Lord Lansdowne said, in reference to "freedom of contract," that, if the enactments of the Bill were fit to be enforced, a contract violating the Bill ought not to be supported.

The Earl of Carnarvon supported the Bill as an experiment which might do good in an exceptional state of affairs, though he thought it full of retrograde details, such as the stereotyping of tenant right and the interference with freedom of

contract.

The Lord Chancellor said that the important points of the Bill were, "first, the Ulster tenant-right and the making that custom a legal and binding contract between the parties; secondly, the clause which gives to the tenant certain compensation over and beyond the actual value of his improvements; thirdly, those clauses defining what are improvements; fourthly, the making the payment for them retrospective; fifthly, the presumption as to those improvements; and, sixthly, the forbidding certain contracts;" and proceeded to defend such arrangements as he thought threatened with attack.

The Bill was upon this read a second time. As in the Commons, so in the House of Lords, the battle was fought in Committee. There it soon became clear that the Conservative Peers were neither willing nor ready to accept the principles of the Bill; and amendments were at once proposed and carried which struck at the root of it.

The Duke of Richmond proposed to reduce the scale of compensation for eviction, by providing that the highest scale, seven years' rent, should be given in the case of holdings valued at and under 47. instead of 107.; that in cases where the valuation was above 107. and under 207. the compensation should not exceed five years' rent; and that in cases where the valuation was above 20%. and under 407. it should not exceed four years' rent.

This amendment was carried by 92 votes to 71; and further amendments proposed by the Duke were also carried by varying majorities. One denied compensation to an assignee not approved by the landlord; another forbade tenants to let gardens to their labourers under penalty of losing the protection of the Act; and a fourth reduced the lease which was to exempt landlords from the Act, from thirty-one to twenty-one years. But the gravest of all the amendments was proposed and carried through by Lord Salisbury, who on this point separated himself from the Duke of Richmond (who voted against the amendment), and obtained a majority of 18. Under this amendment 507. instead of 1007. was fixed as the rental above which no tenant was to be entitled to compensation for eviction; and in moving it

Lord Salisbury characterized the provision he attacked as "the most detestable legislation he had seen for many years;" adding that "the course which he should have wished to take, if he could have hoped to carry a majority with him, was to strike out this part of the clause altogether."

Lord Clanricarde moved, with reference to the provision that all improvements were to be prima facie presumed to have been made by the tenants, an amendment," the object of which was," he said, "to alter the whole scope of the clause." By this amendment, which was carried, the presumption was removed, and it was provided that all claims for improvements put forward either by landlord or tenant should be proved by evidence. The House of Lords also prohibited letting in con-acre, abolished (with the assent of Government) the authority of juries as to matters of fact, and reduced the needful notice to quit from twelve months to six. On the Report being brought up, however, the great majority of these votes, which threatened a most serious collision between the two Houses-as it would have been impossible for the Government to accept them, or for the Lords, the challenge once given and accepted, to draw back with dignity or safety-was on re-consideration reversed; Lord Granville offering various compromises. Lord Salisbury's amendment was expunged, though he defended it to a division, and the grade of the tenants entitled to compensation was restored from £50 to £100. The amendment prohibiting the tenant from letting in con-acre was cancelled, by allowing such letting unless prohibited in writing. The refusal to allow the Courts to presume that improvements belonged to the tenant was given up, the Duke of Richmond accepting the presumption, except in six cases to be specified by Government; and the amendment allowing the landlord to refuse compensation to an assignee was withdrawn, in favour of another giving the compensation, unless the Court should think the landlord had reasonable grounds for refusing his assent. Only two amendments of gravity were, therefore, presented by the Lords to the Commons-the reduction carried by the Duke of Richmond in the general scale of compensation, and the reduction from 31 to 21 years of the duration of lease excepting landlords from the operations of the Bill. These the Government asked the Lords to re-consider, confining also the permissive registration of improvements to landlord and tenant when acting in concert, and taking it away from either of them when acting separately. With these three exceptions, they agreed to the Lords' amendments, and after further discussion in both Houses, and with modifications of no serious character (the Lords carrying in a modified form the point which in reality most closely touched them, and securing to the landlord, under certain circumstances, a voice in connexion with the tenant's right to assign), the Irish Land Bill, one of the most remarkable and original pieces of legislation in the Statute Book, received the Royal Assent on the 1st of August; almost unnoted of men whose minds were occupied with the great war that had burst upon Europe but a fortnight before. The immediate effect of the Irish legislation of this great session, whether chiefly to be attributed to the Land Act or the Peace Preservation Act is a question into which we need not too closely enquire, was the appearance of favourable symp

E

toms in regard to the reign of law and order in Ireland during the latter part of the year. Loud expressions of sympathy with the French cause served as an outlet for Irish feeling, which, however, cannot be said to have assumed a form very expressive of any newborn loyalty to the Crown, or gratitude for benefits received. But Mr. Gladstone felt himself justified in closing the year with the grant of an amnesty to the Fenian prisoners still detained at Portlandcoupled, however, with the condition of banishment from the United Kingdom for life, without distinction of persons-a limitation which, in the opinion of some, was a very wise and righteous measure, in that of others, including many even among moderate Liberals, an ungenerous mistake, which deprived the amnesty both of grace and wisdom, looking especially to the disturbing and dangerous element to England which would thereby be introduced into the United States at a dangerous time. But with this amnesty, whether to work for good or for evil, closed Ireland's memorable share in the story of a memorable year.

CHAPTER III.

The Elementary Education Act-Its Objects-Previous condition of Schools under Government control-Mr. Forster introduces the new Act-His speech-Remarks of Sir J. Pakington-Opposition to the Bill-Amendment of Mr. Dixon on the second reading-Debate upon it-Speeches of Mr. Forster, Mr. Winterbotham, Sir Roundell Palmer, and others--Bill read for the second time-The Bill goes into Committee -New proposals of the Government-Amendment of Mr. CowperTemple accepted-Debate on Mr. Richard's Amendment-Speeches of Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Forster, Mr. Gladstone, and others-Principles established by the Debate-Division on the Amendment-Large majorities for Government-Alteration made in Committee-Discontent of the Nonconformists and Secularists-The Ballot Question-Attack on the Government by Mr. Dixon and Mr. Miall-Mr. Gladstone's reply-Speech of Lord Shaftesbury in the House of Lords-The Bill passes-Subsequent vote of censure on Mr. Forster at Bradford-The first elections for the School Boards.

Seldom has a great measure been received on the whole with such general welcome and favour in Parliament and the country, as the Elementary Education Act of 1870, which was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Forster on the 17th of February, two days after the Irish Land Bill, in a speech which is not easily to be surpassed in strength and lucidity of expression or in mastery of detail. The object of this Act, which did not extend to Scotland or Ireland, was to secure throughout England and Wales the provision of accommodation and appliances for the elementary education of the people, adequate both in quantity and quality; an object which

it proposed to secure, partly through the medium of voluntary schools already existing or to be thereafter established, and partly by the establishment of rate-supported schools under public School Boards. It aimed, not at the destruction, but at the modification. and development, of the system previously existing, following in a great degree the lines of the old foundations. The conditions on which the schools under the control of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education were, previous to the passing of this Act, assisted by the State, and the nature of the jurisdiction exercised over them by the Education Department, were described in the preliminary chapter to the Revised Code (1870). Under that system there were two classes of grants to schools. In the first place, there were grants called "Building Grants," made towards the cost of erecting, enlarging, improving, or fitting up elementary school-rooms, and the houses of elementary teachers. In the second place, there were "Annual Grants" to defray the current expenses of the schools. The first of these were to cease to be made under the new Act, when its provisions came into full operation, and the necessary schools to be provided for, as far as the State was concerned, by the institution of School Boards. The "Annual Grants" were still to continue, subject to certain prescribed conditions with which every school must comply in order to be entitled to such grants for the future, and to come within the definition of a " public elementary school." Under these modifications, speaking briefly, was the existing system to survive the new Act. In introducing that Act,

Mr. Forster said that "the first problem to be solved was 'how can we cover the country with good schools?' Now, in trying to solve that problem there are certain conditions which I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge we must abide by. First of all, we must not forget the duty of the parents. Then we must not forget our duty to our constituencies, our duty to the tax-payers. Though our constituencies almost, I believe, to a man would spend money, and large sums of money, rather than not do the work, still we must remember that it is upon them that the burden will fall. And thirdly, we must take care not to destroy in building up-not to destroy the existing system in introducing a new one. In solving this problem there must be, consistently with the attainment of our object, the least possible expenditure of public money, the utmost endeavour not to injure existing and efficient schools, and the most careful absence of all encouragement to parents to neglect their children. Our object is to complete the present voluntary system, to fill up gaps, sparing the public money where it can be done without, procuring as much as we rightly can the assistance of the parents, and welcoming as much as we rightly can the co-operation and aid of those benevolent men who desire to assist their neighbours."

The first provision of the Bill was to be a system of organization throughout the country. England and Wales were to be divided into school districts, which were to be the municipal boroughs in all towns

but London-in London the school districts already formed for workhouse schools, and, where they did not exist, the boundaries of the vestries-in the country the civil parishes. Returns were at once to be collected, to ascertain the present educational condition of each of these districts, and Inspectors and officers sent down to test the quality of the schools. "If in any one of these districts," he said," we find the elementary education to be sufficient, efficient, and suitable, we leave that district alone. By sufficient, I mean if we find there are enough schools; by efficient, I mean schools which give a reasonable amount of secular instruction; and by suitable, I mean schools to which, from the absence of religious or other restriction, parents cannot reasonably object; and I may add that for the purpose of ascertaining the condition of these districts, we count all schools that will receive our Inspectors, whether private or public, whether aided or unaided by Government assistance, whether secular or denominational. If we find the district adequately supplied, we let it alone so long as it continues in that state, retaining for ourselves the power to renew the examination from time to time." But in the majority of school districts the present educational provision would probably be declared insufficient, and by public provision that need must be supplied. The 'public elementary schools' which the Government proposed to provide would be subject to three regulations, one old and two new; the first and the old regulation being that 'the school should be kept up to the standard of secular efficiency which Parliament from time to time might think it necessary to exact,'-the second, that after a limited period it should admit any Inspector without any denominational provision,' and the third being an effectual Conscience Clause,' which was thus worded: 'No scholar shall be required, as a condition of being admitted into or of attending or of enjoying all the benefits of the school, to attend or to abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any place of religious worship, or to learn any such catechism or religious formulary, or to be present at any such lesson or instruction or observance as may have been objected to on religious grounds by the parent of the scholar sending his objection in writing to the managers or principal teacher of the school or one of them.'

This clause would "apply to all schools, secular as well as denominational, and would give to the parent the power of withdrawing his child from instruction if, on religious grounds, he thought that instruction to be such as the child ought not to learn;" and it would apply to all grants, and especially to all annual grants, whereas the "old Conscience Clause" (the principle and efficiency of which he defended from experience) was applicable only in some cases to Building Grants. These three Regulations accepted and enforced, the existing restrictions upon secular schools would be removed. There was no intention to interfere with schools which had received a past Building Grant, and would not accept the Conscience Clause. They would not receive the annual grant; but no interference would be attempted