attention of the House to page 13, where | Board of Education might approve of it they would find it provided that— or not; but it would have no effect if they did not approve of it. He thought "Any teacher of a public school appointed previously to the passing of this Act may be removed a body more independent than the local from his office in manner following; that is to say-board should be the judge. School(1.) It shall be lawful to the school board of any parish or burgh to make a complaint to the sheriff of the county, charging any such teacher with immoral conduct or cruel or improper treatment of the scholars under his charge, and specifying in such complaint the particular acts in respect of which the complaint is made; and a copy of such complaint shall be served upon the teacher, who shall be required on an induciæ of eight days to appear before the sheriff to answer to the said complaint; and the teacher shall, if he deny the charge, and if he think fit, answer the particulars of the complaint in writing, or may plead generally that he is Not Guilty; and the sheriff shall thereafter proceed to the trial of the complaint, and take the evidence taking proofs in civil causes; and if he shall find

he could answer. That was a matter of

course.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH complained of the inconvenience which was occasioned by discussing Amendments with which many of their Lordships were not acquainted until they came down to the House. He protested against its being supposed that the House had assented to all the remaining Amendments

Bill. Many noble Lords were away, and it was highly inconvenient that so short a notice should have been given.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the question had been formally put and decided.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, the Bill as it was originally brought in fixed three years, and they were punished for their impertinence in raising it to five by having the period further reduced by the Commons to two. He wished to point out that by the Amend-made by the House of Commons in the ments of the Commons it was provided that, if towards the expiration of the two years during which the Order was to be permanent, it should be considered desirable to prolong its existence, the Order in Council must be laid on the Tables of both Houses for 40 days before it could take effect. But supposing that there should be a dissolution of Parliament in May, 1874, it might happen that, contrary to the wishes of the Government, the Board might be killed beyond all possibility of revival, because Parliament would not be in existence, and the Notice could not, therefore, be laid on the Table. In regard to the duration of the Board, he also thought that if it were for five years certain, they might expect to attract to it some of the best men in Scotland; but that would not be the case if they knew that their services were liable to be dispensed with after two years. He was disposed therefore to move, as an Amendment, that the word "five" should be substituted for the word "two."

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL consented to substitute three years for two, and to strike out the provision with respect to the Order in Council extending the term lying for 40 days on the Table of the House

There

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY thought the forms of the House ought not to be too strictly adhered to. The Business of the House was conducted in a very slovenly manner, and the forms of the House must not be treated like a mousetrap, in which you must always go forward and never go back. It was decidedly wrong to put forward these Amendments in the lump, as it prevented any opportunity for proper discussion.

VISCOUNT MELVILLE complained that the business had been so conducted, that he was not aware what the precise question was that was being brought under the notice of their Lordships.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR repeated that the last question put was that all the other Amendments be agreed to.

Commons' Amendments to Lords'

Amendments agreed to; Commons' con-
Bill returned to the Commons.
sequential Amendments agreed to; and

BILL (No. 249.)

(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

THIRD READING.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.

of Commons. There was no doubt there IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) were two sides to this question. were distinguished Scotchmen who would join the Board if the period was short, who would not join it if they were to be tied to it after the ordinary work had commenced. He would also, in deference to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Colonsay), make the clause of which he complained permissive, instead of compulsory.

Motion agreed to.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, he had to protest against the grievance of which the curates of the Irish Church had to complain. They asserted that

Commons' Amendments, as amended, the promises which had been held out agreed to.

On Question, That the other Amendments of the Commons be agreed to? Resolved in the Affirmative.

to them by the Prime Minister had not been fulfilled. He had presented a Petition on the subject that evening, and he trusted their Lordships would redress the grievance. If there had been an opportunity of obtaining a fair and full

discussion of the subject, he should have | head in the case of the Sheffield Waterbeen inclined to ask their Lordships to consider the case at length; but any such hope seemed to be frustrated for the present, looking at the state of the House and at the late period of the Session. At present, therefore, he must be content with addressing himself to the noble Earl and the noble Marquess opposite, in the hope that they would consider the case with a view to future and more just legislation, for he had to complain that a Bill affecting such interests had not been introduced at an earlier period of the Session. He hoped, however, that when public legislation was adopted on the question, the claims of these gentlemen would be satisfied.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH
FUNDS) BILL-(No. 264.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

SECOND READING.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

works Company against the Sheffield Town Council. That case had come before the Queen's Bench, and the result was that the expenses were thrown on individual members of the Corporation who had opposed the Bill promoted by the Waterworks Company, though it was in behalf of the ratepayers they acted, and the ratepayers were almost unanimously in favour of what they had done. There were several safeguards provided by the Bill. In the first place, there must be an absolute majority of the whole of the members of the Governing Body, after notices much more explicit and frequent than were usually given. In the second place, the resolution arrived at by the Governing Body must be published twice in some newspapers. In the third place, the approval either of the Local Government Board or of the Secretary of State for the Home Department must be given, according as the matter came under the jurisdiction of either. That approval was necessary in case of any expense at all being incurred, and it must be given seven days after the second publication by the Governing Body. In addition to all that, a local inquiry might be instituted. Further, the consent of the owners and ratepayers was to be expressed, without which the necessary expenses could not be incurred.

THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that properly speaking it was not a Government measure. The Bill had been introduced by the hon. Mem-Large owners of property also would ber for York (Mr. Leeman), had passed through a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and having been thoroughly approved by the Government, he had taken charge of it. The object of the Bill was to allow the Governing Bodies of municipal towns, Town Councillors, Local Boards of Health, and Local Commissioners to promote or oppose Bills affecting their towns and to charge the expenses on the rates. A statement had been lately issued in opposition to the Bill, in which it was alleged that the safeguards against the abuse of power were absolutely useless; and it should be remembered that at present no municipal body could oppose or promote a Bill in Parliament and charge the rates with the expenses, for by the existing legislation individual members of the corporation must undertake the responsibility of promoting or opposing, and incur expenses which should properly be Moved, "That the Bill be now read 21." borne by the rates. The evil of that--(The Earl of Morley.) state of things had been brought to a

have a greater number of votes than the smaller owners. He could not conceive any safeguards that could be stronger, instead of being illusory, as they were stated to be in the document to which he had referred. This Bill was of very great importance to the large towns, which at present had no power whatever, however injurious a Bill might be, to come to Parliament and oppose it; neither had they any power to assist in passing a measure which might be of the greatest benefit to the inhabitants. It might be said that the Bill came before their Lordships at a very late period; but that was entirely owing to the operation of the half-past 12 o'clock rule in the House of Commons and to the manner in which the Bill had been opposed. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, | fund would require a resolution passed he did not dispute that there was some by an absolute majority of the municipal necessity for conferring such powers; council, and also the consent of the but unless carefully guarded, they might Secretary of State and of the ratepayers be turned to great disadvantage, and and owners. used for purposes of oppression. This production showed the slovenly manner in which the Bills of private Members were drawn, for if its phraseology were examined, it would be seen that the grammatical effect was that the real object of the Bill might be pursued without any difficulty, while the power of advertising could not be carried out without the consent of the ratepayers.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR thought the noble Marquess was hypercritical in his observations, because no proceeding was to be taken without the consent of the Secretary of State and the owners and ratepayers. But it was not necessary to argue this point, as it could be easily cleared up by an Amendment in Committee. The Bill, however, was a most important measure. It had been decided in the Court of Chancery that, inasmuch as a borough fund had a trust imposed upon it, no part of the fund could be employed for any other purpose than what was stated in the Municipal Corporations Act; so that if the corporation opposed a Bill which was dangerous or mischievous to the inhabitants, as that was not one of the purposes contemplated in the Municipal Corporations Act, it had to be done in a spirit of patriotism and citizenship, at the expense of private parties. That gave ample opportunities to water companies, gas companies, and railway companies who might be desirous of overriding the inhabitants of a town, to follow their own free will in doing so. He therefore trusted that their Lordships would see the necessity of making provision for enabling towns to defend themselves against aggressive Bills, without the parties being compelled to pay the expense out of their own pockets. If a corporation promoted a Bill and carried it, then they always obtained their expenses, because they were put in the Bill. But suppose they carried a Bill which, for some reason or other, was postponed, they were personally exposed to all the risk and expense. That was not a state of things which ought to be allowed to continue. Every safeguard was provided by the Bill against an abuse of borough funds, because any expenditure out of a borough

LORD REDESDALE said, that the best proof that the Bill was not wanted was that corporations and the country had all along done without it; and, moreover, if the people of Sheffield had not involved themselves in certain expenses of this sort, nobody would have heard of it. In his opinion, it was extremely desirable that if corporations brought forward bad measures, they should bear the responsibility of doing so; while if they brought in good ones, there could be no objection to the payment of the expenses. Anybody, however, who had had any experience in these matters must know the strong desire of members of municipal corporations to come to London to amuse themselves at the expense of their borough, on the ground that it was necessary to support or oppose a Bill in Parliament, for it was one of the pleasantest things in the world for them to come to London and have a little enjoyment at the cost of the corporation. The effect of the measure would be to give rise to all sorts of speculations for bringing in Bills to enable members of corporations to get a trip to London at the public cost.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, he must admit that the 3rd clause was not well drawn; but the proceedings under it were that no expenses should be incurred except under certain conditions. In accordance with that, he contended that inasmuch as no expenses could be charged against a borough, unless the absolute majority of a municipal corporation passed a resolution in favour of such expenditure, and unless the owners and ratepayers consented to it, the owners and ratepayers had absolute control over the whole proceeding.

After some inaudible remarks from Viscount MELVILLE,

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2 accordthe Whole House on Monday next. ingly, and committed to a Committee of

House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.