the meaning of that Proclamation? It was impossible to raise upon that Proclamation any question which Her Majesty's Advisers were bound to refer to a legal tribunal; but even if the Government agreed to refer the subject to such a tribunal, would his hon. and learned Friend say what question should be submitted? No legal question could be defined. It was impossible that his hon. and learned Friend could submit to the Government and the House any question which could be submitted to a legal tribunal, for, in addition to whatever he might suggest, it would still remain for the Government to advise the Crown with respect to the exercise of its prerogative, and its generosity in dealing with this question of bounty. An ap counsel for those on whose behalf an application was now made to the House, he thought it would be only becoming in him to abstain from taking any part in this discussion; and he preferred to absent himself from the House in order that he might not be appealed to and forced into taking part in a debate on a matter in which he had been engaged as adviser before he held his present Office. His opinion had been read to the House, and by that opinion he was still bound. He believed there was a case for the consideration of the Treasury, and he advised that a memorial should be presented; but he gave no opinion whatever as to what was likely to be the result of the application. He hoped the House would not think he was acting unbecomingly, either as a Law Officer of the Crown, or as former adviser to the claimants, if he stood by that opinion, and refused either to advance or to recede. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: After having been so much called upon in this debate, it is hardly possible for me to avoid saying a few words. I will just state what I understand to be the question before the House, and how matters now stand. Her Majesty's troops took Kirwee, and they were entitled to receive, and did receive under a judgment by Dr. Lushington, a very large share of the booty which they took there. Their advisers and friends then raised a further claim MR. HENLEY said, he understood that, in 1868, when the idea of making this claim first arose, the opinion of the Solicitor General was obtained, and he advised that there was a case on which to memorialize the Treasury. plication was thereupon made to the Treasury, and the case was heard, counsel appearing on both sides, nor could he find in the correspondence any request that the matter should be referred to the Court of Admiralty; on the contrary, the memorialists expressed their thankfulness at the Treasury having undertaken to hear their case. Much had been said about the Treasury in the course of this debate; but it should be recollected that it was not this country but the people of India who were in--that in addition to booty valued at terested-a material point which had not been kept in view. The Treasury could, to say the least, act impartially between the Army and the people of India, who would have had to pay, had the decision been in favour of the soldiers; nor had he heard a word in this debate to show why there should be any appeal from the tribunal which had already given a decision on the subject to that Court to which it was equally open to the memorialists to have applied in the first instance. The parties had sought the decision of a tribunal whose offer they accepted with thanks, and they ought now to be bound by the £500,000, they were entitled to the proceeds of certain promissory notes worth £250,000 more. Those promissory notes were not taken in Kirwee, but are supposed to have been lost or destroyed; at all events, they are not forthcoming, and could any one claim upon them except he was able to present them? They claim to be constituted the creditors of Her Majesty for the value of those promissory notes in addition to the £500,000 they have already received from the bounty of Her Majesty as prize money, and their claim is upon the Indian revenues for £250,000. There is a proper and constitutional tribunal for giving an opinion on the subject of that THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, claim, and for advising Her Majesty he should not have taken any part in whether she shall extend her Royal this discussion had not some observations bounty beyond the amount_already been made respecting his absence from given. That tribunal is the Treasury the House during the debate. He only Board, and no other body whatever. desired to say now, that having been That is absolutely beyond dispute, and result. Mr. Stansfeld there is a precedent for it in the case of the Deccan prize money, which was heard and decided by Lord Liverpool and the Lords of the Treasury. That case has been cited against us by those who wish to deny our authority; but, under the circumstances, what were the Treasury to do in this case? They had the power, if they so chose, to advise Her Majesty to issue an Order in Council referring this matter to the Court of Admiralty, and such a course was adopted by Lord Palmerston's Government in the case of the £500,000 already distributed among those troops; but that led to immense expense and litigation, and to the great delay which has been complained of by almost every speaker who has blamed the Treasury Board for their conduct. No doubt that delay is a matter very much to be lamented; for, as has been said, many times soldiers die, and they lose the reward to which they are justly entitled. The Treasury felt that this was not like the question which was referred to Dr. Lushington, that being a complicated and difficult matter, and one which involved disputes as to issues of fact as well as raising points of law. In this matter, there was one simple question with which the Treasury believed themselves perfectly able to deal, considering the assistance they would receive from the learned counsel who would be engaged in the case; and, therefore, out of kindness to the claimants, and for no other reason, the Treasury took upon themselves the heavy responsibility of exercising their jurisdiction instead of pushing it off upon the Court of Admiralty; for the effect of the latter course would inevitably have been to put the parties to an enormous expense, and to cause them to suffer endless delay before a decision was given. The decision of the Court would have been subject to an appeal to the Privy Council. To save the soldiers this, to give a speedy decision, and in the confidence though that may have been misplaced that we should be able to do justice in this matter, the Board of the Treasury undertook to discharge this duty, and their offer, as has been already stated, was received with gratitude. Not a word of objection to their undertaking the duty was ever stated; the two litigant parties, the Indian Government and the representatives of the troops, appeared by very able counsel and were heard. All sorts of imputations have been cast on the Board of the Treasury, but we were absolutely impartial; it mattered not to us whether this money was given to the troops or to the Indian Revenue. All we wished was that justice should be done between them, and that it should be done cheaply and speedily. My right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown presided on that occasion, and the other Lords of the Treasury, myself included, were present. We heard and considered the matter without the slightest bias or feeling, and, having considered it, we gave our decision in favour of the Indian Government. We are now asked virtually to cancel that decision-to treat it as null and void. Why? Because those against whom we decided are dissatisfied. Of course, one side or other must always be dissatisfied with a decision; but I ask the House, in its anxiety to further the ends of justice, not to do a great injustice in this matter. Both parties appeared and were heard, and asked the decision of the Treasury upon their case; each side took the risk of the decision being adverse, though of course hoping that it would be favourable. Suppose the decision of the Treasury had been in favour of the soldiers, would they now be coming forward to speak of the tribunal as improper and inadequate? Had the decision been against the Indian Government they would have lost £250,000, yet they raised no objection to the question being determined by us. They could have made no valid objection; but they did not even attempt to do so. I contend that a litigant has no right to bring his case before a tribunal, taking his chance of what the decision may be, and then, when it is adverse, to turn round and raise the question whether the Court was a proper one to try the case. If there were any objection to the jurisdiction of the Treasury it ought to have been urged before the arguments were proceeded with, and not afterwards. In trying the case, we took upon ourselves a heavy responsibility, without any motive whatever to bias us; we discharged that duty to the best and utmost of our ability, and we deserve a better return than to be accused of partiality and arbitrary conduct by those against whom we have committed no offence whatever, except it be that, after the best consideration we were able to give to the subject, we could see no justification whatever for | owners was not so great as that of the their claim. Ünder these circumstances, I trust the House will be content to let the matter stand, and will not desire to re-open the question. SIR JOHN HAY read from the Articles of War a passage in support of the statement which he had made, and which he understood to have been impugned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld). Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided :-Ayes 108; Noes 67 Majority 41. CHILDREN EMPLOYED IN AGRICUL TURE. OBSERVATIONS. MR. FAWCETT, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the condition of Children Employed in Agriculture, said, this was now the third time he had endeavoured to direct attention to the subject, and he would do so as briefly as possible. In all the discussions which had arisen upon education in and out of that House, scarcely a single reference had been made to this Report; yet there never was one which embraced more important information, or threw more important light on the educational problem in various aspects. It would tend to correct an unfortunate feeling which was growing up, and which had been fostered by the action of the Government and by what had occurred during the present Session. It was supposed we had solved the most important part of the education problem when we had brought the means of education within the reach of every child; but this Report conclusively demonstrated that it was not enough to bring the means of education within the reach of every child. Beyond this there was something more important to secure that children should avail themselves of these educational advantages. Although the ignorance that prevailed in the rural districts was deplorable, it did not exceed the extent of ignorance in some of our largest and wealthiest towns. No language could be used too strongly in praise of the efforts made by the clergy to extend education in the rural districts; and, although the zeal displayed by land The Chancellor of the Exchequer clergy, everything that could be done had been done to improve in their own districts the means of an excellent education. But if they found that, after all, the state of education in the rural districts was scarcely more satisfactory than it was before that new zeal began, the conclusion was irresistible that something more was required, and that education in the rural districts never would be rendered what it ought to be simply and solely by the provision of schools. He would show this by some references to the Report, which he believed would be found marked by fairness and candour. Mr. Stanhope, one of the Assistant Commissioners, who visited the counties of Nottingham and Lincoln, stated that they were well supplied with schools. Scarcely was there a village in which there was not a good school; yet he added that the state of education in those counties was becoming more unsatisfactory as the schools were becoming more satisfactory. The reason was, that the age at which children were taken from school was gradually dropping, owing to the demand for juvenile labour, and the provision of good schools was powerless to counteract it. Schools were not so much wanted as the securing the attendance of children at them. The Bishop of Manchester, one of the highest authorities on the subject, who had been employed on the Commission, and who had investigated this subject carefully, accurately, and completely, stated that in 19 counties of England which he had visited there was school accommodation for one-half more children than attended them. It had been shown again and again that good schools in many districts had been provided, and that the state of education did not improve one iota. So long as the children were taken away and sent to work, the school was little more than an infant school. In Gloucestershire, Mr. Stanhope found children as young as six years were sent to work, and if that was so, how could the provision of schools secure the education of children? In the county of Dorset boys of eight or nine years were sent to follow the plough. Mr. Woolaston, diocesan inspector in the county of Sussex, admitted that schools. had improved; but school results were not more satisfactory, because during the last 10 years the average age at which children were taken from school | could not afford to lose any portion of had been dropping. At the present time the earnings of their children. On the the average age at which boys left school other hand, a good deal was to be said in that district was less by 11 months in favour of a general system of comthan it was 10 years since. But the evil pulsion, which would limit the supply of did not stop here. School attendance juvenile labour throughout the country, became also more irregular and inter- and thereby directly increase its price. mittent. One diocesan inspector stated At the same time, it would indirectly that an average school attendance of five produce important effects on the wages years represented an actual attendance of adult labour, for nothing more deof only three years. There was only one pressed the wages of adult labour than way to cure the evil by placing some the competition of juvenile labour. This restriction on the age at which children argument, however, would cease to have might go to work. When the Factory effect if, instead of a general compulsory Acts were passed the principle was laid system throughout the country, some down that the State had a right to in-hybrid and permissive sort of compulsion terfere between the parent and the child; and, therefore, it could not now be contended that the State had not a right to interfere between the parent and the child employed in agriculture. It was said that the farmer wanted the labour of the child; but to that he replied that the evidence before the Commission brought out the fact that the prosperity of agriculture varied inversely with the age at which children were sent to work. In Northumberland, where children were rarely sent to work until they were 12 years old, a superior class of agricultural labourers was to be found; and in consequence the farmers were able to pay 20, or 30, or even 40 per cent more wages for labour than in the worst counties of England. Mr. Culley, who was employed by the Agricultural Commission, stated that so superior was the labourer in Northumberland in consequence of increased intelligence resulting from the practice of not sending the children to work until they were 12 years old, that the labourer, on account of his increased efficiency, was enabled to receive higher wages. Upon the point whether it was necessary for a child to go to work at eight or nine years of age in order to learn his trade, the evidence given before the Commission was conclusive. Mr. Fraser and other Commissioners examined the labourers, and their testimony was unanimously to the effect that it was not necessary for a child to go to work at that early age, and that a child would learn his trade better if kept at school until he was 12 years old. The poverty of the parents was urged as a most formidable objection to the adoption of a system of compulsion in respect to the schooling of the children, because the parents, it was said, was introduced, according to the scheme of the Government, establishing compulsion in one village and not in another at a certain distance from it. But whatever the House might do with respect to compulsory education, the labourers in counties where the wages were 88., 98., or 108. a week, could not be worse off than they were at present, for it was not the competition of the labour market which controlled the rate of wages in those counties, but the rate of wages was determined by a consideration of the minimum on which a labourer could live. The result, therefore, of the introduction of a general system of compulsion would be that the labourers in those counties would not starve, but when the wages of the children were taken away a slight addition would be made to the wages of the adults in order to enable them to live. Then came the question, how was this system of compulsion to be worked out? He did not wish to bring forward any definite scheme of his own, but would refer to the schemes of two Commissioners, which were directly opposed to each other. Mr. Tremenheere proposed that up to the age of 11 years every child employed in agriculture should be compelled to attend school 160 times during the year, or, in other words, to have 80 days' schooling; but if a child of nine years could pass an examination in the fourth standard, then the number of school attendances should be reduced from 160 to 60, and if at 10 years of age a child was able to pass an examination in the next standard, then all obligation to attend school should cease. The plan of having 160 school attendances was a proposal analogous to the clauses in the Print Works Act, and it was remarkable that the Secretary of State for the engaged in the industry subjected to the most onerous restriction. He had been accused of holding extreme views upon the religious question; but he attached far more importance to compulsion than to the religious aspect of the Government Bill, because, without compulsion, the best schools, with the most liberal regulations, would not accomplish the education of every child. This done, many questions touched upon in the Report, connected with the condition of the agricultural labourer, would solve themselves. It was of little use building good cottages for people who did not appreciate them; but the more highly cultivated peasantry of Northumberland would not live in bad ones. Those who were well taught would acquire a taste for rational pleasures, which would do more to keep them from intemperance than any Licensing Bills. In conclusion, he would beg to move dence obtained by this Commission proves that the "That, in the opinion of this House, the evi ignorance which prevails in the rural districts is in a far greater degree due to the early age at which children are taken from school to be sent to work, than to any general deficiency in the means of education." Home Department was about to introduce that very evening a Bill to amend the Print Works Acts, because the educational clauses in them had proved a miserable sham and idle mockery. Mr. Leonard Horner, one of the most experienced Factory Inspectors, said he regarded the Print Works Acts as mockeries of legislation and absolutely useless. The scheme of Mr. Tremenheere was unfortunately marred by that fatal principle which would drag all children to one dead level, for he proposed that the clever and industrious boy of nine should be required to attend school only onethird of the time that the less gifted or less industrious boy did. This would defeat one grand end of education, which was to discover and develop talent, and to enable the clever boy to advance from the National School to the University. Mr. Tufnel said he would forbid the employment of children not only in agriculture but in any industry whatever until they were nine years of age, and that he would gradually advance the age to 10, 11, and 12; but he did not seem to be prepared to recommend, as a necessary corollary, the securing of the attendance of children at school when they were not permitted to work; and it would be obvious we should only be encouraging idleness and vice if means were not taken to secure the schooling of every child not permitted to work. He there- MR. BRUCE said, the main object of fore maintained it was absolutely neces- the speech of his hon. Friend seemed to sary to have, not permissive compulsion, be to show the necessity of a compulsory but a general system of direct compul- system of education. He (Mr. Bruce) sion, to save from ruin the children for- would be the last to say that the educabidden to work. Admirable as were the tional condition of children in the agriresults obtained by the Factory Acts, cultural districts was satisfactory; but one effect of their operation was, that there was ample evidence to show that parents, knowing their children must the children in the agricultural districts attend school when they began work, were not worse educated than children neglected their early education, so that in the towns. As many persons were the factory children when they began able to read and write in the agriculwork were less well educated than those tural districts, and as many persons not intended to be employed in factories. signed the register there, as in the This showed that it would be mischiev- towns, and he was sorry to say that the ous and disastrous to forbid the employ- places where ignorance was the largest ment of children, unless we had a general and deepest were the large manufactursystem of compulsory school attendance. ing towns. He had hoped to find some Mr. Tufnel urged the importance of uni- light thrown upon the special difficulties form legislation, because he showed that, connected with education in the agriculif one branch of industry was more re-tural districts; but his hon. Friend (Mr. stricted than another, children were attracted from the more restricted to the less restricted occupation, the natural flow of labour was unduly disturbed, and injustice was inflicted upon those Mr. Fawcett MR. SPEAKER reminded the hon. Member that, according to the forms of the House, the Motion could not be put. Fawcett), though he had been successful in showing the objections to the schemes of the Commissioners, had made no suggestion of his own upon the subject. This might be no reason why the Go |