect either the sufficiency or the efficiency of national education; but it would show the managers of schools that it never was, and was not now, the intention of Parliament that a great and unlimited use should be made of the rates in order to obtain a larger measure of money raised by taxation. He thought it would also be a distinct intimation to any manager or any Board who took a different view, and who believed that unlimited expenditure was advantageous to the cause of education, that no greater hindrance to the cause of national education could be devised than to make the progress of primary education dependent upon excessive dipping into the pockets of the ratepayers.

MR. MUNDELLA said, they had now arrived at a very late hour, yet not a single Metropolitan Member had had an opportunity of addressing the House, nor had any of the members of the School Board, who were also Members of that House, spoken. The statement of the noble Lord certainly, also, ought not to go without discussion and unchallenged. Therefore, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(Mr. Mundella.)

MR. J. R. YORKE said, he must distinctly oppose the Motion, unless it was understood that the adjournment was not to be sine die. If, however, the Government could not give him a day, he must take a Division on the question of the adjournment, in order to obtain an expression of opinion from the House as to the conduct of the School Board. MR. FAWCETT would be heartily glad if the Government could give the hon. Member a day, for the more this Lord George Hamilton

MR. PELL said, he should vote for the Motion, not because he wished to condemn the conduct of individual members of the Board, who were the creatures of circumstances, but because he objected to the circumstances which placed them where they were.

MR. W. E. FORSTER thought the Motion for adjournment very reasonable. It would be most unwise to attempt to get a decision on the Main Question by dividing on the Motion for adjournment, because the case had not been nearly sufficiently debated. He should be very glad if the Government could give a day; but he feared that was not very likely at this period of the Session.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the Government were fully conscious of the importance of the issue raised, and the ability with which it had been debated; but, at the same time. he feared it was a debate which, at that period of the Session, they could not hope to bring to a satisfactory conclusion. The case brought forward not only raised the question as to the conduct of a particular School Board, but introduced the whole question of our educational system; while the statement by his noble Friend of the views of the Government ought itself to be the subject of further debate. It was, therefore, most reasonable that the debate should be adjourned. The Government would give a day with the greatest pleasure if they felt they could redeem their promise, but that was quite out of their power; and he could only express a hope that an opportunity would be found to resume the debate. The proposition intimated by his noble Friend must come under the attention of the House in another form, when there might be further opportunities for discussion. He did not think the Govern

the case.

I should like, before proceed- | tuencies which are now already dealt ing to the discussion of the measure, to with. That Bill was rejected by 201 to

call attention to the history of the ques- 126. That minority of 126 included altion. It is certainly somewhat instruc- most all the Liberal Members who were tive, as showing the tendency of legis- present in the House, and there were lation and of the growing opinion of the only six Members sitting for Liberal House in favour of such a Bill. My constituencies who voted against it. The hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was minority also included my right hon. the first to call attention to the matter | Friend (Mr. W. E. Foster), the author in 1871; but a more serious discussion of the Ballot Bill, whose support, thereof the whole subject took place in 1872, fore, I hope to obtain on the present ocon the introduction of the Ballot Bill. casion. Then, in 1877, my hon. Friend I must say, on looking back to that (Sir Charles W. Dilke) brought in a Retime, it does exhibit an amount of va- solution, according to which he proposed cillation and inconsistency on the part that the hours should be in the Metroof the then Government in relation to polis from 8 to 8, and that in all other places that measure, which I should think a discretion should be reserved to local is without parallel in Parliamentary authorities, which, as I have already history; for it appears the Bill was suggested, might be done in the present brought in by the Government provid- Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ing that the poll should be open from stated that he had no objection to the 8 to 4, as at present, and when an principle of the measure, although he Amendment was moved to extend the did object to the discretion so reserved, hours from 8 to 8, the Government voted and, at his suggestion, the Bill was reagainst that Amendment, and it was con- ferred to a Committee. The Committee sequently rejected; but observing, ap-reported, during the same Session, in parently, a strong feeling in favour of some extension, the Government proposed a compromise, which was that the hours should be from sunrise to sunset. Afterwards, however, they turned against their own proposition, and withdrew their support to the compromise they had suggested. It was certainly either withdrawn or rejected, and the Bill went up to the House of Lords in the present form of the law. In the House of Lords the Earl of Shaftesbury moved an Amendment in favour of keeping open the poll from 8 to 8, which was carried against the Government. Thereupon they brought in again that compromise of theirs, which appeared to be a stalking-horse to get over any difficulty with which they might find themselves confronted, and they proposed that the hours should be from sunrise to sunset. They carried that in a subsequent Sitting, and the Bill came down to the Commons in that form; but when it got into the Commons, that convenient compromise was again dropped by the Government, and no extension whatever was finally permitted. The next occasion on which reference was made to the subject was in 1874, when my hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) brought in a Bill which was practically the same as that now before the House, except that it included the Metropolitan consti

Mr. Chamberlain

favour of the extension suggested in the Metropolitan constituencies; and in 1878 my hon. Friend accordingly brought in a Bill carrying into effect their sugges tion, and he was rewarded for all the perseverance he had shown on the subject by carrying that Bill through the House without a Division. The Committee was re-appointed to consider the circumstances of the rest of the country. Let me say that the success of my hon. Friend very greatly increases the difficulty of hon. Members who intend to oppose the present Bill; because they have no longer to indulge in the very vague objections which are made to any reform at all; but they have to show why the difficulties which have been met in the Metropolis should not also be dealt with in the country. The Committee reported in July, 1878. The House is disposed to pay great respect to the opinion of a Committee; but in the present case I think it right to point out that the Committee was very nearly divided, and the Report was only carried by the casting vote of the Under Secre tary of State for the Home Department (Sir Matthew White Ridley), who occupied the chair. It appears to me to be a very inadequate document; for, after admitting that a very considerable grievance had been established to the satisfaction of the Committee, it went

on to say that the question did not press | evidence taken by the Committee estabfor immediate solution, and might lished very important facts; and I will stand over to the time for the renewal read one or two short extracts from that of the Ballot Act. I confess I think evidence. For instance, Mr. Duncan I can see another reason in the concluding Kennedy, Secretary of the Glasgow paragraph of the Report, which speaks of Trades Council, said that a large prothe desirability ofawaiting the experience portion of the working men were almost of the extended hours in the Metro- disfranchised by the present limited polis. Yes; there was also this reason- hours. Mr. Turner, the Secretary of the that there may also be a General Elec- Sheffield Trades Council, considered that tion, and a large number of working- the number of working men prevented class voters may be disfranchised by the from voting was 5,000. The same genexisting state of the law. I think the tleman stated that, at the first School House has reason to complain of the Board election in that town, the numcharacter of the inquiry of the Committee. ber of votes polled was 13,000; but in Out of 23 witnesses, not one was called 1873, when the hours were extended, as a representative of the small towns. the number amounted to 25,000. Mr. At the same time, the Committee issued Fitzpatrick, Chairman of the Birkenhead a Circular to the Mayors of many of the Ship Trades Council, said that 30 of the principal towns. They appear to have trades had resolved in favour of extendreceived only 28 replies, seven being in ing the hours to 8 o'clock, and he added favour of an alteration, and the other 21 that one half of the number could not opposed to it. I think it is a great pity vote under existing circumstances withthat the Committee did not have before out sacrificing time and wages. The them some of those Mayors who objected, Secretary of the Manchester Trades in order that they might have been Council gave evidence to the same effect. examined and cross-examined as to the Sir Joseph Heron said he did not begrounds of their objection, which I believe that any practical inconvenience lieve would have been found to be of the was sustained by existing arrangements, slightest and scantiest description. I am nor had he ever heard any complaints quite convinced that if those gentlemen upon the subject. Well, the moment had been examined, it would have been that evidence was reported in Manchesfound that their objections were really ter, the Trades Council offered to give based chiefly on the convenience of the evidence before the Committee, and to officials, and that there was not suffi- show that half as many more persons cient grounds for those anticipated dis- would have voted had the hours been turbances to which their letters alluded. extended, and also that numerous comOf the official witnesses examined, three plaints had been made. Mr. Peter Bull, were chief constables, one of whom, the of Manchester, said he believed that Chief Constable for Glasgow, had ex- 12,000 more voters would have polled at perience of a rough population; and not the last Election, had they been furonly was this gentleman in favour of the nished with the opportunity. Now, eviextension, but he did not anticipate any dence of that kind established two things disturbances in his own city. The last first, that a very large number of witness examined was the Town Clerk of Manchester. I am personally acquainted with Sir Joseph Heron, the Town Clerk of Manchester, and I must say that he is, to my mind, the type and pattern of municipal officialism. Anyone who reads the evidence given by him to the Committee will find that he did not venture to put any fear of disturbance as a reason against the extension, but the inconvenience to the officials, and the great expense. It seems to me these are not reasons which would justify the House in continuing a system which practically disfranchises a large portion of the community. Nevertheless, the

persons are prevented from giving their votes at present; and, secondly, that many of those who now go to the poll lose time and money. Since I have come into the House I have received a telegram from the proprietor of The Leicester Mercury, who says that at the last Election he saw 60 persons leave without being able to record their votes; and he adds that he knows of another gentleman who saw 80 more in a similar position. The Secretary to the Trades Council, he says, told him that it was painful to see so large a number of persons unable to record their votes. Sir Joseph Heron rather cavalierly observed that