pensation to be made to the clerks whose | perfectly sure, from his knowledge of his business was going to be taken away. hon. Friend, that the insertion of the That compensation had been raised from Amendment changing the rate of comone-fourth to one-third without any notice pensation from one-fourth to one-third, whatever. The House had gone through without notice, was by inadvertence. By some of the forms, but not the whole. the original Bill, however, it never was He believed that no alteration could be contemplated that a plurality of offices made in a Bill on a third reading without should be established. He (Sir J. Granotice having been given. ham) took shame to himself in not having foreseen the possibility of that plurality of offices. It was contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the Act. It was now thought desirable to buy out this abuse by compensation, and he thought a compensation of one-fourth, sanctioned as it had been by the Committee, was most ample. He had that morning received an anonymous letter from Dewsbury, stating that, MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken. The rule of the House was, that no clause should be inserted on the third reading without notice; but an Amendment might be made without notice. SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Then, has the Amendment passed? MR. SPEAKER: Yes. SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Is it not if any argument were wanting to show the open for the House to discuss it? MR. SPEAKER: No. SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Then I cannot sufficiently express my surprise and sorrow. MR. SPEAKER said, that before he put the question that the Bill do pass, he wished to know whether the alteration which had been made from one-fourth to one-third in the compensation to certain clerks went beyond the charges imposed by the existing County Courts Acts, because if it did the House could not agree to it? serious inconvenience arising from non-resident chief clerks, it was to be found in the fact that the clerk for the towns of Dewsbury, Pontefract, and another large neighbouring town, was residing in Leeds, and that the duties were delegated to a young man, the chief clerk attending only on Court days. For those duties he received fees amounting to £2,200, out of which he paid about £500 for salaries to clerks, retaining a net income of £1,700 a year, a sum exceeding the salary of any County Court Judge in the kingdom. He should wait with some anxiety to hear the decision of Mr. Speaker, as to whether the advance of the amount of compensation from one-fourth to one-third was obligatory on the House or not. MR. WILSON said, that by this Bill Parliament was repealing an Act by which the clerks were entitled to a large salary. He submitted that, whether the Bill proposed to retain one-third or one-fourth of MR. SPEAKER: My decision will have the existing salary, it would not be an in- no reference whatever to the merits of the crease of charge on the public. It was a case now before the House. It will be charge to be paid out of fees already im- strictly of a technical character. In ordiposed. The reason of the alteration from nary cases it is not competent for any perone-fourth to one-third was, that originally son to propose a greater charge on the a discretionary power was given to the revenue of the country than the amount Government as to the amount to be paid which has passed the Committee. The to those clerks; but when it was thought only exception to that rule is, where a Bill more advisable to fix an absolute sum, is introduced to amend an Act which has without any discretion being left to the Go- passed in a previous Session, and which vernment, then it was thought that one-imposed a higher charge than is intended third would be a fair arrangement. Those to be proposed by the Bill before the men had been induced to abandon their House. When the Amendment, therefore, private practice in order to devote their services to the public. Supposing a clerk to be now receiving £600 a year, by the Bill it was proposed that he should only receive £200 a year; and the mere possibility of returning to his private practice was a thing more easily spoken of than accomplished. SIR JAMES GRAHAM said, he was was proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson), it was impossible for me to know whether the increased amount of compensation came within the ordinary rules of the House, or whether there was such a charge created by the Act passed in a previous Session as would cover the amount proposed by the hon. Member. But, I now understand, there was no charge whatever 1209 Vice President of Committee {JULY 22, 1856} of Council on Education. 1210 under the old law. If I am right in that some large scheme of national education, supposition, then no proposition can be to be conducted by the Government. That entertained on the Report or third reading being the case, he could well understand to exceed the limits fixed by the Commit- why the Government should press the tee. Therefore, I consider the Amend- measure. But being of opinion that there ment which has been introduced into the was no necessity for it, he should move clause is informal, and one which ought not that it should be read a second time that to have been made. It is therefore can- day three months. celled. MR. HENLEY said, it was quite clear that it was not intended there should be more than one clerk to each Court. But no check having been enacted, those men had got a monopoly of clerkships in every district. MR. WILSON said, that, with reference to the anonymous letter read by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), there was no doubt it was entirely untrue. It was impossible that any man could have received such a salary. It would have been entirely illegal. MR. CAYLEY said, he thought the clerks who would be displaced by the Bill would be very hardly used. Ordered, that the said Amendment be cancelled as being informal on the Third Reading. Bill passed, with Amendments. VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION BILL. Order for Third reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time." MR. HENLEY said, he must enter his protest against the Bill, for no reason had been adduced by the Secretary of State to satisfy him that it was necessary to bring another paid officer into that House. It would require strong reasons to make that course necessary. He, therefore, wished, at all events, to record his own opinion against passing the Bill, and thereby saddling an additional charge upon the public. Notice of an Amendment had been given that this new officer should overlook Irish education as well as English. That opened up a large question. He understood also, that this new officer was to undertake the charge of the various scientific societies that were now in vogue. But the House having negatived by a large majority the scheme for a general system of education proposed by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), he could not but think that the object of having an officer of this description had reference to a desire to set up 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. GLADSTONE said, he concurred in the general views of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Bill now under consideration. He saw, with some regret, a relaxation of that jealousy which that House formerly evinced with reference to the multiplication of paid officers of the Crown in that House. The House was not now so rigid in requiring a case to be made out for such a measure as he could wish it was. Nay, individual Members of the House sometimes rather officiously pressed upon the Government the multiplication of paid Members; and, more. over, a practice appeared to be growing up of creating offices before they had created duties which the persons filling those offices were to perform, instead of first ascertaining what duties were to be done, and then providing officers for the discharge of those duties. Such a course of proceeding was both irregular and objectionable. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had said, with great justice, that there was a connection between this Bill, when it was first introduced, and of certain schemes which were entertained, and which at one time were thought probable might be adopted in regard to national education. There was strong evidence, in his opinion, in favour of that view. The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords at an early period of the Session, and notice was at the same time given by the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) of his Resolutions on the subject of education. The further proceedings with the Bill were delayed by the Government, in order to ascertain what were the views of Parliament with reference to those Resolutions. The views of Parliament were declared in a most emphatic manner, and those Resolutions were now numbered with the things that were. But the Bill now before them, notwithstanding, was still proceeded with. He could wish that the proceedings taken upon the matter of education were such as might not involve tance, but the great mass ran in grooves a chance at a future period of their retrograding from what they had already done. He was bound to admit that generally their proceedings had been of that kind; and that they had not taken a backward course, but that the measures which had been adopted had been taken after full discussion, and that they had received in general the mature approbation of the country. But with respect to the present measure, he could not regard it as at all settling the question which it raised. Fortunately, in one sense, as it affords opportunity for future discussion, the Bill did not sanction any payment out of the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, in order to provide a salary for the new officer, it would be necessary that the name of the Minister should appear on the Votes from time to time. Thus, the matter would be truly tested. But, as regarded the judgment to be formed upon it at present, he should say that, proposed, as it was, with reference to two objects—namely, one, upon the supposition of establishing the office as a great and extended agency in the matter of education, which, for the present, had entirely disappeared; and the other, that there might always be a person in that House to answer for the Government in regard to all proceedings affecting education, he thought that the latter object alone, was hardly a sufficient cause for introducing a newly-paid official personage into that House. The convenience of having a Minister of Education in the House ought not to be alone considered; but they ought, in some degree, to know what duties the hon. Gentleman who might be appointed to that office would have to discharge when he was not attending in his place in Parliament. He said, with considerable confidence, that they were going to give a bad constitution to this educational depart-placed upon a footing of equality with the ment. The Minister of Education would be an officer very little worked, and would only be partially occupied. Privy Councillors in offices of that kind were merely superintending persons. They could not carry on a business department, their functions were of a Ministerial character. Questions requiring the intervention of such persons would occur but rarely. There was no standing business which would justify the appointment of such an official. He did not mean to say that the business of the office itself was either slight or unimportant. On the contrary, it was very extensive and of great impor head of those who were now the working officers of that department. Why not have a joint-secretary of the Committee of Education, as there was a joint-secretary in the Board of Trade? both secretaries ought to be working officers. Certainly, at the time he (Mr. Gladstone) was in that department, the joint-secretaries were charged with highly responsible and important official duties. The constitution of the Board of Control also was somewhat of an analogous case. Then there was the Poor-Law Board. That was a most recent authority. There were joint-secretaries in that department; neither of them The were Privy Councillors. In his opinion, those funds granted by Parliament for the Government would have done much educational purposes. It was also sugbetter, and would have much more securely gested that the same Board should take preserved the influence and dignity which upon themselves the charge now intrusted appertained to the important office of Lord to the Board of Trade connected with art President, if, instead of appointing a Vice and science. The First Lord of the TreaPresident, they had followed the example sury said, in reply to those appeals, that of the Board of Trade, and had appointed the Government would not shrink from a joint-secretary to be an assistant with proposing to Parliament such a measure. Mr. Lingen. He would have conducted Those were the reasons to be given for the business quite as well, and have an establishing this new officer of the Governswered questions quite as readily as any ment which was really designed to meet Vice President or Privy Councillor could what was understood to be the general do. He did not think the measure had wish of the House. The Bill did not inbeen sufficiently considered by Government volve the question of salary; that would or by Parliament, and he therefore believed come annually before Parliament. that the wiser course would be that, in- right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had stead of giving the sanction of Parliament drawn a distinction between a Privy Counto an immature scheme, it should be post- cillor and not a Privy Councillor, but that poned until a definite idea was formed of was quite beside the question raised by the nature of the duties to be discharged the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire by this new officer. In the meantime, all (Mr. Henley). That right hon. Gentleman the duties appertaining to the function of objected to any alteration of the present a Minister of Education, could continue to system, or to any paid officer sitting in be discharged, as they hitherto had been, that House who should be able to give by the Secretary of State for the Home that information which it would be his Department. duty to give. If at any future period it SIR GEORGE GREY said, he must should be thought better that public edudeny that this proposal was in any way cation should be represented by an execuconnected with the educational scheme tive officer instead of by a Vice President, proposed by the noble Lord the Member and that his salary should be £1,500 a for the City of London at an early period year instead of £2,000, it would be quite of the Session. On the contrary, in the open for the House to adopt that course. Session of 1855, and long before any It was quite true that all the proposed scheme was proposed by his noble Friend, schemes of public education were rejected; it was strongly pressed upon the Govern- but he understood that the grounds of ment that the constitution of the Com- their rejection were that the time had not mittee of the Privy Council of Education arrived when it was practically expedient was defective, and that while Parliament to attempt to establish one general system was yearly increasing the amount of grants of education throughout the country. But for the purpose of promoting education it it was, nevertheless, the general feeling of was inexpedient that those grants should the House that means should be taken to be placed in the hands of a Board where extend education throughout the kingdom; no member of it was responsible for its and it was thought that the existing means appropriation, and where, there being a used now were the best that could be dedivided responsibility, there was in effect vised. When the Committee of Privy no responsibility at all. The Government Council of Education was first established, were urged by several Members, especially the grants of public money were small, by the right hon. Member for Droitwich and the duties were of a light character, (Sir J. Pakington) to remedy the defective constitution of the Committee of Privy Council of Education, and to establish an individualised responsibility, and to place the administration of those funds under the superintendence of one Minister. It was also urged that the educational department ought to be represented in that House by a Minister who, in conjunction with the President of the Council, should take upon himself the administration of so that the Committee possessed sufficient machinery to administer those funds. But now that the grants had largely increased, and the business connected with the department of education had likewise increased, it was felt desirable that the educational department should be enlarged, and that it should be represented by an influential Minister in the House of Commons. MR. NAPIER said, he thought that it 1215 Vice President of Committee {COMMONS} of Council on Education Bill. 1216 would be a great advantage to have in that House a Minister of Education for the whole of the United Kingdom. Two different systems existed-one in Ireland, and the other in this country-and it would certainly be desirable to have some one in that House responsible for the whole education of the United Kingdom. He did not think the salary proposed was too high. If, however, they passed the Bill in its present shape they would be widening the line of demarcation which at present existed between England and Ireland, with respect to education. MR. GRANVILLE VERNON said, he could not allow one observation of the Secretary for the Home Department to pass without remark. The right hon. Gentleman said it was quite beside the question to make any objections to the Bill on the ground of the position which the proposed officer was to occupy, or to object to his being a Privy Councillor. Now, the Bill consisted of one clause; and he conceived that the whole force and pith of the Bill was that the proposed Minister should be a highly salaried officer and one of great position. It appeared to him that by the Bill the President of the Committee of the Privy Council of Education would practically be made a nullity. He must confess that he looked with great jealousy at the appointment of such an officer as this. He could not possibly understand what those matters connected with art and science, and which were now associated with the Board of Trade, had to do with education in a practical sense. He was aware that persons talked about the education of the people being promoted by art and science in an indirect manner. That, no doubt, was true; but what he maintained was required in the present case was a hard-working officer. He willingly admitted that it would be of great advantage to have one Minister on the subject of education responsible to that House. Large sums of money were voted annually, and the House had not sufficient means to inquire into the details of the ma nagement and expenditure of that money. But the suggestion which had been made in the course of the discussion would, in his opinion, fully meet the case. A joint secretary might be employed in the day in the duties of his department, and at night he might attend in that House to answer the few questions that might be put. It might be desirable that some Minister should always be ready to answer such questions. No doubt that duty would ultimately become one of great importance. If responsibility were required he was sure that no one would be more unwilling to shrink from responsibility than the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. And if upon his responsibility the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to say that he was not able satisfactorily to his own conscience, and, as he believed, to the public and to that House, to answer those questions and make himself master of the points that might arise, then he (Mr. G. Vernon) would admit that a strong case had been made out for having some officer, but he should say an inferior officer, of the Government appointed to discharge that duty. It could not, however, be said, that it was of no importance whether that officer was a Privy Councillor or not. It was of great importance for this reason, that he must be strictly a Ministerial officer. His sole and entire business would be to carry out the views of Parliament, and the views of the President of the Committee of Privy Council of education. It assuredly would not do to have two equal authorities in the same department. He must be distinctly subordinate to the President of the Privy Council, and he must not go beyond the intentions of the Privy Council. If his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire should go to a division, he should certainly feel it his duty to vote with him. MR. HADFIELD said, he was sorry that a question of this kind should assume the character of a Government Bill, because hon. Members who were supporters of Government felt themselves in some manner constrained to support the measure, whether they approved it or not. But the measure now before the House did not originate with the Government; it was forced upon them; he, therefore, hoped that they would listen to the advice given to them against the principle of the Bill. The amount of grants for education, science, and art was £876,937. There were fifteen items on account of which grants were made, but this Educational Board would only have to deal with one of those items. He should certainly vote against the Bill. MR. VERNON SMITH said, he sup posed that, notwithstanding the schemes proposed for a general system of public education had been rejected, they were not to give up education altogether, or to such a degree as would not involve the necessity |