Commons Sitting of 17 July 1884

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART—Vote 11—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 10 to 25.
Resolutions [July 15, 16] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Standing Committee on Law, &c.—Report—Criminal Lunatics* [No. 277].
Second Reading—Naval and Greenwich Hospital Pensions* [276]; Cholera Hospitals (Ireland)* [289].
Report—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders* [259].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) [22–286], and passed.
Third Reading—Public Libraries Acts Amendment* [273]; Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Manx Children)* [280], and passed.
Withdrawn—Dean Forest and Hundred of Saint Briavels [184]; Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (Extension to Leaseholders* [29].

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CORK UNION WORKHOUSE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Board of Guardians of the Cork Union recently passed a resolution prohibiting the in-

  1381
  troduction of luxuries, such as eggs, fruit, &c. into the hospitals of the Cork Union Workhouse; whether, afterwards, seeing that such a resolution was inadvisable, it was rescinded, and whether the Local Government Board then refused to sanction its withdrawal; whether it is a fact that the patients in the hospitals of the Cork Workhouse are chiefly composed of temporary inmates suffering from acute disease, and not permanent inmates of the Workhouse; whether he is aware that the practice in question exists to a greater or less extent in all the large Workhouses both in Ireland and England, as well as in every hospital in the Kingdom, and that the resolution referred to is, in the opinion of the medical officers of the Workhouses, and of the vast majority of the Board of Guardians, both injudicious and inhuman; whether it is a fact that the adoption of the resolution referred to involves a large additional expense to the ratepayers, and whether it was passed at the suggestion of Dr. Brodie, the Local Government Board Inspector, notwithstanding that the custom referred to has existed for years, and during the terms of office of his predecessors, Drs. King and M'Cabe, with their entire approval; whether, after being in charge of his present district for six years, Dr. Brodie has now become acquainted with the fact for the first time; whether the Board of Guardians of the Middleton Workhouse recently accused Dr. Brodie of unfair treatment of the nuns, at a sworn inquiry held at that institution, and passed a unanimous vote of want of confidence in him therefor; whether he is in the habit of getting dispensary and union officers to write Reports on their own duties, which he forwards to the Local Government Board as the results of his own observation; whether there are several dispensaries which, during the six years he has been in charge of his present district, he has only visited once, and some he has not visited at all; whether he reported parts of his district which he had not visited to be in a prosperous condition; and, whether, being close upon eighty years of age, he will be placed on the retired list?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is a fact that the Board of Guardians of Cork Union recently passed a resolution prohibiting the introduction into the workhouse of
  1382
  what are called luxuries, and subsequently rescinded that resolution, and that the Local Government Board disapproved of the rescinding resolution, and decided that the prohibition should continue. The grounds of their decision were that the proposed arrangement would be at variance with Article 20 of the General Order for the management of workhouses, and that the relaxation of the workhouse rules would lead to irregularities and abuse, and injury to the health of patients. The patients in the hospital are not, I am informed, of the class mentioned in the Question. Most of them are chronic cases; but all are eligible for such extras as the medical officer in charge may order for them. The Local Government Board are not aware that the practice of allowing visitors to bring in articles of food to workhouse inmates exists generally elsewhere, and no such practice has been established with their authority. With reference to the duration of the practice of admitting luxuries to the workhouse, no definite period can be named. So far as I can gather from the reports Dr. Brodie has not been long aware of it. The enforcement of the resolution may entail some small extra expenses on the rateyayers; but it checks abuse by stopping to some extent a system of petty trading and bartering in food known to exist in the workhouse. The Board of Guardians of Middleton Union did pass a vote of want of confidence in Dr. Brodie; but the facts before the Local Government Board do not lead them in any way to concur in the implied censure—Dr. Brodie having strictly discharged his duty in the matter in question. Dr. Brodie does not act in the improper manner suggested in the latter part of the Question. The Local Government Board have no reason to think that his age interferes with the discharge of his duty.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BALLYCASTLE UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution of the Board of Guardians of Ballycastle Union, county Antrim, passed on the 5th instant, to the effect—
  "That we desire to state, for the information of the Local Government Board, that their

  1383
  inspector, Mr. Hamilton, read to this Board, on the 21st ult. a letter which he had received from Mrs. General Boyd, Ballycastle, in which she complained of the conduct of the master in reference to visits made by her and her daughters to the workhouse; that, after some discussion as to the admission of visitors, Mr. Hamilton recommended to this Board, and advised us to adopt a proposal to the effect, 'That the guardians order that for the future all persons, except professional Scripture readers, are to be allowed to visit their friends and acquaintances, and give them any books they may wish, so long as these are not of a controversial character;' that, when asked by the chairman to put his proposal in writing, Mr. Hamilton replied, 'Better for yourself or the clerk to write it,' or words to that effect; that, although he did not write it, he was the author of it, it emanated from him, he recommended it to this Board, and advised, us to adopt it; that, in acting thus, Mr. Hamilton tried to induce this Board to re-introduce a custom which he should have known has no sanction in the Poor Law Act, and which had been abolished by a resolution of this Board sixteen years ago, and had been the cause of sectarian disputes and bitterness in this house in past years; and that we are of opinion the master would not have done his duty if he had allowed the ladies and the Scripture reader to give religious tracts to the inmates; and we disapprove of Mr. Hamilton's action in the whole case;"
  did Mr. Hamilton act as described in that Resolution; and, if so, did he, in so acting, exceed his duty as representative of the Local Government Board, the administrators of the Poor Law Act; if not, will he point out what section of the Poor Law Act sanctions the admission into workhouses for any religious purpose of any visitors besides the persons specified in 1 and 2 Vic. c. 56, ss. 48 and 49; and, if he did exceed his duty, will he cause the Local Government Board to instruct their inspector and the Ballycastle Board of Guardians to that effect?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board inform me that they believe the facts to be as they have already reported, and as I have already stated in reply to a former Question; and the Guardians appear, therefore, to have been under some misapprehension as to Mr. Hamilton's intentions when they adopted the above-quoted resolution. Mr. Hamilton states that it is not the case that he recommended an indiscriminate permission to be given for all visitors except Scripture readers; but that he did intend to convey to the Guardians that he would like the patients in the hospitals to have the same privilege of seeing their friends as is given
  1384
  to the sick in the hospitals of other workhouses; but that in the remarks he made he did not recommend or advise the Guardians to adopt any course at variance with the regulations laid down by Article 28 of the workhouse rules. That article regulates the admission of "visitors" to the workhouse. Sec. 49 of 1 & 2 Vic. cap. 56 merely enacts that—
  "It shall be lawful for any regular 'minister' of the religious persuasion of any inmate of such workhouse … to visit such workhouse … for the purpose of affording religious instruction to such inmate."
  I have already intimated that the Local Government Board do not consider that the course suggested by Mr. Hamilton's remarks at the Guardians' meeting on the 21st of June would have been an infringement of the Irish Poor Relief Act, or that the Inspector exceeded his duty.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OVERPRESSURE IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, in consequence of the following statement appearing in the tabulated records of the Registrar General—namely:—
  "This is the second death in my practice within a week, the cause of which was produced from pressure at a School Board. (Signed) W. H. Borham, M.D.,"
  he directed a communication to be made to Dr. Borham; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Dr. Borham's answer.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The cases referred to are now being investigated by the London School Board, and Dr. Borham's answer has been sent to them.

  IRELAND — COUNTY DOWN — MR. HENRY SMYTH, COUNTY SURVEYOR.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Northern division of the county Down has no county surveyor residing in it; whether Mr. Henry Smyth, the county surveyor of the northern division of the county Down, resides in Newcastle, county Down; and if it be a fact that both the county surveyors reside in the southern division of the county; and did not Mr. Smyth always reside in Downpatrick up to the past

  1385
  few years, and is not his office at present in the county court house at Downpatrick, which is in his own division of the county; and, whether he will be obliged to reside permanently in Downpatrick as formerly, or will be called on to resign his situation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that Mr. Smyth, the Surveyor of the Northern Division of the county, lives at Newcastle, which is about two miles outside the boundary of this district. His office is at Downpatrick—10 miles distant—with which place he has direct railway communication. The present arrangement has been in existence for four years. No public inconvenience is known to have been caused, and the Grand Jury have made no objection. It is not a matter in which the Government can interfere. The Grand Jury can suspend or dismiss a County Surveyor if he neglects his business; and if any person thinks that Mr. Smyth does so, his complaint should be addressed to the Grand Jury.

  EDUCATION ACTS—LOANS FOR SCHOOL HOUSES.
  MR. JACKSONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, in boroughs where School Boards have been established, the money needed for the purpose of providing school houses may be borrowed by the Town Council instead of by the School Board; and, whether Town Councils are at liberty to exercise the powers conferred on School Boards by the fifty-seventh section of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as to borrowing money?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Town Council cannot, under the Education Acts, borrow money for the purpose of providing school buildings. All loans, whether with the Public Works Loan Commissioners, or in the open market, must be negotiated by the School Boards.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—CONTINUANCE OF APPOINTMENT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. M'Devitt is to be retained as a Sub-Commissioner; whether Mr. Gray and Mr. Crean are to be discontinued; and, will the list of dismissals
  1386
  be published before the Vote for the Land Commission is taken?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The word "dismissal" cannot be properly applied to the case of any of the Sub-Commissioners. Their appointments were temporary, and only as many have been retained as are required to do the remaining work. Mr. M'Devitt is one of the Sub-Commissioners whom it is proposed to continue in office after the end of this month. Mr. Gray and Mr. Crean are not. I have no objection to announce now the names of the gentlemen selected for reappointment. They are—legal, Messrs. Bourke, M'Devitt, Rearden, Hodden, C. Roche, and Doyle; lay, Messrs. Walpole, Weir, Barry Guiry, O'Callaghan, Bomford, Golding, R. Sproule, Mowbray Cunningham, Comyn, and Lynch.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the relations of Mr. Walpole with his own tenants?
  [No reply.]

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—GARRY-KENNEDY HARBOUR.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Irish Board of Works has been called to the dangerous state of Garry-Kennedy Harbour, on Lough Derg, owing to a sunken ledge at the entrance, which renders it difficult of access, especially during the summer months when the water is low; and, if so, whether the Board will consider whether an improvement ought not to be effected?
  MR. COURTNEY: This is a private harbour, with which the Government have nothing to do. But the Board of Works have on previous occasions lent their dredger to the owners, and will be prepared to do so again when it can be spared.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE CROSSMAGLEN PRISONERS—MAJOR BLAIR.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Major Blair's visit to the Crossmaglen prisoners in Chatham was made at his own expense; did he obtain leave of absence for the purpose; were the Government aware of his intention; and, has he made any report, recommenda-

  1387
  tion, or communication on the subject since his return?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Major Blair was on duty in London at the time of his visit. He did not obtain or require leave of absence to enable him to go to Chatham, nor did he take his ticket there at his own expense. The Governmeut were not aware of his intentions further than was involved in his getting the Secretary of State's authority to visit the prisoners. Any communication he subsequently made was of a confidential character.
  MR. HEALY: Were Major Blair's expenses to Chatham paid by the Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have no doubt they were, as he was on duty in London at the time; but any further Question on the subject had better be addressed to the Home Secretary.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—MR. BUTCHER, A COMMISSIONER TO ADMINISTER OATHS.
  MR. WARTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that he has supported the application of Mr. Butcher, a solicitor of Bury, in Lancashire, to become a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the High Court of Justice; whether Mr. Butcher is a solicitor of only three years standing; whether other gentlemen at Bury in the profession, of equal respectability and longer standing, have been refused Commissionerships; whether Mr. Butcher is the Secretary to the Bury Liberal Association; and, whether he has any further knowledge of Mr. Butcher's qualifications?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The hon. and learned Member is quite right in supposing that I supported Mr. Butcher's application to be appointed a Commissioner to administer oaths in the nigh Court of Justice, and I was very happy to do so. The date of his admission is also correctly stated in the Question. The House should know that all respectable solicitors of six years' standing can obtain the power to administer oaths. That period was anticipated in Mr. Butcher's case under the following circumstances. That gentleman practises at Radcliffe, a place of some 17,000 inhabitants, as well as at Bury. At Radcliffe there was only one resident Commissioner, and a further appointment was thought advisable.
  1388
  The only solicitor who, in point of standing, had any claims superior to those of Mr. Butcher, signed the usual memorial in favour of his appointment. I may add that Mr. Butcher obtained the prize of the Incorporated Law Society, and also is Secretary of the Bury Law Association. He is, as the hon. Member has stated, no longer Secretary of the Liberal Association. Under these circumstances, if I have rendered any assistance to Mr. Butcher so as to secure him his appointment, I am exceedingly glad to hear it; but I am by no means sure that Mr. Butcher owes anything to me. Prominently among the names of those who, like myself, supported his application is that of Mr. Ormerod Walker, the late Conservative candidate for Bury, and a gentleman whose position caused him to be regarded as the head of the Tory Party in that town. Knowing, as many of us do, how carefully the present Chancellor has guarded against allowing any political predilections to influence him in the exercise of his patronage, I am sure that, in all probability, Mr. Batcher owes far more to Mr. Ormerod Walker than to me.
  MR. WARTON: May I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to proceed with the Corrupt Practices Bill to-night?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)was understood to say that the Bill would not be taken that evening.

  SCOTLAND—THE WESTERN ISLANDS—CIRCULATION OF INFLAMMATORY PUBLICATIONS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to an anonymous printed paper which has been circulated in Skye and elsewhere, urging the people to every kind of unlawful action; and, if he will institute proceedings with the view of discovering the author and printer, in order that they may be prosecuted?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have received from the hon. Member the printed paper referred to, which I understand from him is being circulated in Skye. Its circulation was not known to the authorities there. I have directed that endeavours shall be made to discover the author and printer, and also the per-

  1389
  sons by whom the paper is being circulated.

  SCOTLAND—THE CROFTERS' COMMISSION—CASE OF DONALD COLQUHOUN.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Allan, of Aros House, in a Letter dated 26th November 1883, addressed to the Royal Commissioners, printed on page 446 of their Report, used the following words with reference to Donald Colquhoun, of Tobermory, of whom he was writing:—
  "At the last term of Whitsunday he paid no rent, and is now over a year in arrears; this accounts for his recent notice of removal;"
  if he has compared this statement with the Letter of D. Colquhoun, printed on page 448, and, further, with the Copy of Colquhoun's rent book, certified by Mr. Maccallum, notary public, which has been placed in his hands, commencing in 1875; and, if the Lord Advocate is now satisfied that the accusation that he has paid his rent "with great irregularity," and was in November 1883 "over a year in arrear," is unfounded?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have read the letters and copy of Colquhoun's rent passbook referred to in this Question. The last-mentioned document does not appear to me to negative, on the contrary it seems to confirm, the statement in Mr. Allen's letter. I understand that Colquhoun's rent was £6, payable half-yearly in equal moieties at Whitsunday and Martinmas. The entries in the passbook show that Colquhoun paid nothing at Whitsunday 1883, and that at Martinmas of that year he was owing more than a full year's rent, £6 17s., which sum was not paid until 14th December, while Mr. Allen's letter is dated 26th November. The prior entries in the account do not show that the rent was regularly paid as it fell due; on the contrary, they establish that Colquhoun was generally somewhat in arrear, though the amounts in arrear were usually small.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked if the Lord Advocate was aware that the man's rent-book satisfied the Royal Commissioners?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I do not at all know what
  1390
  the Royal Commissioners may hav-thought about it; but I read it caree fully with reference to the two documents to which the hon. Member refers-and I think it will be found that the answer I have given him as to the sums is strictly correct.

  MINERAL LEASES—FINES FOR TRANSFERENCE.
  MR. ROLLSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Papers which have been placed before him have satisfied him that fines amounting to £800, equal to eight years' minimum rent, were exacted by a landlord, without any valid consideration, upon the transfer of mineral leases, although the last transfer was to tenants of very high standing, and adequate capital, one of such tenants having subsequently filled the office of Mayor of Derby; and, whether, having regard to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, on the 31st July 1883, that the question of protecting tenants of mineral and other properties from confiscation of portion of their capital touched a matter undoubtedly of very great importance, to which it would be the duty of the Government to give its attention, Her Majesty's Ministers are now prepared to recommend the appointment of a Commission or Committee for the purpose of considering in what way (with due regard to the rights of the landlords) tenants of mineral properties could be protected against confiscation of portion of their capital, by the enforcement, without any valid consideration, of fines, in many cases excessive, on the transfer of their leases, or in what other way Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give that attention which the First Lord of the Treasury has stated it is the duty of the Government to give to this question?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have examined the papers the hon. Member has sent me. But the former answers given by myself and the Prime Minister were that if any strong case were made out, we would have the matter investigated. But the hon. Member has only sent me one single case, which occurred seven years ago, where one person demanded a fine of £300. A single case of that kind is not a ground for the appointment of a Royal Commission. As far as I can see, the only remedy is

  1391
  for speculators in coal mines to protect themselves by proper agreements, which would prevent owners from demanding improper fines on assignment.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS—SITES FOR CHURCHES.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYasked the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight, Whether it is the general practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to require the intending donors of sites to them for church-building purposes to promise to pay all the legal expenses except one-half of those incurred by the Commissioners themselves; if so, whether this is a regulation dependent upon Statute, or simply as the regulations of the Commissioners; and, whether he will give his assistance towards getting rid of such a practice?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: It is the practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to look to the donors for payment of one-half of the law costs connected with the conveyance of sites, and this is done by them in accordance with their regulations, and not by virtue of any statute. There must evidently be some general rule in the matter. Up to within a very recent period the whole of the costs were payable by the promoters or donors; but the Commissioners, taking the matter into consideration, came to the conclusion that they might, consistently with their views, agree to undertake one-half. Apart from the very debatable question of how far the common fund could properly be employed for these purposes, experience convinces the Commissioners that it is necessary that the donors of sites should be liable for some considerable part of the cost, in order to secure in all cases a reasonable limit to the elastic and often excessive costs of solicitors and others engaged in carrying through transfers of land.

  POST OFFICE—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, If he has considered the Memorial, for acceleration of the Irish Western Mail Service, addressed to him, under date the 1st October last, by inhabitants of the town and county of Sligo; whether, especially regarding the Day Mail Service, he has noted the facts
  1392
  that the Mail Train leaving Dublin at 9 a.m. does not reach Sligo, 134 miles distant, until 2·40 p.m., the service being thus at the rate of only 23 miles an hour, and that the Mail leaving Sligo at 11 a.m. does not reach Dublin till 4·55 p.m., the service in this case being only 22 miles an hour; whether he has considered the statement of the Memorialists that letters delivered in Sligo in the morning cannot be replied to by the Day Mail, as the boxes close at 10·20 a.m., and that letters reaching there by the Day Mail, and not delivered till nearly 5 o'clock, cannot usually be answered that evening with convenience, as the boxes close at 7·40; whether he will endeavour to meet the desire of the Memorialists that this state of things should be altered by timing the Day Mail from Dublin to start at 8·30 and reach Sligo about 12, and the Day Mail from Sligo to leave at 1·30 p.m. and reach Dublin, as at present, at 4·55 p.m.; whether the Midland Great Western Railway Company have stated their readiness to run Mail Trains at 40 miles an hour if adequately paid; whether it is the fact, as affirmed by the Chairman of the Midland Railway Company, that the Great Northern Company is paid £73 per mile per annum for Mail Service, the Great Southern £70, the Dublin and Wicklow £62, and the Midland only £41; and, whether the Department now propose to offer better terms to the Midland Company?
  MR. FAWCETT: Since the arrangements for the acceleration of the mail service between London and Dublin, which took effect on the 1st instant, were finally settled, the attention of the Department has been given to improving the provincial services in Ireland; but I am unable to say at present what improvement will be practicable in the case of the Sligo day mail. I can assure the hon. Member that the points referred to in his Question shall be carefully considered. The degree of acceleration that may be found practicable must depend upon many considerations, which vary with almost every district. The question of remuneration to the Railway Company is one of these; but I may remark that no comparison obtained by a reduction of annual payments to mileage rates can show whether a Railway Company is adequately remunerated or not, as the payments to Rail-

  1393
  way Companies vary according to the number of trains used and the amount of correspondence carried.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the concrete result of his consideration of the subject before the Post Office Estimates come on?
  MR. FAWCETT: I will if I possibly can.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Postmaster General, Whether the mails between Dublin and Cork will be accelerated by means of special fast trains leaving Dublin daily at 8 a.m. and Cork at 1.45 p.m.; whether, in order to give Waterford the benefit of this acceleration, he will cause the mails for Waterford to be dropped at Maryborough, and conveyed thence by the Waterford and Central Ireland Railway to that city, arriving at 11.30 a.m.; and, whether he will arrange that the up mails shall be sent forward through Maryborough by the up train leaving Waterford at 2.30 p.m., and reaching Maryborough at 4.30 p.m., and Dublin at 6 p.m., thus enabling merchants there to answer their morning letters, on the day of receipt, by return mail?
  MR. HARRINGTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to inform the House also whether he can comply with the request in reference to Kerry?
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Postmaster General, If he has considered the proposals of the Waterford and Central Ireland Railway, with a view to accelerating the mail service between Waterford and Dublin, in connection with the acceleration of the service between Cork and Dublin; and, if he can give any assurance that this important reform will be shortly carried out?
  MR. FAWCETT: I may state that various proposals have lately been laid before the Department with the object of accelerating the day mails to Waterford along with the acceleration of the day mail to Cork, which, as I have already stated, I hope will come into operation on the 1st October next. Whether it would be better to adopt the route suggested by my hon. Friend or maintain the route through Kildare and Carlow will require careful consideration. Many complicated circumstances are involved. I should not like to give a positive answer without more consideration, because there are many questions
  1394
  of the towns on the route to be considered. The offer referred to by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) from the Central Railway Company has been received two days ago, and is now being considered. With regard to acceleration to Tralee, I hope some acceleration will be possible; but I cannot give an undertaking at the present moment.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—CATHOLIC SCHOOLS IN MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether application was made to the Education Department on behalf of the Catholics of Risca and Pontymister in Monmouth, for a grant in aid of the school at Pontymister, in charge of the Catholic pastor of the district; and, whether the application was complied with; and, if not, whether he will state the reasons?
  MR. MUNDELLA: An application was made such as that described. The School Board objected, on the ground that the school accommodation was already provided, and the Department found itself unable to overrule the opinion of the Board; but a communication has been addressed to them for further information on the subject.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—ENNISCRONE PIER, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, about 1880, a breakwater was built by the Board of Works at Enniscrone, County Sligo, at a cost of over £2,000, three-fourths of the whole amount being supplied out of public funds, and the balance contributed from local and other sources; whether the breakwater was so designed and so constructed that, a few days after it had been transferred to the county authority, a large portion of the slip was torn away by the sea, and the harbour became so obstructed that boats could not get into it, and it proved to be quite useless; whether the Commission appointed under the Sea Fisheries Act of last Session held a public investigation at Enniscrone, and recommended a free grant of £6,000 for the construction of a pier at that place; whether the whole of the expensive structure of 1880, consisting of cut stone brought from a

  1395
  distance, and costing above £2,000, will now be merely used as part of the filling-in of the body of the new pier; whether the local opinion is that the new pier, as designed by the engineer of the Board of Works, is not suitable, and will not give the requisite shelter; whether the members of the Piers and Harbours Commission approve of the design in question, or have suggested any alterations in it; and, whether an independent engineer of eminence will be consulted now, and due care taken that the pier shall be so designed and constructed as not to result in a further useless expenditure of the public funds?
  MR. COURTNEY: This work was not injured as described, the fact being that slight damage to the amount of only £60 was done to it by the great storm last winter, 15 months after its transfer. Under the present scheme, the cut-stone formerly used will be available for new work, and the bulk of the breakwater will form part of the new pier; there will, therefore, be no waste of public money. No expression of local opinion on the new plan has reached the Government. The design was made by the Board of Works to meet the requirements of the Fishery Piers Commission; and if these two Bodies are agreed, there seems nothing to justify the expense of taking further opinion.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether the Piers and Harbours Commissioners disapproved of the work?
  MR. COURTNEY: If they had disapproved, they would communicate with us.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—COLONEL DIGBY, J.P.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will advise the Law Officers of the Crown to avail themselves of any further means still open to them to obtain the decision of a Court on the conduct of Colonel Digby; and, whether, considering the character of the evidence now in the hands of the Crown in this case, he will bring the conduct of Colonel Digby before the Lord Chancellor, and also the part taken by the local justices?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The two legally constituted tribunals, having decided that there is against Colonel Digby no
  1396
  evidence of guilty intent, I am advised that there are no other constitutional means of further investigating the matter; and I see no ground upon which I could lay the case before the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Is it not a fact that there are still two cases pending against Colonel Digby—one of an attempt to defraud the Land Commissioners, and another in which a successful attempt was made to defraud them; and are not these cases going to be investigated?
  MR. HEALY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government did not dismiss Mr. John Byrne from the office of Collector General of Rates in Dublin, a position worth £1,000 a-year; and what ground he has now for refusing to lay the case of a similar offender before the Lord Chancellor?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked if one of the magistrates who investigated this case was not a general officer who had served his country for many years, and whether the other was not 40 years on the bench?
  MR. HARRINGTON: I would ask whether one of these gentlemen did not attend the local bench for two years until he came to do a job for a brother magistrate?
  [No replies.]

  IRELAND—CORK CITY POLICE FORCE.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received and considered the Report of the Law and Finance Committee of the Cork Corporation, made as a consequence of an interview between that Committee of the Corporation and Captain Plunkett, S.R.M., County Inspector Carr, and Sub-Inspector Starkie, in which an opinion is expressed that a force of one hundred and seventy constables is sufficient for the performance of the ordinary police duties of the city, and that the citizens are entitled to that number as a free force; and, whether he has yet decided upon the course which he will take in reply?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Irish Government has received the Report referred to, in which an opinion is expressed that the free force for Cork City should be 170 men. The case of Cork was carefully considered by the Lord

  1397
  Lieutenant in 1882, when the last quinquennial redistribution of the force was made, and no addition to Cork City was found possible. By population, Cork is entitled to a free force of 150 men. Redistribution can only take place every five years. Therefore, there is no legal power to increase the free force. The present free force is 150, and the extra force from the Reserve is 39 men, nine having been added in April, 1883, to the 30 extra men then in the City. It is not proposed to charge for nine of these who are on detective duty. The Government is considering whether this force of 30 cannot be reduced by 10, which would bring the force to the number considered necessary by the Committee; but as, for the reasons stated, the free force cannot be extended from 150 to 170, it will be necessary that the City of Cork should pay the moiety of the expense of these 20 men.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether the period of revision was fixed by Act of Parliament, or by a rule of the Irish Executive?
  MR. TREVELYAN: My belief is that the Act of Parliament states that the Lord Lieutenant shall have a fixed period of revision, and he has fixed it at five years. That is only my belief.

  IRELAND—SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM, DUBLIN.
  MR. GRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state approximately the compound interest at three per cent. on the sum now proposed to be granted for the erection of a Science and Art Museum in Dublin, calculated from the date of the original payments by the Treasury of similar grants for England and Scotland respectively; and by how much, in each case in this calculation, the accumulated interest thus realised by the Treasury in consequence of the delay in the erection of the Museum in Dublin falls short of or exceeds the excess of the estimate for its erection, according to the present selected plan, and the limit fixed by the Treasury?
  MR. COURTNEY: I do not find it possible to make this comparison—first, because the Museums in London and Edinburgh are not yet finished; next, because a Museum in Dublin has been maintained for some years. But the
  1398
  best answer I can make to the hon. Gentleman's Question is to say that it is not yet three years since it was determined to build a new Museum in Dublin on a chosen site at the cost of £100,000; and if it could be admitted that there has been a delay of two years from causes for which the Treasury is not responsible, the accumulated compound interest would form but a small proportion of the excess referred to by the hon. Member.
  MR. GRAY: Has it not been decided for 10 years to spend £100,000 on a Museum in Dublin, whether as a new building or an addition to the old; and what would the interest on the difference come to in those three years?
  MR. COURTNEY: The 10 years is not within my experience.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) ACT—BONA FIDE TRAVELLERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that on Sunday week a party of bicyclists from Kilmallock, on arriving at Rathkeale (twenty-two miles off) about 5.30 p.m. were refused refreshment at the hotel by order of Captain Hatchell, R.M.; whether police were stationed to see that the order was carried out, on the ground that a meeting to be held earlier in the day had been proclaimed; whether the tourists then waited on Captain Hatchell, and begged of him to be allowed food and drink, as they had not come to attend any meeting; whether he at first refused, but, after being informed that they would report him, he detailed two policemen to allow them to get what they wanted; and, whether this stipendiary has any instructions to override the bonâ fide traveller clause of the Sunday Closing Act; and, if not, what notice will be taken of his conduct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: With regard to the order made as to the public-houses, the facts are that there was some excitement in the town in consequence of the prohibition of a National League meeting proposed to be held there on that day, and informations were sworn that disturbance was apprehended. Under these circumstances, the magistrates thought it right to exercise the powers as to closing public-houses given to them by Section 21 of the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 68; and they caused copies

  1399
  of their notice to be served upon the proprietors of licensed houses. I am advised that such an order for absolute closing, in the interest of the preservation of the peace, would, undoubtedly, override the provisions of the Sunday Closing Act as to partial opening for the supply of bonâ fide travellers. At the same time, I have already pointed out that when satisfied that a genuine case existed, the magistrates relaxed their order in the case of these tourists.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many persons the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has appointed since the beginning of the year to act in the commission of the peace; what are their aggregate religious denominations; how many of them were appointed on the recommendation of lieutenants of counties, how many to act in counties without such recommendation, and how many to act in boroughs or cities; how many of those appointed on the recommendation of lieutenants of counties were so recommended, in pursuance of any public or representative expression of opinion by the corporations, boards, or inhabitants of any county or district, or otherwise; and how many by virtue of private representations, without reference to public opinion; how many of those appointed by the Lord Chancellor, without the recommendation of lieutenants of counties, were so appointed in pursuance of public recommendations; and how many in pursuance of recommendations of a private and personal nature; and, whether, in case of a public recommendation, the lieutenant of a county, or the Chancellor, explains, on being applied to, the cause of a refusal to appoint?
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many Irish county magistrates has the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland appointed since his accession to office; how many of such magistrates were appointed by the Lord Chancellor without the recommendation of lieutenants of counties; and, does the Lord Chancellor of Ireland sanction the statement that such last-mentioned appointments amount to the number of two hundred?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The expression I used—that a great number of magistrates were appointed over the head of the Lord Lieutenants of the counties is inaccurate, and it does not represent the facts of the case. The policy which the Lord Chancellor has adopted is vigorously and strenuously to encourage the appointment of proper persons to the Commission of the Peace; and in this policy, which he has carried out in a manner for which I must say I think he deserves great credit, he has very generally received active assistance from the lieutenants of counties. Since the beginning of the year he has appointed 208 county magistrates. Of these, as far as their religious persuasion is known, 99 are Roman Catholics, 64 Episcopalian Protestants, two Wesleyans, and one of the Jewish persuasion. Of these the Lord Chancellor has been memorialized with regard to about 50 gentlemen. In only four cases has the Lord Chancellor found it necessary to appoint gentlemen without the concurrence of the lieutenants of counties, who have in most cases shown themselves forward in meeting his wishes to have all religious denominations represented on the Bench. In no case does the Chancellor state his reason for not naming gentlemen unless they are disqualified by some existing rule. Since the beginning of the year, 17 gentlemen have been placed on the Commission of the Peace in boroughs, of whom nine are Roman Catholics.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary he would endeavour to ascertain three facts—first, how many persons were publicly recommended for the magistracy; how many of these were appointed by the Lord Chancellor with the assent of the Lord Lieutenants of the county; and how many were appointed without their assent?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had already stated that only in four cases were appointments made without the concurrence of the Lord Lieutenants of the county.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Has any complaint been made as to the unfitness of some of those appointed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor, in making his inquiries as to whom he would ultimately appoint, in some cases received unfavourable opinions; but I have heard of no

  1401
  complaint otherwise than in the shape of Questions addressed to me in this House.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Of all these appointment, was there a single one of them the appointment of a Nationalist?
  [No reply.]

  LANDED ESTATES COURT (ORDERS).
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can account for the great delay which exists in the branch of the Landed Estates Court, presided over by Judge Ormsby, in the issue of Orders pronounced by the Judge; is it a fact that, notwithstanding daily applications, Orders have remained unissued after being made by the Judge, for months, causing serious prejudice to suitors and practitioners; and, will he have inquiries made on the subject with a view to ascertain who is to blame and to provide a remedy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Registrar of the Landed Estates Court informs me that there is no reason whatever for delay in the issue of orders, and that if any suitor considers that he has cause for complaint he should bring his case before the Judge, by whom it will be at once investigated, and steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of any such cause of complaint in future.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—CHOLERA HOSPITALS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, in the event of the cholera travelling considerably nearer to us, the Local Government Board will take steps to have at least one portable or easily erected hospital ready; and, if, in the case of a violent outbreak of small pox in Athenry, about seven years ago, some delay was experienced in the erection of such a hospital?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am advised that the duty of providing hospitals is placed by law on the Boards of Guardians and Sanitary Authorities; and the Local Government Board has no power to take upon itself the duties devolving upon the Local Authorities, or to undertake to provide portable hospitals.

  EGYPT—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD—TERM OF SERVICE AND SALARY.
  MR. HEALYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to certain charges brought by Takla Bey, in the Journal des Debats of the 9th instant, can he give the date of Mr. Lloyd's arrival in Alexandria, the date of his departure, and the amount of his salary on his appointment, and at his retirement on leave of absence?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Mr. Clifford Lloyd arrived at Cairo on the 14th September, 1883, and left Egypt on the 28th May, 1884. His salary on arrival was at the rate of £2,000 a-year as Inspector General of Reforms. From the beginning of January, 1884, his payment was at the rate of £2,500 a-year, as he filled the additional Office of Under Secretary in the Home Office.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL—BURGHS OF BARONY.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether Burgh of Barony Baillies and Councillors elected by a Feudal Hereditary Provost are recognised by the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, inasmuch as hereditary feudal powers were abolished by Act of Parliament in 1747; and, whether Burghs of Barony are comprehended under the title of "Burghs not being Royal and Parliamentary," as defined in Clause 37 of the Bill?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The provisions of the Burgh Police and Health Bill are made applicable to all burghs, including burghs of barony. I think burghs of barony are only once specially mentioned—that is, in the Interpretation Clause—where they are included in the definition of burgh. They form a numerous class of burghs, including some of the largest towns, and in some few instances the constitution of the Governing Municipal Body is not representative. In all such cases provision is made in the Bill for making the constitution of the Governing Body representative if the inhabitants desire it.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—THE CREW OF THE "NISERO."
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  1403
  If he can now state what progress has been made in the negotiations of Her Majesty's Government with that of the Dutch for the purpose of promoting active operations on the part either of one or both Governments in obtaining the release of the captive crew of the Nisero?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have received a despatch to-day from Her Majesty's Minister at The Hague, conveying the assent of the Netherlands Government to the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government to secure the release of the crew. The proposals are as follow:—That the Rajah should be told that unless the captives be restored on a given day, Great Britain and the Netherlands would hold him and his people responsible, and proceed jointly to punish them; but that, in the event of his complying with their demand, it should be intimated to him that his ports would be re-opened to trade. He will also receive a money payment. Steps are being taken to carry out this arrangement with the utmost promptitude. Papers will be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. GOURLEY: There are two Questions I should like to ask upon that. One is with regard to the payment to be made to the Rajah, and the other is as to the amount which the Government would agree to award to the wives, widows, and families of the captive crew?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot make any further statement with regard to details as to what sum may be paid under certain circumstances to the Rajah. That is a matter which really lies more with the Dutch Government. In regard to the other Question of the hon. Member, I have been in communication with the Treasury; but I cannot state what the decision of the Treasury is.
  MR. BROGDENasked what time would be given to the Rajah before steps were taken to secure the release of the captives?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The reply of the Dutch Government was only received to-day; but steps are being taken, and probably by this time have been already taken, to adopt measures on the spot with a view to the plan agreed on between the Netherlands Government and Her Majesty's Govern-
  1404
  ment being put in practice at once. A great deal must naturally be left to the Local Authorities, and I hope in a few days to be able to make a further communication to the House as to the particular steps taken.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked why these steps, obviously so necessary, had not been taken sooner—before four of these unfortunate men had died?
  MR. STOREY: Before the noble Lord answers that Question, I should like to ask him another. He states that one of the objects the Government had in view is to declare to the Rajah that his ports will be kept open. Do I understand that the British Government intend to give any guarantee to the Rajah that the ports will be kept open after they are opened?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not think it would be advisable for me to enter into any statement of what steps will be taken in future eventualities. I have communicated to the House all it is in my power to communicate now—namely, the proposal made by Her Majesty's Government to the Dutch Government, and the reply that has been received thereto. In regard to the Question of the right hon. and gallant Baronet opposite, I do not think that I could answer that without raising a debate. The question was discussed the other day on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey).
  MR. STOREY: I do not think that the noble Lord apprehended the point of my inquiry. I asked him whether the British Government intends to give any guarantee to the Rajah that the ports shall be kept open, and for this reason—that, if I gather aright, the present proposals are exactly the same as those made by Mr. Maxwell in March, and rejected by the Rajah, because he would not take the word of the Dutch Government unless the English Government also gave a promise. I therefore wish to know whether it is proposed to offer to the Rajah the promise of the Dutch Government already rejected by him, or the promise of the English Government, which he desires?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think that it would not be desirable, in the interest of the success of these delicate negotiations, that I should at this moment enter into statements in

  1405
  regard to the details of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Netherlands Government. These negotiations have been proceeding during the last few days, and the answer from the Dutch Government was only received by telegraph yesterday, and the despatch itself only a few hours ago. I do not in the least object to my hon. Friend asking this Question, which is very important, and which raises a point that will have to be borne in mind; but in the interest of the negotiations and of the captive crew I cannot undertake to answer the Question now.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask what are the exact offers made to the Rajah; and whether the noble Lord will explain, if he can, the difference in the proposals made now and the late proposals?
  MR. BOURKE: The Papers will be presented to-morrow?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes.
  MR. BOURKE: Really, then, if the hon. Gentleman postpones his Question until the Papers are presented, I think it will be a good thing.

  EGYPT (ARMY OF OCCUPATION).
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for War, It he can state to the House the total number of Her Majesty's troops now serving in Egypt; whether Her Majesty's Government have recently had under their consideration the making of any addition to those forces; and, whether Government have any intention, having regard to the increasingly grave position of affairs in that country, of sending any reinforcements to Egypt? He wished to supplement the Question by two other points, of which he had given private Notice. In the first place, he wished to know whether it was true that Her Majesty's Government had received any communication on the subject of the forces from the military authorities at Cairo; and, secondly, whether the Government had come to any decision as to the sending of an expedition to the Soudan in the autumn for the relief of General Gordon; and, if so, had they made, or were they making, preparations for that purpose?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The answer I have to give to the Question of which the hon. Gentleman gave
  1406
  Notice will include the first supplementary Question he has put to me. As to the second supplementary Question, I do not think it possible for me to add anything to the answer I gave in reply to the Question put to me the other day by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that I do not think it would be desirable to publish the exact number of the Forces now in Egypt. I may, however, state that at present there are in Egypt one regiment of Cavalry, one of Horse and one of Field Artillery, three garrison batteries of Artillery, two companies of Engineers, eight and a-half battalions of Infantry, and the necessary proportion of the administrative corps. With reference to the remainder of the hon. Gentleman's Question, and also to the Questions which stand in the names of the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell), I have to say that Sir Frederick Stephenson has asked for a reinforcement of one battalion; but he makes the demand more as a matter of precaution than of actual urgency. The Government, having given full consideration to the matter, have decided to send a battalion of Infantry, now at Malta, on to Egypt. Another battalion in the Mediterranean will also be held in readiness to proceed immediately if its services should be required. With regard to a Supplementary Estimate or Vote of Credit, I stated the other day, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay), that I am obtaining information as the extraordinary expenditure which has been or is likely to be incurred in Egypt; and when I have obtained it I will, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consider whether a Supplementary Estimate will be required.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I shall repeat the Question in a week's time.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Will the whole expenditure of these troops be borne by this country or by Egypt?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: So far as I am aware, the arrangement formerly concluded with the Egyptian Government will hold good, by which a capitation grant is given.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend

  1407
  to move a Supplementary Estimate in the present Session?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Some extraordinary expenditure has been incurred, and some more will have to be incurred, and as soon as I ascertain what the amount is likely to be, I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and see whether it will be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate in the present Session.
  MR. GOURLEY: What measures does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take in consequence of the mutiny of the Turkish troops at Assiout?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not see how that Question arises out of the one before the House. I am not responsible for the Egyptian Army; and such a Question should, be addressed to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or Notice of it should be given.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—SENTENCE ON FRANK STOCKMELL, AN INFANT.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a case reported in The Reading Observer of the 5th instant, in which it is stated that Frank Stockmell, a child seven years of age, was tried before Baron Pollock,
  "Charged with feloniously and maliciously setting fire to a certain stack of hay, the property of the Rev. T. H. Michell, at Shalbourne,"
  and that the child was sentenced by the Judge to one month's imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered to be whipped twice during that period, six strokes on each occasion; and, if he can state whether the Report referred to is correct; and, if it is, whether he can and will interfere to mitigate the sentence, and to prevent the repetition of such severe sentences in the case of children of tender years?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; as soon as my attention was called to the question I wrote to the authorities, and upon the receipt of their reply the child was directed to be discharged.

  INDIA—THE SALT TAX.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the fact that the poorest classes of the Native populations, in
  1408
  many of the up-country districts of India, complain that the reduction of the salt tax has been made an excuse by officials of the Salt Preventive Department to force people to give up the use of "spontaneous" salt, which rises to the surface in various places up-country; and, whether it is the fact that large numbers of Natives, too poor to pay for the taxed salt, are thereby compelled to give up the use of salt altogether, or to render forced labour, in order to procure Government salt manufactured on the coast?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I have already explained more than once that the use of untaxed salt in India is now, as it has been for many years, illegal. I hardly understand the second clause of the hon. Member's Question. Forced labour, in the sense of the corvée, does not exist in India.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENTS TO SURVEYORS' CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Postmaster General, With reference to a Post Office circular, printed for general circulation throughout the service, which contained on July 1st an announcement of a vacancy in the following words:—
  "Surveyor's clerkship for service in Ireland, salary £150, rising by £15 to £300, then by £20 to £350, with an allowance of 15 s. a-day when absent from head quarters. Except in the case of those who have been temporarily employed as surveyor's clerks, the selection will be confined to candidates of not more than five years' service;"
  and, if he would explain why officers of longer experience should thus be excluded from the candidature?
  MR. FAWCETT: The question of the method of appointing surveyors' clerks has been for some time under the careful consideration of the Department; and I believe I shall soon be in a position to come to a decision on the subject. This being the case, I intend to defer making the appointment referred to by the hon. Member until the new regulations are settled, and they will apply to it.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—WATERWORKS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

  1409
  ment, Whether the Government will afford facilities for the passing this Session of the Waterworks Act (1847) Amendment Bill?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member knows very well the difficulties we are in; and, great as is the importance of this Bill, how much we can do I cannot say.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—THE MONCRIEFF GUN.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the importance of the Moncrieff or disappearing system of gun-mounting, the Government propose to further avail themselves of its use, particularly with regard to hydropneumatic gun carriages for harbour defence; and, if so, when and for what class of guns?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A hydropneumatic gun carriage for permanent works is under trial. The results as yet are not satisfactory, and no decision, therefore, as to the adoption of the system has been arrived at.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Have not the authorities refused the use of a gun carriage?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not aware of that fact. The statement I have received is that it is now under trial.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS) — POLLUTION OF THE RIVER LEA.
  MR. PICTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consequence of the Report of Mr. Arnold Taylor, dated March 15th, 1884, on a complaint made by the Lea Conservancy Board, any action has been taken to compel an abatement of the nuisances condemned in that Report; whether he is aware that, during the recent hot whether, the inhabitants along the banks of the Lea have suffered great annoyance, and have been seriously alarmed by the dangers to health arising from the unsanitary condition of the river; and, whether he will insist on an immediate discontinuance of the pollution of the Lea by admittedly defective sewage works?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Under the Act of 1866 I was called upon to certify whether the water of the Lea was in such a state that the sewage
  1410
  should not be permitted to flow into it. In the month of March I appointed Mr. Arnold Taylor to consider the matter, and I gave my decision on his Report. I gave my decision that the water of the Lea was not in a satisfactory condition. By my so doing the Lea Conservancy Board were placed in the possession of the power to deal with this matter. All I could do was to enable the Board to act; but I have urged upon the Local Board also to inquire into it, and decide what they intend to do.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE CLEATOR MOOR RIOTS.
  MR. SYNANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Catholic clergyman of Cleator Moor informed the magistrates some days before the 12th July that a large body of Orangemen were to assemble there on the 12th, armed, and whether he sent a similar communication to the Home Office; whether the large assembly of Orangemen, armed with swords, spears, and revolvers, on the 12th July at Cleator Moor, was a lawful assembly; whether the magistrates ought to have acted on the information they received, or called upon the informant to make sworn informations; whether the magistrates ought to have provided a sufficient force of police and military to deal with said assembly, and disperse it, if necessary; and, whether forty-nine policemen was a sufficient force for that purpose?
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What force, civil and military, could have been made readily available by the magistrates at Cleator Moor on Saturday last for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of life; whether the magistrates and the local police had been aware, for weeks, that a considerable Orange meeting would be held, on the 12th instant, at Cleator Moor, in the midst of an extensive Irish and Catholic population, and whether he will take official notice of the fact that the total force provided in view of such an occasion consisted of only forty-five policemen; and, whether it is understood that the coroner's inquest into the cause of the death of Henry Tamelty will include an examination of the conduct of all persons who used weapons unlawfully on the occasion, and of the statement that a member of the police force in-

  1411
  cited persons to fire upon the people; and, if not, whether he will cause the institution of a public inquiry on oath as to the questions specified?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I must decline, in so grave a matter as this, which must become a matter of judicial inquiry, to give any opinion on the legal bearings of the case. I have not the facts before me, nor have I authority to declare the law on the matter. I am asked, with reference to the magistrates, whether they should have done anything different from what they did? I have not received a full Report, and therefore I cannot pronounce any opinion on their conduct; but on the facts as they are, and as they appear to me, I do not see anything whatever to blame in the conduct of the magistrates. They provided a force adequate to separate the two mobs. One of the parties came with arms; but it is clear that a mob four times more numerous than the Orange party attacked them.
  MR. SYNAN: One party came with arms.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is true; but the mere fact of men having arms is not in itself a ground for a violent attack. The carrying of arms in this country is not unlawful; and because I am walking along a road carrying a gun under my arm and not using it, that does not justify another man in unlawfully stoning me. I wish, as strongly as anyone, to condemn and deprecate the carrying of arms on these occasions. I have received a letter from the Chief Constable, stating that he is endeavouring to collect all evidence necessary to proceed against the criminals, and to identify all persons implicated in the attack. The letter also contains an absolute contradiction of the statement made that the police had recommended firing.
  MR. SEXTON: With the view of clearing up one important point, I beg to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman does he bear in mind the statement of the Chief Constable that the first collision was provoked by one of the armed faction thrusting his flag pole into the face of a Catholic?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The possession of the flag pole would not constitute an armed faction. I have not yet got the full Report. This is a
  1412
  very grave matter. A man has been murdered. The transaction must necessarily become the subject of a judicial inquiry; and I am sure hon. Members will feel that in a matter of this kind I ought not to be pressed too much for particulars.
  MR. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that a man going armed does not entitle another man to attack him. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that it was not until Tamelty was killed that the unarmed people attacked the armed body?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: All the facts are in the Report.
  MR. SYNAN: What is there to prevent the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying whether or not this was a lawful assembly? On Tuesday last the Home Secretary defended—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is debating the question.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should like to answer the Question, because it is important. There is no authority which can answer the Question except a Court of Law. I have pointed out the extreme inconvenience that occurs from an opinion upon that subject given by successive Law Officers, and acted upon by successive Secretaries of State for 20 years, having been proved by a decision of a Court of Law to be incorrect. Certainly, after that experience I am not going to lay down the law.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Can the Home Secretary state whether the magistrates were warned that a large body of armed men of the Orange Association intended to demonstrate in the centre of a Catholic population; and, were they warned of the consequence and took no precaution? And will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity also of clearing away a misapprehension, as I trust it is, arising from one of his last answers? He now assorts that the conduct of the Catholic body, being more numerous, was worse than the conduct of the Orangemen. Will he state he had no intention of prejudicing the matter, nor of encouraging further bands of Orangemen to invade Catholic districts with the result of assassination?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think the House will agree that is not a Question which I ought to answer. I

  1413
  have endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid awarding the blame between one party and the other. ["No, no!"] I have endeavoured to do so.

  INDIA—THE SALT TAX—SALT AS A REMEDY FOR CHOLERA.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been lately called to an article published in The Madras Medical Journal, in July 1870, entitled "Salt as a Preventive of Cholera," and describing various instances in which an extra supply of salt had preserved certain villages, settlements, or barracks in India from choleraic attack during the successive recurrences of the disease; and, whether the statements contained in that article do not seem to the Government a reason for taking steps for the still further reduction of the Salt Tax?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I have not been able to procure the number of The Madras Medical Journal for July, 1870, to which the hon. Member calls my attention. In reply to his Question, I can only repeat what I stated to the House on the 7th, that there is no reason to believe that want of salt has any connection with cholera in India, and that in the present state of the finances there is no immediate probability of a further reduction of the Salt Tax.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—REMOVAL OF PAUPERS—LISMORE BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY (for Mr. LEAMY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that a woman named Hackett, a native of Tallow, county Waterford, which place she left, over thirty years ago, for England, and who resided in Jersey for the last twelve years, was recently obliged to go into the Hospital at St. Heliers; if the General Hospital Committee of St. Heliers ordered her removal to Ireland, and caused her to be transported to Lismore Workhouse; if the Irish Local Government Board hold that there is no provision in the Poor Removal Acts for the removal of a pauper from Jersey to Ireland; and, if the Local Government Board is correct in its opinion, has the Lismore Board of Guardians or Mrs. Hackett any means of obtaining redress
  1414
  for the action of the St. Heliers Hospital Committee?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is, I understand, a fact that a woman has recently been removed from Jersey to Lismore. The Local Government Board for Ireland are not aware of any enactment permitting such a removal; and they have suggested to the Lismore Board of Guardians that they should communicate with the Hospital Committee of St. Heliers, and request them to state under what legal authority they acted on the occasion referred to.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Jersey Guardians had been in the habit of sending people to England and Ireland for the past 40 years?
  [No reply.]

  EGYPT—ABYSSINIA AND THE SOUDAN.
  MR. GUYDAWNAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the report published in The Daily News that 40,000 Abyssinians are now on their way to relieve Kassala; whether, in that case, their operations are to be limited to the relief of Kassala; and, whether their movements can be so far controlled as to prevent their ravaging and laying waste the country inhabited by the Shorkerizeh or other Soudan tribes, who, during the last twelve months, have remained loyal to the Egyptian Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: King John of Abyssinia informed Admiral Hewett that he should not allow Kassala to be held by the Arabs, so that on the retirement of the Egyptian garrison from that place it may be expected that King John will occupy it; but we have no positive information as to the number and disposition of his troops. We believe that the King also contemplates occupying Amedib, which is on the road from Kassala to Senbit. Her Majesty's Government have, from their recent communications with King John, no reason to suppose he intends adopting the course contemplated in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. M'COANasked whether the occupation of Kassala formed any part of the agreement between the English Government and that of the Khedive?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I should prefer the hon. Member seeing

  1415
  the Papers which I have undertaken to lay upon the Table of the House on Tuesday next.

  THAMES CROSSINGS—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. ARTHUR COHENasked the honourable Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire, Whether the Select Committee on the Metropolitan Board of Works (Thames Crossings) Bill, after finding the allegations in the Preamble of the Tower Bridge Bill, and of so much of the Metropolitan Board of Works Bill as related to a subway, not proved, and before reporting in favour of a low level swing bridge, gave any and what opportunity to the owners of sufferance wharves and legal quays an opportunity of stating their objections, and adducing evidence against a scheme so deeply affecting their interests, and of proving that the requirements of traffic would be sufficiently provided for by a tunnel, and that thereby serious loss to the trade of the port of London would be avoided?
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: The Select Committee on Thames Crossings sat for 22 days, during which a vast amount of evidence was given as to the schemes which were then and had been previously proposed for crossing the Thames below London Bridge, and their bearing on all the interests concerned. Among others interested in the trade and shipping below London Bridge, the owners of legal quays and warehouses, and traders of the Port of London, appeared by counsel and cross-examined the witnesses who were called in support of the Bills. The rejection of both Bills on the termination of the promoter's case rendered it unnecessary that the counsel for the wharfingers should state their case, and call evidence in support of their contention. In reporting their decision to the House, the Committee deemed it advisable, in view of the public importance of the question, to make a special Report, and to embody in it the opinions they had unanimously formed as to how the wants of the public below London Bridge could be best served, based on the mass of evidence they had received. If the views expressed by the Committee should be acted on, either by the Corporation of the City of London or of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Parliamentary sanction must be obtained be-
  1416
  fore any scheme can be carried into effect; and the wharfingers and all others who may consider their interests injuriously affected will have ample opportunity of appearing before the Committees of both Houses and defending those interests.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—ARREST OF FRENCH, LATE DETECTIVE DIRECTOR OF POLICE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what date ex-Detective Director French became sufficiently sane to justify his arrest; did the Government obtain a certificate of his condition before arresting him; and, have Doctors Eames, Curtis, and Gordon, who in April last made the following Report as to French, been since consulted as to his condition:—
  "We are of opinion that he is suffering from mental disease, softening of the brain, and great nervous debility, with impaired bodily health; and, with this infirmity of mind and body, he is incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and such infirmity is likely to be permanent;"
  if not, has anything arisen to shake the confidence of the Government in their Reports?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am advised that Mr. French's arrest did not depend on any question of sanity, and that no fresh certificate was necessary or was obtained. The certificate given in April last was given solely in connection with the question whether or not Mr. French was fit for further service in the Constabulary Force; and it had no reference to any question whether or not proceedings should be taken against him.
  MR. HEALY: As one of the main documents was this certificate, upon which a Court of Law acted, and upon which the authorities acted, which was signed by three doctors, one of them a Government doctor, whose name I will not mention, and they have made a Report that this man whom the Government have now indicted was—
  "Suffering from mental disease, softening of the brain, and great nervous debility, with impaired bodily health; and with this infirmity of mind and body he is incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and such infirmity is likely to be permanent,"
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, after the slur thrown upon this doctor by the impugning of his Report,

  1417
  he is to be retained in the service of the Crown?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I did not impugn the Report of the doctor. I said the medical certificate was the document upon which it was decided Mr. French was unfit for further service.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY: Is alleged insanity any debarment to arrest?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No bar whatever.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman make it a bar to arresting Mr. French sooner?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That may have been the case. I have had 70, 80, 90, or 100 Questions, counting extempore ones, addressed to me on this subject; and many of these should only be addressed to a person who holds a legal position. I only do my best to answer hon. Gentlemen; and perhaps I ought to be more cautious sometimes about answering some of the Questions addressed to me.

  DIVIDED PARISHES ACT, 1876—REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether any instructions have been or will be issued to overseers, in view of the ensuing registration, respecting their duty in the case of county electors whose qualifications may be, under the operation of the Divided Parishes Act, 1876, geographically transferred to a parish other than that in which they have hitherto been registered, or what steps will be necessary to be taken in order to save the franchise of the electors affected by such alterations?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: It has never been the practice of the Board to issue Circulars with regard to the registration of voters; and they do not deem it desirable to make an exception as regards the matter referred to in the Question.

  EGYPT — BERBERA — RUMOURED ANNEXATION BY THE RESIDENT AT ADEN.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as reported in the newspapers, that the British authorities at Aden have annexed Berbera, on the opposite coast; whether Berbera has for
  1418
  many years been an Egyptian possession, with an expensive system of water supply from the interior, constructed by the Egyptian Government; and, whether the alleged annexation has been made with the approval of the Egyptian Government or of the Porte?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; no annexation has taken place. Berbera has been for some time occupied by Egypt; but the Sultan's sovereignty over that part of the coast has never been formally recognized by this country. The food supplies for Aden being drawn mainly from Berbera, it became necessary, when the Egyptian troops were about to be withdrawn from the Province of Harrax, as is now intended by the Khedive's Government, that measures should be taken to prevent the supply being interfered with; and the Acting Resident at Aden was directed to enter into arrangements with the local Chiefs to secure that supply, and to guarantee them, in return, against interference from without.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER — WESTMINSTER HALL — DR. PEARSON'S REPORT—PROPOSED APPENDIX.
  DR. LYONSasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he will cause to be printed, as an Appendix to Mr. Pearson's very able and interesting Report on Westminster Hall, copy of the original indenture, De Fabrica Aula Westmonasterii Reformanda, A.D. 1395, under which the works were to be executed by Richard Washbourn and Johan Swalwe, masons, by the counsel of Master Henry Zeneley, and in which are given many interesting details of the state of the Hall, materials employed, prices paid, &c?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, he would consider the matter and have a consultation with the Treasury on the subject.

  IRELAND—CONTEMPLATED TRANSFER OF CUSTOMS WAREHOUSES.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If it is in contemplation to transfer the Customs Warehouses at the ports of Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Newry, and Londonderry, to the Excise Department, and to place these ports for Customs purposes in charge of superintendents; and, if not, what is the cause of the

  1419
  delay in applying the new warehousing regulations to the Customs establishments at these ports; and, if it is proposed to raise the status of Irish ports, which have been or will be made superintending ports of districts where the additional responsibility and amount of work call for it, as has been done with English ports?
  MR. COURTNEY: The introduction of the new warehousing system at these ports has been delayed by the illness of the officer specially appointed to carry out these changes; but, as he has now recovered, the change will be made in due course. The Irish ports will be treated just like those in Great Britain, where there has been no change of status; but the salaries and staff have been proportioned to the work to be done.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—EXTRA POLICE, CO. WATERFORD.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, The reason why very heavy extra police taxation has been imposed upon the county Waterford, notwithstanding the extremely peaceable condition of the county?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In consequence of the improved state of the county the number of extra police has within the past year been reduced from 106 to 66. There is, however, still a great deal of intimidation practised throughout this county, and much extra and special protection is required. That the county is not in a more disturbed state is believed to be greatly due to the number of police employed and the manner in which they discharge their duties.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked what was the number of police which by law were required for the county Waterford?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had not received Notice of the Question; but believed that about three-quarters of the present number was the usual percentage.

  INLAND REVENUE (EXCISE)—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF OUT-DOOR OFFICERS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If the Board of Inland Revenue have, within the past twelve months, called upon a number of supervisors, clerks, and officers
  1420
  in the Excise Out-door Service, who were sixty years of age and upwards, to retire on superannuation; and, if so, why were not collectors and all other staff officers, who had likewise attained the age of sixty, also called upon to retire?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Board have called upon certain of their officers who were above 65 (not 60) years of age to retire, where the efficiency of the service rendered this necessary; and collectors and other staff officers have been so treated as well as supervisors.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES OF PROCEDURE—LEGISLATION.
  MR. MONKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit any proposals to the House for amending the Rules of Procedure, with the view of facilitating the progress of Public Business; and, if so, when?
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that before the Prime Minister answered the Question, he would like to ask whether, in considering the proposals for facilitating the progress of Public Business, the Government would include among them the demand made almost universally for the abolition of the House of Lords?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think that a grave question relating to the Constitution of the country can very easily be brought within the same category as that which is familiar to us under the name of "procedure." If that question comes forward at all, it must come forward in some other form than as a matter of procedure. In relation to the Question of my hon. Friend behind me, as far as I am concerned—and, I believe, as far as my Colleagues are concerned—we are of opinion, strongly of opinion, that it is a matter of importance and urgency that there should be further reforms in the procedure of this House; but there is no time available for this purpose at present, and I cannot say when there will be time.
  MR. HEALYasked whether these reforms would include the abolition of the clôture, which had never been used?
  MR. GLADSTONEdissented.

  EGYPT — THE CONFERENCE — PROROGATION OF THIS HOUSE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether

  1421
  it is intended to defer the Prorogation of Parliament until the termination of the sittings of the Conference; and, if so, what course will be adopted if those sittings are prolonged without the Conference arriving at any decision requiring action on the part of Parliament? The hon. Baronet explained that he had put down this Question before he made his remarks on Tuesday with reference to the Conference; and he asked it now in the hope that the Prime Minister might have something to add on the subject. He also desired to supplement his Question by asking whether any date had been fixed by the Plenipotentiaries for the resumption of the labours of the Conference; whether the Plenipotentiaries would then be enabled to give a decision on the objects of the Conference without referring to their respective Governments; and whether there was any reasonable prospect of Parliament being able to discuss the decision of the Conference before the approaching Prorogation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think I may answer the hon. Gentleman with perfect safety. Though we have no right to pronounce authoritatively as to what time the Conference will take in completing its labours, yet I have seen no occasion whatever, down to the present time, to consider the question in connection with the Prorogation. We do not expect any such question will arise. If it should arise, the House will have the very earliest intimation of it. The exact state of the case as to the progress made is this. The bulk of the labour of the Conference had to be performed by gentlemen to whom that task was delegated—gentlemen conversant and experienced in the matter of finance, and who would be able thoroughly to prepare the whole of that subject for discussion and decision in the Conference. That was done by a Body who have been called informally a Commission appointed by and under the Conference. That Body has completed its labours to-day; and that is, I think I may probably say, as far as we can judge, the bulk of the work that has to be done. The decisions that have to be come to are exclusively matter for the Conference. We have no reason to believe that they are likely to occupy a long time. It is not for Lord Granville to fix authoritatively any day for the meeting of the Conference; but
  1422
  he will give his attention to that subject immediately; and our expectation is that the Conference will meet upon a very early day indeed. With respect to the question of the Plenipotentiaries referring to their own Governments, that is a matter of which we cannot possibly have any official cognizance, inasmuch as it depends entirely on confidential communications between the Governments and the Ambassadors. But I take the possibility of such reference into view when I say we have no reason to anticipate a postponement or any indefinite prorogation of the labours of the Conference.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright—that the Commission has completed the preparatory work, so that it is now ready for the Conference to take it up? Is it not, therefore, necessary that the Conference should immediately re-assemble, and with whom does it lie to fix the meeting?
  MR. GLADSTONE: These matters are always regulated when the Powers of Europe are assembled. I have no doubt that the initiative lies with Lord Granville, but it is not an authoritative initiative, and he will use it immediately and in general terms. I should say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is necessary that the Conference should re-assemble at once, and I believe they have every intention of doing so. I do not absolutely say to-morrow, as that would be driving the matter rather too hard, but at once when they are prepared to meet.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any reasonable prospect of Parliament being able to consider the decision of the Conference before the approaching Prorogation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I took that contingency into view when I said that we had seen no occasion to entertain the question of the exact time at which we shall be able to prorogue. I hope, with reference to what I have said on former occasions, that after the meeting of the Conference there will be an opportunity either for us to make a proposal to the House of Commons or an opportunity will be given for raising the question in the House itself.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I shall ask to-morrow whether a day has

  1423
  been fixed for the resumption of the Conference?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether, supposing the discussions of the Conference were prolonged, the Prorogation of Parliament would take place before any discussion in that House was held?
  MR GLADSTONE: We are under a pledge to this House to give at least an opportunity for such a discussion. Everything I have said about the Conference must be understood without prejudice to that pledge.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENinquired whether, in the event of the Conference not coming to a decision on the financial questions, it would be empowered to deal with the political questions generally relating to Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Conference has been called for financial purposes only, and not in regard to the general condition of Egypt.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, with reference to the communications which had been made to the Powers in regard to the Anglo-French Agreement, whether the Powers had sent any reply?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. Provisional replies alone have been given by, I think, most or the whole of the Powers to the effect that they found no occasion to take specific objection to the Agreement; but they appeared to contemplate matters on which they might fairly hold over their judgments till after the close of the Conference.
  MR. BOURKE: In these circumstances, the Anglo-French Agreement will not come before the House for discussion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say that. I think our pledge is that the House shall have an opportunity, either by a proposition from us, or, at all events, an opportunity for a discussion which will involve the whole matter.
  MR. BOURKE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Powers did not think that the Anglo-French Agreement would come under their notice in the Conference.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No; certainly.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—THE ZULU VOTE.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether
  1424
  he can now state on what evening he proposes to take the Zulu Vote in Civil Service Estimates?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member is aware that we are endeavouring to go through the Estimates in their order. I am not able, therefore, to give a positive answer to this Question. But I hope that by Monday I may be able to give a positive answer; and we should take care to take the Zulu Vote at the commencement of a Sitting. That is the pledge that we have given, and we must adhere to it.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which he had given him private Notice, respecting the position of General Gordon. Yesterday he drew attention to certain reports that had appeared in the newspapers, bringing down the news in regard to General Gordon to a later date. He wished to know whether the noble Lord could give the House any information as to the accuracy of those reports?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he thought it was only fair that when a Question, especially of such a large and far-reaching character, was going to be asked, it should be placed upon the Paper. So far as he recollected, the various reports which had appeared in the newspapers, and which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the Government had no information bearing upon them. It might save some trouble if he stated that if there was any information in regard to General Gordon which was of a sufficiently authentic character to be worth communicating to the House it would be communicated. But he did not think it would be respectful to the House that he should come down from day to day and make statements as to whatever gossip might be current.
  MR. J. LOWTHERexplained that he had given a Notice generally, because it was no use putting down a Question upon newspaper reports, which might be contradicted next morning. His object was to obtain information from the Government, in order to relieve the intense anxiety which prevailed in respect to General Gordon.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR, on taking the Chair, said, that his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway) had been called away from London, in consequence of the dangerous illness of a member of his family, and had requested him to take the Chair.

  CLASS IV. — EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  (1.) £315,413, to complete the sum for Public Education, Scotland.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have been requested by several Scotch Members to make a short statement with respect to the Scotch Educational Estimates, to supplement the remarks I made in introducing the English Estimates. Therefore, in moving the Vote, I propose to give a very brief outline in explanation of the Estimates the Committee are asked to vote to-night. The sum now asked for for 1884–5 amounts to £475,413, being a net increase of £9,690, as compared with the sum granted for 1883–4. The Estimate for annual grants for day-school scholars shows an increase of £8,734. This is explained by the addition of 12,658 children to the average number of children in attendance in the schools to which grants are to be made during 1884–5; but the increase in the grant scarcely shows the true difference between the grants of this year and last year, inasmuch as we estimated the rate of the grant last year at 17 s. 11 d., which was higher than the result; and, consequently, the estimate for 1884–5 is 17 s. 10 d., or 1d. less than the estimate for 1883–4. I may explain that, when we took the grant last year, we had only seven months of the financial year before us, and we made as near a calculation as we could; and, as the result, it has turned out that, though we overestimated the amount of earnings, the number of scholars was greater than our anticipation, and the total grants came out almost precisely what we estimated. There is an increase of £1,410
  1426
  in the grants to school boards under Section 67 of the Education Act, 1872. That, as hon. Members know, is the 3d. rate, which gives something less than 7s. 6d. per child. There is a decrease of £1,000 in the grants for building schools; and it is thought the £1,000 now provided for will almost entirely close up the amount of building school grants. The expenditure in 1883–4 was as follows: — The sum granted was £465,723, and the expenditure was £465,092, leaving a surplus of £631. The only variations of any moment between the Estimates and the expenditure for Scotland were in the annual grants. The grants to scholars show a decrease of £1,651; the grants to school boards, under Section 67 of the Education Act, a deficiency of £1,505; and the grants for school buildings a saving of £2,653. The deficiency in the annual grants to day and evening scholars was caused by an under-estimate of the average number of scholars in attendance at schools to which grants were paid. The Estimate was £393,778, and the expenditure was £395,329. We estimated an average attendance of 433,695 scholars, at 17 s. 11 d. per head; whereas the results were 438,952, at 17 s. 9¾d. per head. There are a few interesting figures which, I think, Scotch Members will be glad to hear, with respect to the progress of the past year. The schools inspected were 17 more than in the previous year, and the accommodation increased, by 15,000 places. The scholars on the register rose from 556,000 to 569,000, showing an increase of 13,000, or 2·14 per cent. The scholars in average attendance rose from 421,000 to 433,000, an increase of 12,000, or 2·9 per cent. The scholars individually examined rose from 320,700 to 330,700, an increase of 10,000, or 3·1 per cent. The percentage of average attendance rose from 75·8 to 76·1, and the percentage of passes in the Standards of examination rose from 88·9 to 89·6, which was a very satisfactory increase indeed. But a few more satisfactory figures follow. The scholars examined in Standard IV. and upwards rose last year from 117,700 to 121,900, an increase of 4,200, or 3·6 per cent. The proportion of scholars individually examined in Standard IV. and upwards rose from 36·69 to 36·86, or, as near as possible, 37 per cent of all the scholars examined. The percentage of passes

  1427
  now stands at the high rate of 89·6, very nearly 90 per cent, as compared with England and Wales, where the rate is 82·9. The expense of the maintenance of schools per scholar to the end of September was — for public schools in Scotland, £2 2s. 1¾d., an increase of 3s. 4d. per scholar. In voluntary schools the increase rose from £1 16 s. 2¼d. in 1882, to £1 16 s. 10¼d. in 1883, or an increase of 8d. per scholar. Voluntary schools are steadily diminishing in number in Scotland, and they are becoming very few under the operation of the school boards. The grants per scholar were 17 s. 10¼d. in the public schools, and 17 s. 1½d. in the voluntary schools. There are two or three figures that are very suggestive, which I think I ought to bring before the Committee. One is, that the percentage of the population in schools in Scotland is something lower than it is in England. In England, there are 15·87 per cent of the population on the register; in Scotland, 14·92, or very nearly 1 per cent less. This is accounted for as follows:—I have been examining the children's attendance in the two countries, and I find that in England and Wales over 39 per cent—you may say, roughly, 40 per cent—of the children on the registers are 7 years of age and under; whereas, in Scotland, only 23 per cent of the children on the registers are below 7 years of age. I think that this difference is, to a considerable extent, owing to the habits of the people in the two countries, to the difference in climate, and very much to the nature of the country, as, consequent upon the scattered districts, children have in many instances to go long distances and over very difficult ground to school, thereby entailing great difficulty as to the regular attendance of infants. Beyond that, I must also point out the fact that infant school teaching has not quite reached the same perfection in Scotland as in England. I have had two Scotch senior Inspectors in England, and I thought it would be a very good thing that they should see all we are doing in England, in order that they might familiarize themselves with the English schools, and compare the results of the two systems. There are, no doubt, some infant schools in Scotland, in the large cities, that are exceedingly well managed and quite equal to the
  1428
  English schools; yet, taking them as a whole, the generality of the English infant schools are much better and higher in their teaching, and much better adapted to their work, than those in Scotland. Indeed, one of these Inspectors said to me that the infant schools in England were quite a revelation to him. We propose that the senior Inspectors of Scotland shall make a prolonged visit of examination to the higher elementary schools in this country, and see what we are doing in the way of technical teaching and manual teaching in some of the best English schools, and of ascertaining if anything can be learnt. I think both countries may learn a good deal from each other. I have said that the children in the English schools are very much younger than they are in the Scotch schools. In the English schools, there are 40 per cent under 7 years of age; whereas, in Scotch schools, the number is only 23 per cent. The proportion of children over 14 years of age of the school population on the registers is only 8 per cent in England and Wales; whereas it is 16 per cent in Scotland. That is a proof of the greater appreciation and more readiness on the part of Scottish parents to make sacrifice to keep their children at school. The total number on the register in Scotland is 569,241, against 4,273,304 in England and Wales. I stated, in introducing the English Estimates, that the total number in the schools in the United Kingdom, including the industrial, reformatory, and the pauper schools, amounts just now to about 5,090,000. There is one other point which will interest the Scotch Members. That is the marvellous progress in the quality of the work that has been done under the Education Act of 1872. There have been at times doubts expressed as to whether Scotland was making progress under the Act of 1872—whether, really, education was as solid and as good as under the old parochial system. I stated, on a former occasion—and I quoted from an address of Principal Caird, of St. Andrew's; but since that time I have had the advantage of hearing from the lips of Sir Alexander Grant and Principal Caird, and from the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh—that increasing numbers of the pupils came from the public schools of Scotland to the Universities every year,

  1429
  and that every year they came better and better furnished. But this is the best test I think that can be given—that in 1875, when the number in attendance at the schools were something like half of what they are to-day, the percentage of scholars above 10 years presented in the upper Standards IV. to VI. was only 34·83. From that date, although the number of the scholars had been largely increasing, the percentage of scholars in the upper Standards of 10 years of age has been increasing in a larger ratio. It went up, in two years, from 34 to 43 per cent; in 1879, it reached 57 per cent; in 1881, it was 67 per cent; and in 1883 it stands at 72·25 per cent. That is a most satisfactory indication of progress. We have in England and Wales 29 per cent of the scholars in Standard IV. and upwards. In Scotland, the percentage may be roughly stated to be 37, being actually 36·9. There are still some indications in our Returns of defects, both in the average attendance and with regard to scholars, that have escaped much earlier even than the statute permits. I will give one illustration. Out of 56,000 children presented in Standard IV. in 1882, as many as 12,000 disappeared from our schools in 1883. There is some evasion, therefore, of the labour test, and the children undoubtedly went away from the want of the Act which was passed last year; and we believe we remedy this very largely by drawing the line at Standard V. At present, undoubtedly, children do leave school at too low a Standard. From all I hear of the working of the Act which was passed last year, it is very satisfactory; and I believe that a better average attendance and higher attainments are likely to be the result. There are one or two other points to which I should like to advert for a moment. One is the increasing number of male students at the Training Colleges who are attending the University classes. It does not appear that there were nearly so many on the Return of last year; but I know that is so to-day from Dr. Wilson, our senior Inspector, who has been recently examined. All the masters are enjoying advantages from the University classes. I am glad, also, to be able to report that the Scotch Endowed Schools Commission is doing its work very vigorously, and that they are rapidly
  1430
  sending us up their schemes. Many of these schemes will, I believe, be of great advantage to the country, both in respect of secondary and technical education, but especially technical education. The schemes which have come up from Glasgow—the Hutcheson and other schemes—seem admirably adapted for the promotion of these ends. I can only say that, on the whole, everything connected with Scotch education is very satisfactory. I think there has been a great improvement in the past year over the previous year; and if my anticipations are realized, that the Act of last year will produce a better average attendance in the present year, I think that next year we shall have a still better tale to tell. I can only say that I was in Edinburgh and Glasgow at the beginning of this year, and I never came away from any two cities more gratified or encouraged than I did by the excellent work that is being done by the school boards there, and the wonderful manner in which some of the members of both boards are devoting themselves to the work, almost giving their whole lives to it. These boards have to deal with a population of nearly 1,000,000, and I believe the work is admirably done. There is no doubt they have great difficulties in Glasgow with a large immigrant population, and with the poverty, misery, and squalor with which they have to deal; but by means of industrial schools and day-feeding schools they are doing a great deal to overcome the difficulty. There is another point to which I wish to advert, and that is the Act passed last year. There is no doubt there has been some neglect in some places in Scotland, more especially in Dundee; but under the stimulus of that Act I hope I shall be able to report before long that the school boards have effectually and efficiently done their duty, and have overtaken the deficiency of the school supply. I have nothing to say but words of congratulation for what has been done in Scotland; and I trust that in the course of the coming year, considering we have the obligation upon us to inspect the endowment schools, we shall be able to frame a scheme by which we shall not only be able to inspect endowment schools, but also the high schools of Scotland, which, I think, will be a great advantage. I beg to move the Vote.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he was sure the statement of the right hon. Gentleman must be very gratifying to the whole of the Scottish Members, and to all others who were interested in the cause of education. The figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, especially as to the increase in the average attendance to 76·1 per cent, in the presentations in the higher Standards to 37 per cent, in the number of children over 14 years of age to 16 per cent, and also that the passes were nearly 90 per cent—all showed a marked improvement on former reports, and were, therefore, most gratifying. The right hon. Gentleman had reminded the Committee of one point in which the people of Scotland were decidedly behind England; and he hoped that his remarks as to their comparative deficiency in regard to infant school teaching would not be lost sight of in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed the gratification he had derived from his visit to Scotland last year; and he (Mr. Campbell) thought he might say that the visit of the right hon. Gentleman had been gratifying to Scotland as well as to himself, and had been of great benefit to that country. The managers and teachers of schools, not in Edinburgh and Glasgow only, but all over the country, had been greatly stimulated and encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's visit and the addresses he had delivered. The visit was not a long one, but, with the energy and enthusiasm the right hon. Gentleman had thrown into it, it was made a very busy one. Although he only visited two cities, the effect of his visit might be said to have been felt throughout the whole of the country. The teachers and managers now knew that the Education Department was not a thing of Code and inspection only; but that it was a Department which was in real sympathy with them in their work. There had been a good deal less said in Scotland than in England on the subject of over-pressure. From the inquiries he (Mr. Campbell) had made, he felt sure that in Scotland, at least, if there was over-pressure at all, it was felt almost exclusively in the lower Standards, among the youngest of the children; and this might be a proof that they were not so far wrong in not sending children too early to school in Scotland. He did not believe there would be over-pressure if they had good in-
  1432
  fant schools to send the children to; but in the ordinary schools there was no doubt a liability to overstrain in the case of nervous young children, when they had to be prepared for the presence of Inspectors and examiners. The cure for over-pressure was to be found in what was most necessary for promoting the efficiency of schools for all classes of children, and this was acknowledged and admitted to be—in addition to the exercise of kindness and common sense on the part of teachers, and care on the part of managers—attention to four particulars—first, having an efficient and sufficient staff in the schools; secondly, having regular attendance; thirdly, an equal pressure in the school all the year round, leaving no leeway to be made up when the time for inspection approached; and, lastly, attention to the health of the children. With regard to the health of the children, they had some conversation last year on the subject of school dinners. There was another point which was also worth noticing—namely, attention to physical exercises. He only wished that all the teachers in Scotland had an opportunity of seeing what all might see in the Health Exhibition twice a week—the physical exercises conducted by Miss Bergmann, which gave an illustration of what might be done in most of our schools. On the subject of regular attendance, he would ask the permission of the Committee to state the results of an experiment which had been most successfully tried for some time by the School Board of Glasgow—an experiment which might be followed by school managers everywhere. It was, in addition to having the compulsory clauses of the Education Act put in operation through school board officers, to offer, as an inducement to children, small prizes to those who never missed a single attendance. The Session lasted for nine months, and every child who had not been absent at a single attendance during those nine months received a prize. It might seem to be a simple thing, but it had had a very good effect. Prizes were also given to those who made their passes regularly. The advantage of the system was that the prizes were given, not for anything which the children were not otherwise expected to do—not for any extra work, but simply for regular attendance at school, and for passing the Standard

  1433
  examinations, which was expected of every scholar. Another advantage was that the prizes were given on a principle which did not throw any responsibility upon the teachers. Accordingly, there was no room for favouritism. The result of the system had been more satisfactory than the Committee would probably be prepared to expect. Last year, with a roll of from 40,000 to 50,000 children, no fewer than 4,880 scholars were never once absent, and accordingly received prizes.
  MR. MUNDELLA: How many?
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: 4,880 received prizes for perfectly regular attendance.
  MR. MUNDELLA: In Glasgow alone?
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: Yes. It might be thought that this must be somewhat expensive; but the prizes were of small intrinsic value, ranging from a few pence—from 8d. to 3s. 6d. He would give the particulars of one school, where there were 174 prizes awarded; these cost, on an average, 1s. 6d. each, the cost for the whole school being £12 12 s. In return for that expenditure of £12 12 s. the school had a much more regular attendance than it would otherwise have had, and it had better work done, and, therefore, earned more money in grants—much more than the £12 12 s. expended in the prizes. The average attendance at the schools under the Glasgow Board showed the good effect of the measures adopted. He had the Returns for the month of May. This was an unfavourable month for attendance, because in Scotland it was the month for changing residences, and as this caused a good deal of interference with ordinary domestic arrangements, it was consequently a bad month for school attendance. But in the month of May last the average attendance was 78 per cent, which was above the general average in Scotland. In April it had been 83 per cent. On another subject he would again say that one of the very few remaining grievances that Scottish educationists had was, that the Department had not yet seen its way to put into operation the provision for the examination of higher class schools contained in the Education Act of 1878 in Clauses 19 and 20. It was a very small matter as regarded money. He believed it would not cost the Treasury more than from £300 to
  1434
  £400. It was an examination, at the public expense, of only 11 public schools; and it seemed a pity that, for so small a sum as that, the great advantage of a uniform public examination should be missed, and the intentions of the Legislature, when the Act of 1878 was passed, should not be carried out. No doubt, these schools were now inspected and examined at the cost of the school boards; but the great advantage of acting upon the provisions of the Act of 1878 would be that, along with these public schools, other higher class schools in Scotland would apply for the same examination, although at their own expense; and thus the whole of the secondary schools of Scotland might be brought under the same system of examination, which would give the country greater confidence in the teaching of these schools. The object was not to have different examiners from the present, where examiners were employed, but to have them sent down by the Department. There was another subject which had not been mentioned of late years, but which certainly demanded consideration, especially in view of the fact that there would be a school board election next spring. It was too late, he was afraid, to have any improvement made in the regulations affecting school board elections, for this occasion; but the sooner the matter was spoken of the better, as there were some things which certainly called for reform. The cumulative vote had often been objected to. He thought the principle of the cumulative vote was a defensible one—["Hear, hear!"]—and it would be impossible to depart altogether from that principle; but he thought it was generally admitted that they had the cumulative vote in too extreme a form—in a form that subjected school boards to considerable inconvenience, and it would be a great improvement to modify the system in some way. There was another point—the school boards in Scotland were required to draw up a separate register of persons qualified to vote, which, in the case of school boards extending over a populous area, entailed very considerable expense. For instance, in the case of Glasgow, which had the most populous area of any school board in the country, there was, at first, considerable doubt

  1435
  as to how to go about the work of making up the school board register, and at the first two elections the expense was very great. He believed the register for the first election cost £720. Some changes were then effected; and at the second election, in 1879, the register only cost £516. As the work became more familiar some additional improvements were effected, and at the last election, in 1882, it cost less; but still it cost £390. That was a great tax for a work which, when they came to think of it, could scarcely be said to be needful. In Glasgow, at the present moment, the difference between the school board roll and the municipal roll was simply this. The school board roll consisted of all persons who were assessed to pay poor rates, and the municipal roll consisted of all persons who had paid their rates. It was difficult to see why they should not accept the municipal roll for school board purposes, which, in a burgh like Glasgow, would save nearly £400. The simple substitution of the ordinary municipal roll would, in the case of parishes which were burghs, do away with the present vexatious and expensive anomaly. He hoped the matter would receive attention from the authorities, and that before long there would be some remedy found.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had very little to say, beyond expressing his congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) on the statement which he had been able to make; and adding, also, that the benefit he had done to Scottish education by his visit last autumn was very great indeed. Nor was it in Edinburgh and Glasgow alone that it had done a great amount of good. The good had spread all over the country. If, next year, the right hon. Gentleman would go to Dundee and Aberdeen, and visit some other parts of Scotland, he might, probably, produce as great an effect as he had done in Edinburgh and Glasgow. He (Mr. Anderson) was very much gratified with many of the figures the right hon. Gentleman had given; but regarding what he had said about infant schools he must confess that he was rather sceptical. He did not believe in infant prodigies, and he agreed with what the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr.
  1436
  Campbell) had said in regard to overpressure. He did not believe there was over-pressure in Scotland; but, still, while on that subject, he would say that he looked upon infant schools as dangerous. They might be better organized in England than in Scotland; but he was afraid that complaints of overpressure really originated greatly in England through the infant school system, or that it had a tendency to do so. He entirely agreed with what the hon. Member for Glasgow University said about the Government inspection of higher class schools; but he hoped they would not stop there, but would extend the inspection to the schools for girls. The higher schools for girls were not inspected; and he was informed that the teaching in such institutions was of the most wretched description. In these seminaries there was too much aiming at attainments which were of no practical value as compared with those of a more solid nature. Young ladies received too little of a really good and substantial education. He did not think they would get any uniform system until they had Government inspection. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of technical education. The Commission upon Technical Education had lately reported, and hon. Members who had read the Report must have been highly satisfied with the labours of Sir Bernhard Samuelson and the other Members of the Commission, who undertook the inquiry entirely at their own expense, going over this and foreign countries, diligently making their own examination, and paying their own travelling expenses. He had never heard any opinion expressed on the subject, except that it was extremely shabby on the part of the Government to allow them to conduct the inquiry at their own expense. Nevertheless, they had done the work, and all the more credit to them for having done it. Those hon. Members who had read the Report of the Commissioners upon that question must have been highly satisfied with the result of their great labours, and very glad indeed to hear that the Government had appreciated those labours; but what he was anxious to say was that one or two of the recommendations contained in that Report were capable of being applied to elementary schools—for instance, to the extension of drawing in

  1437
  the elementary schools, and the establishment of school workshops in such schools. These were two points that were greatly dwelt upon in the Report of the Commission upon Technical Education; and he thought it was within the competency of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman to stimulate and encourage efforts in this direction. In Glasgow they had made one or two attempts in that direction, such as in the Glen School. The work there was of the most satisfactory and wonderful character, and had been attended by the most excellent results. It was not a board school; but, speaking from experience, he did not see why workshops should not be introduced into a great many of the board schools, if not into all of them, in the country. The result would be to give the children a taste for manly skill. The great deficiency in the educational system now was that it tended to make all the boys desire to be clerks. All they thought of was to walk about the streets in fine clothes, and have a pen behind their ear. They must be clerks, and they desired situations of that kind as best things for them. They had an utter contempt for manual labour. What he wanted to see was the time when they could go back to the old plan, when manual labour, and skill and dexterity in manual labour, were considered a thing to be desired; and he felt satisfied that when once this feeling was properly engendered in boys at the elementary schools, a wholly different sentiment would be found growing up among our youths; for once a boy learned dexterity in work, he felt no degradation in working at a craft. He knew many gentlemen who delighted in dexterity in manual exercises, such as turning, but they were exceptions; and he should like to see the taste encouraged and become more general. He would not detain the Committee longer, as there were many hon. Members who desired to speak upon the Vote. He would simply thank the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council for the visit he had paid to Scotland, and for his appreciation of the work they were doing there.
  MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, he joined with the hon. Member who had preceded him (Mr. Anderson) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the very satisfactory report he
  1438
  had been able to make to the Committee. He thought it was highly satisfactory in a double sense. It was satisfactory because it showed that very special progress had been made in the work of education, and it was satisfactory also because it had correctly indicated one or two defects which it was of the highest importance to those interested in Scotch education to amend. He was glad to think that, in one respect, they might be congratulated upon having come to a certain pause in regard to their labours—he meant in regard to the building of schools. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that, so far as the schools for elementary education were concerned, they were now nearly sufficient for the wants of the population of Scotland. He thought that was a very satisfactory result; and he would ask the attention of the Committee to a short account of the progress which had been made in that particular. He found that in 10 years the accommodation in elementary schools in Scotland had been increased by nearly 120 per cent, the number of scholars upon the register by more than 108 per cent, and the average attendance by more than 97 per cent. He thought those facts were of very great importance in showing that the increased results were due to obtaining proper and adequate accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to one figure which, at first sight, might afford them some dissatisfaction—namely, that the percentage of children attending board schools in Scotland was less than in England. He quite agreed with the reasons the right hon. Gentleman had given; but there was also another reason which he thought might help to account for the difference. He believed it would be found that a desire existed among the people of Scotland to send their children to schools that were other than elementary schools. That desire was much more strong in Scotland than in England, and he knew that in his own neighbourhood, it was the case. People sent their children to higher-class schools, often at very great inconvenience and expense, because they believed the education imparted was better. If the right hon. Gentleman had the means of ascertaining the number, he believed it would be found that it would more than account for the dif-

  1439
  ference which had been explained to the Committee. Then with regard to the irregular attendance. No doubt, that was a great evil, and a defect which ought to be remedied. He was afraid it proceeded, in the first place, from illegal employment; and he was glad to hear that that had, to a certain extent, been provided for by the Act of last year. It also arose, in many cases, from the difficulty of getting the children to school, owing to the distance which existed between the homes of the children and the nearest schools, and the difficulty experienced in getting the legal compulsory steps put in operation. He did not know if it were possible to put into operation any efficient method by which that object could be obtained. He believed there was a statement in the last Report, which showed the extraordinary difficulty that was experienced in many Highland districts in getting the compulsory clauses of the Act put into operation. He wished to point out to the Committee, with regard to irregular attendance, that there must always be, even among the best scholars, a certain amount of irregular attendance in the case of children who were detained at home on account of ailments. If they took into account the large number of children who were upon the school books, it was evident that the average attendance must always be affected by the number who were laid up with children's ordinary ailments. It would be found that a large amount of the irregular attendance every year was accounted for by the fact that many were absent, not from any desire to shirk the school attendance, but simply from unavoidable causes. In regard to overpressure, he did not propose to deal with that subject at length; but it was obvious to anyone who had listened to the speeches which had been made on that occasion that the question of overpressure in England was complicated by considerations such as the difficulties between the board schools and voluntary schools which did not exist in Scotland to the same extent. They were enabled, therefore, to discuss the question of over-pressure upon its intrinsic merits. He was not one of those who at all believed in the existence, to any extent, of an evil of that kind; but he did not think that upon that account it would be wise to overlook it altogether,
  1440
  because it was an evil of a kind which did not depend upon the production of facts, but rather on the nature of the difficulty itself; and it would be the greatest possible misfortune to Scotland, which had achieved its high educational position by the interest which the whole mass of the people had taken in education, if any cause, however trifling or absurd, were allowed to impair that position. Therefore, he said at once that while his own experience, extending over a considerable number of years, in dealing with education, satisfied him that the cases were not very numerous, still the matter was one which ought not altogether to be overlooked. He agreed with what his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Campbell) had said; and he thought, if the question were carefully attended to by the various boards, a very good effect would be produced. He also agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) that they escaped over-pressure to a great extent in Scotland, by the fact that they did not send the children to school at quite so early an age. He did not mean to say that they were not educated at that early age; but they were not sent away from home to be herded together in school. It was very difficult to lay down how any remedy should be brought into operation. It could not be brought into operation by Parliament, except indirectly, by means of the Education Department. The school boards were powerless to deal with the question. Everybody who knew the working of the school board system in Scotland knew that it was to a great extent administrative, and it was impossible to take up time in dealing with particular cases. The people most interested in the question were the parents themselves. It was they who first detected the symptoms of over-pressure; and whatever it arose from, whether from the state of the child's physical health, or from the more dangerous form of mental pressure, it ought to be dealt with at once. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that when he visited Edinburgh he found that there was a lady who took an active part in the work of the school board. The advantage of having a lady member upon a board of that kind was very great indeed. It was not a ways possible to get the assistance of ladies; but when they did become members of the board, com-

  1441
  plaints of this kind were at once dealt with and easily remedied. It appeared to him that it would be wise, if possible, to have along with the school boards a committee of ladies belonging to each district, with some sort of official recognition, to superintend such like matters, in which case he was of opinion that many of the difficulties now heard of would be satisfactorily dealt with. There was, however, another point—namely, that the over-pressure was likely to be very much greater in regard to the teaching staff than in the case of the children. All the really serious cases of over-pressure he had been made acquainted with had existed in the teaching staff, and more especially among the pupil teachers. He thought it was of very great importance to know how a difficulty of that kind was to be met. It might not be possible to remedy it altogether; but he thought that a general recommendation from the Department, if brought under the notice of every school board, would have a beneficial effect. He was quite sure that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made on that occasion would be a source of great gratification to a large number of people in Scotland who were interested in the cause of education.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he felt bound to express his hearty concurrence in what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) with regard to the inspection of the higher schools in Scotland, by persons appointed by the Education Department, or by the Universities, as the case might be. But there was one point which, of all others, was likely to be overlooked—namely, the necessity of taking care that the persons who received certificates as teachers were really qualified to give instruction in the higher branches of education. He was pleased to learn from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that 50 per cent of those who were attending the normal schools at the present time, and becoming qualified to act as teachers, were receiving the advantages of University training. He was not satisfied, however, that the University education at present given to them was complete or adequate. The fact was, that the Department had altogether ignored the Report of the Endowed Institutions Commission of 1880. It was four years now since that Report was
  1442
  presented, and he believed it had never seriously received consideration. In respect of the rural districts of Scotland, he knew the right hon. Gentleman would tell him that the Department had sent various circulars to the school boards throughout Scotland, directing their attention to the necessity of having teachers qualified to give the higher education. The suggestion contained in the Report of the Endowed Institutions Commission was that the number of teachers qualified to give instruction in the higher branches of learning should be increased, and that teachers who attended the Universities at all should remain in them for a sufficiently long period to enable them to take their degree in Arts, as a stamp of their fitness for giving instruction in the higher branches of education. Nothing had been done in the matter. He believed it was not altogether the fault of the Department that the delay had taken place; but that it was owing to the unwillingness of the Treasury to furnish any addition to the grant for education in Scotland. Considering the limited number of students who were able to go up to the Universities in order to fit themselves for the position of teachers, he thought the time had come when the Department should press the Treasury as to the necessity of this as a means of providing higher instruction in the rural districts. It was a subject of great importance. In Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other large towns, the gentlemen who were members of the school boards were persons of influence, who had the means of obtaining and were glad to take the trouble of acquiring information as to the personality of the most promising scholars, whom it was desirable to provide with higher instruction. In the rural districts, however, there was nothing of the kind, and, as those districts formed a large portion of the total population of Scotland, it should be remembered that the population of the towns of Scotland was sustained by immigration from the rural districts. Therefore, it was of the last importance that the education of the inhabitants of those rural districts should be attended to. If heed were not given to the matter, he believed that the falling away which was complained of in some of the Highland parishes would be aggravated. The school-rate of many of the Highland parishes was so heavy as really to be a

  1443
  serious burden to the ratepayers, and it ought to be as far as possible alleviated by providing a more efficient staff of teachers, although he could not say at inconsiderable salaries. There was one other remark he desired to mate. The right hon. Gentleman who, in some of his remarks, had drawn attention to the great increase in the number of scholars attending the schools and receiving an efficient education within them, seemed to forget that the Education Act had only existed since 1872—or only a dozen years. But he was glad to say that they had had a system of education existing in Scotland for more than 300 years prior to the constitution of the Education Department. One of the advantages they had derived from that was that Scotch parents regarded it as a moral duty that they should educate their children; but until the Act of 1872 was passed, the national system was totally inadequate, being altogether incommensurate with the number and wants of the people, and it would be in the recollection of the Committee how the numerous measures brought in to improve it were defeated. Several Bills brought forward, one after another, by a right hon. Gentleman, now a Member of "another House," but who enjoyed a seat in the House of Commons for many years, for the purpose of promoting education in Scotland, were rejected under the miserable pretext that sectarian differences existed. That pretext did great injury to the cause of education, and delayed the passing of an Act until the Government of 1872 passed the Act which had proved so great a blessing to the country. He hoped his right hon. Friend would give heed to what he (Mr. Ramsay) had said in regard to the Report of the Endowed Institutions Commission, and that he would be able to persuade the Treasury to provide the small sum that was requisite to give a complete University education to those who were suitable for it, and securing that they should take a degree in Arts before they left the University. He hoped that that might be done at an early date, and that the right hon. Gentleman might there by confer still greater benefits than he had yet done on the people of, Scotland. He would not enter into any question as to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had administered the Act, because he had no desire to say
  1444
  anything which might give rise to a controversy.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he joined in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on the statement he had made in regard to Scottish education; but he was sorry he had omitted to refer to one point which was regarded as of very great importance by the country, and that was the state of education among the Gaelic-speaking population of the Highlands. The Committee was aware that a Commission recently sat to inquire into the grievances, or alleged grievances, of the people who inhabited the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, and one of the subjects which came under its observation was the educational system and the state of education in those parts. That matter was fully gone into, and the Report of the Commissioners was now upon the Table of the House. He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have made some reference to it on the present occasion, and very much regretted that he had not done so. As he (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) had himself been one of the Commissioners, it was not for him to say anything either for or against the Report, but the document spoke for itself. This, however, he would say, that all the Members of the Commission were more or less connected with the cause of education, and two of them were immediately connected with and had special knowledge of educational matters in the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. The grievance now felt was this—that in places where Gaelic was the mother tongue, it was entirely ignored by the Education Department, and no use whatever was made of it. There were two classes of people in the Highlands who held different views in regard to the teaching of Gaelic. The more advanced class wished it to be made a special subject like Latin and Greek, and in this he personally concurred; the more moderate section would be satisfied to utilize the Gaelic language, for the purpose of making the children, to whom it was the mother tongue, thoroughly good English scholars. When the right hon. Gentleman was in Edinburgh at the beginning of the year, he (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) introduced to him a deputation who urged the latter view upon him, and he expressed his approbation.

  1445
  The members of the deputation, which was a very influential one, were now disappointed that nothing had been done in the way they were led to expect. If the Committee would allow him, he would mention one fact which would illustrate the position better than any lengthy statement. On one occasion, when the Commissioners were going among the Western Islands, they visited the picturesque Island of Raasay, and held their meeting in a board school, which was a charming building decorated with maps and pictures, altogether as clean and nice as any building could be. In that room were 30 or 40 children of both sexes, and of ages ranging from 6 to 10. Not one of these children could speak a word of English; whilst the teacher was a lady from Aberdeen, who could not speak a word of Gaelic. How was it possible, under those circumstances, for the teaching to be of the slightest use to those children? The whole thing was a perfect mockery. The children were intelligent in the main, as was easily ascertained when they were spoken to in Gaelic, their own language; but they knew nothing whatever of what they were being taught. He considered it an intolerable hardship, and one which he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not allow to exist very much longer, because the school and other rates in some of the Western Islands were excessive. In Lewis they amounted in one year to as much as 8s. in the pound, notwithstanding the fact that many of the inhabitants were poor crofters, paying something like £2 a-year for rent, and yet being compelled to contribute their proportion of the school rates. The consequence was that they regarded the operation of the Education Act as a burden and a hardship; and instead of being glad to send their children to school, as was formerly the case, the necessity of sending them to school was regarded as a serious tax. Another hardship was the great distance the schools were from the abodes of the people. In the winter the streams were flooded, the roads blocked up, and the children were only able to attend at the hazard of their lives. With the little food and clothing they possessed, it would be starvation from hunger and cold combined while in attendance at school. What he wanted to press upon
  1446
  the right hon. Gentleman was this—that the more moderate friends of the Gaelic-speaking people by no means insisted that Gaelic should be taught and paid for by the Education Department as a special language; but as long as it continued to exist, and was necessary in order to make the children properly understand the English language, the Government ought to utilize it for the purpose he had mentioned, and pay for results.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he would not have risen but for the observations of the two hon. Members who had preceded him — the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick). Those observations, if allowed to go forth without any challenge, might do something to discourage the efforts which were being made in Scotland to bring up the training of infants to the same standard as existed in England. He did not himself believe in the existence of over-pressure in the schools in Scotland, or even in England, except in a very limited degree. He had seen something of the management of board schools, both in Scotland and in England, and the manner in which education was being carried on was very encouraging. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) spoke from his own observation; but he did not think he had realized the full extent to which infant education was being carried on in England and Scotland. Formerly, there might have been some ground for the complaints of the hon. Member. The first time he had ever visited an infant school was in the city now represented by his hon. Friend; and he put the question to the teacher—"What do these children know?" The answer he received was—"They know something of everything." That was going a little too far; but that was not the way in which infant schools were conducted now. The aim of these schools was to give to children of the poor the same advantages which children of the same age among the upper classes received in their own homes. When that object was properly carried out, with tenderness and due regard to the age of the children, it was a powerful aid to the education which they received elsewhere afterwards; and it was in itself most invaluable for training

  1447
  the minds of the children. He denied that the manner in which infant education was now carried on caused the strain it was said to produce; and he was quite satisfied that if something were done in this direction in Scotland, the advantages, so far as progress was concerned, which it would confer would be readily recognized. In reference to the Highlands, it was impossible to carry out infant schools in agricultural districts, or in the Islands; but they could certainly be carried out in the large towns, where the subject was now in its infancy, to a greater extent even than at present. He would like to refer to a remark which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Campbell), and which was received with some cheering. He alluded to what the hon. Member had said about the cumulative vote. Now, he stood there as being himself answerable for the introduction of that system of voting into Scotland, and he was proud of the fact. He trusted the Committee would pause before listening to any proposal to abolish it, and he was glad that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council had advocated nothing of the kind. Up to the present time, the system, although frequently attacked out-of-doors, had not been openly assailed in that House; and he could not allow the occasion to pass without expressing his opinion very strongly as to the advantages Scotland had derived from it. He had watched the matter carefully, and the only complaint he had heard against it was that it brought to the top of the list those who would sometimes have been lower down if the old method of voting had been used. That was an anomaly, no doubt; but it was a very narrow point on which to judge the matter, and it ought not to be made a matter of reproach. He remembered that, at the first election for a school board in Glasgow, a Unitarian was placed at the top of the poll, and every one held up his hands with horror at the idea of a Unitarian being at the head. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] His hon. Friend corrected him on that point; but, at any rate, the cumulative vote had had the effect of enabling the representatives of the different religious communities to sit side by side on the same school board. The Roman Catholic, for instance, had a seat on the same board
  1448
  with his Presbyterian brethren. That was a great advantage, not only to the Roman Catholics, but to the Presbyterians themselves; for he considered it to be a great tiling to get Roman Catholics to join with their fellow-Christians in a common system of education. Looking back upon these results, he felt proud of having taken part in securing the adoption of the cumulative system, of which the Committee would probably hear a good deal when it came to deal with the redistribution of seats. He again congratulated the Vice President of the Council, and he thought that, after his masterly performances, hon. Members would hesitate before proposing to transfer the administration of the Education Act from his able hands, even to place it in the hands of a Secretary of State.
  MR. R. P. BRUCEsaid, that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had very emphatically declared that he had no belief in the existence of over-pressure; and the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), speaking not only for himself, but for Scotland generally, had said that the Scotch people did not believe in it. That might be the general opinion; but he (Mr. R. P. Bruce) thought it could not be denied that a good deal of attention had been aroused on the subject, and notice taken of it in Scotland. He considered, therefore, that hon. Members on the Conservative side had been quite justified in calling attention to it. It was also, he believed, quite true, as had been said, that the question, so far as it existed in Scotland, was totally different from the position of the question in England. There was in Scotland no jealousy of high-class education in the board schools; nor, on the other hand, was there any party, such as, perhaps, existed in England, interested in picking holes in the board-school system. That being so, he wished to call attention to the fact that in Scotland a good deal of discussion had taken place on the subject, and that there was a natural desire to avoid anything of the kind. Of course, there was a danger lest the system should be too rigid, and lest there might be a few cases where an attempt to pass weakly children through the same curriculum as the stronger children might have injurious effects. It had been remarked that cer-

  1449
  tain provisions had been introduced into the English Code as precautions against over-pressure, and that no similar provisions had been introduced into the Scotch Code. He referred, for instance, to Article No. 109 in the English Code, which directed that the Inspectors, in reporting upon the organization and discipline of schools, should satisfy themselves that the teachers had not unduly pressed the dull or delicate scholars in preparing them for examination. There was also a provision defining a reasonable excuse for the withdrawal of a child from examination, which had been introduced into the English Code as a safeguard against over-pressure. No similar provision had been introduced into the Scotch Code. Of course, be was aware that the two Codes were different; but he was not able to see that they differed in such a way as to render such precautions more necessary in the case of the English Code than in the case of the Scotch Code. He would take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it desirable to apply to Scotland the principles of the new English Code? When the new Code was framed for England, the notion was that similar principles would, after a time, be applied to Scotland. He would be glad to know whether the experience of the Vice President of the Council on Education of the working of the new Code in England allowed him to retain his former opinion in favour of applying the principles of that Code to Scotland? When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Education Estimates, he said, in the course of his speech, that the grant per head of scholars in England had increased to the extent of 2½d. in consequence of the changes in the Code. It seemed to him to follow from that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that if the English and Scotch Codes were fair and equal formerly, Scotland was now at some disadvantage in having the old system in operation there; while the English enjoyed a Code under which 2½d. a-scholar additional could be earned. He was quite aware that he had no reason to be ashamed of the amount of the grant earned in Scotland under existing arrangements; but it was well to see that Scotland did not, if it could be prevented, get less than her neighbours in matters of this kind.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he had a few remarks to address to the Committee in connection with this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education had told them that an expenditure of £5,000 would close the grants for building new schools. His hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) had referred to that statement with satisfaction, and said he was glad to hear that the Department was about to pause in the process of school-building. The right hon. Gentleman also said that 17 schools had been erected during the last year, and that 15,000 school places had been supplied. Now, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that it was stated in the Report of last year—they had no Report this year—that what was then needed to complete the supply of school accommodation for the whole of Scotland was 10,141 school places. The calculation was made upon the basis of population as follows:—The estimated population in 1882 being 3,775,364, on the principle that there should be school seats provided for one-sixth of the population, the number of school places should be 629,277, whereas the actual supply was 619,086, leaving the actual deficiency mentioned of 10,141 school places. With reference to the supply of that deficiency, the Report of last year stated that when the outstanding building grants had been paid, and several schools then in course of being erected without such aid were occupied, it was believed that the school supply of the country would be virtually complete. But that would not be so; because in seven of the counties of Scotland—namely, Bute, Dumbarton, Edinburgh, Forfar, Lanark, Selkirk, there was, he found, a deficiency of 54,402 school places; and, as there was only a total shortcoming of 10,141 school places over the whole country, it followed that the remaining counties had an excess in respect of school accommodation of 44,261 places. Or the matter might be stated otherwise from the point of view of population. The seven counties he had named, with a population of 1,951,737, had a deficiency of 54,402 school places; while the remaining counties, with a population of 1,823,627, had an excess of school places amounting to 44,261. He wanted to know how the wants of the whole coun-

  1451
  try were to be supplied by providing 10,000 additional places, when, in the seven counties he had mentioned, there was an actual deficiency of 54,000 school places? In connection with this subject, he wished to point out the position of the Highland counties. The six counties of Argyll, Elgin, Inverness, Orkney and Shetland, Ross and Cromarty, and Sutherland, with a population of 378,000, had, according to the basis of calculation mentioned, school places for 75,800 children; whereas the attendance was only 39,000, or a little over half the supply, while the number of children on the register was 54,000. He was anxious to point out that in these counties, where there was an excess of school accommodation, in some cases the enormous rate of 8s. in the pound was levied; while, in every county, the rate was high. He thought there had been too much pressure put on the counties in question to provide the necessary school accommodation, and he traced so much of the dislike and unpopularity into which school board education had fallen in the Highlands, to the fact that this heavy burden had been laid upon them. However, it had been done, and could not be mended; but the result would be that it would take 14 years to fill up the school places already provided in the counties named. He trusted that great care would be taken in future not to provide school accommodation, unless it was absolutely certain that it was wanted. So much for the counties in which there was an excess of accommodation; but how with regard to those in which there was a deficiency? It was very well to say that the accommodation to be provided this year would fill up the school accommodation required in Scotland; but the fact still remained that in the seven counties he had named, there was a deficiency of 54,402 school places, as against the excess in the other counties of 44,261 places, which, according to the growth of population—that was to say, one in 10 per annum—it would require, as he had already pointed out, 14 years to occupy. It must be evident that they could not make the school accommodation complete by having a certain number of school places, unless those places were in the right localities. Finally, there was another point to which he desired to allude—namely, the position of the Gaelic population of the Highlands.
  1452
  He wished to express his entire concurrence with all that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), who held that something ought to be done for the Gaelic-speaking population to enable them to acquire instruction in English through the medium of Gaelic-speaking teachers, or in some such way.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he desired to say a word or two on the subject which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), as well as by the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Dick-Peddie). He had often been told by schoolmasters in the Gaelic-speaking parts of the Western Highlands that the children, when they first came to school, were quite unable to speak the English language. He knew, therefore, from actual experience, the necessity of the teacher having a knowledge of Gaelic, in order to teach children English when they first went to school; and he thought that the people in the Highlands had a right to demand that teachers should have a competent knowledge of Gaelic for that purpose. In his opinion, however, English should remain the staple and standard subject to be taught. There was another matter in the Report of the Commissioners, which had not been so much as alluded to by the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs, but which was a very grave one—namely, the financial position of some of the Highland parishes. It appeared to him (Mr. Buchanan) that the financial condition of those parishes was perfectly alarming, and the Royal Commission had not recommended any remedy, except the drastic remedy of wiping out the debt which had been incurred by them in providing educational means. Take the case of the Lochs. In the Island of Lewis, there was a population of 6,284, with a rental of £4,670 paid by 152 ratepayers, of whom 107 paid rents under £7. In that place, £20,311 had been expended in building 12 schools, towards which sum the Government had advanced on loan £12,428, of which £893 still remained unpaid. The school rate there was 4½d. in the pound. What, he asked, was to be done in a case of that kind? The problem was a difficult one, and the Commissioners, as he had said, recommended the wiping out of

  1453
  the debt. He hoped that, in the course of another year, the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to suggest some remedy for this prospective bankruptcy. But what he principally wanted to refer to was the question of day industrial schools. The right hon. Gentleman had, in the course of his statement that evening, alluded to the advantage which Glasgow enjoyed in the possession of industrial schools; but he (Mr. Buchanan) would point out that Glasgow had the power of establishing those schools under a Private Act, and that the rest of Scotland had not the powers in that respect which English boards possessed. In the Report of last year on Scotch Education, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education, in describing the provisions of the amending Bill of 1883, when referring to the proposed introduction of the Attendance Orders, said—
  "We should have been glad to strengthen this provision of the Bill"—that was, relating to the Attendance Orders—"by allowing repeated offenders to be committed to industrial schools, and by giving power for the establishment of day industrial schools, which are working so satisfactorily in reducing truancy in some of the large towns of England. But we have postponed dealing with this part of the question, as these institutions are at present under consideration by a Royal Commission."
  Well, the Commission had since reported, and had made, amongst others, this specific recommendation — that Scotch school boards should have conferred on them the powers and duties that English boards enjoyed under the Education Act of 1876 for the establishment, &c, of day industrial schools. He had asked a Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, earlier in the Session, with regard to the prospect of legislation for the carrying out of this recommendation of the Commission, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied that the prospect, owing to the pressure of Business, and the shortness of time at the disposal of the Government, was exceedingly bad. He (Mr. Buchanan) had no doubt that the answer of the Vice President of the Council of Education to-day would be to the same effect. He recognized that there was a difficulty in carrying a new Industrial Schools Act, as recommended by the Commission; but he desired to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that this particular power
  1454
  was given to English boards by the Education Act of 1876, and not by the Industrial Schools Act; and that, similarly, it could be conferred in the case of Scottish schools by an amendment of the Education Act, which might be effected next Session, if it could not be done in this, by the passing of an amending Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in his triumphal progress through Edinburgh and Glasgow last winter, had this matter brought before him; and he knew that the right hon. Gentleman was aware of, and fully appreciated, the way in which self-denying members of the School Board in Edinburgh had, in recent years, endeavoured to meet the difficulty. But those provisions had been merely temporary, in prospect of a permanent legislative settlement of the question. In conclusion, he must express an earnest hope that next Session the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a measure conferring this power on Scottish board schools; and he would add that, looking at the success which had attended the right hon. Gentleman's attempts in carrying amending Acts through Parliament, the carrying of an Act of the kind to which he now referred would make his great work more effective.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education had referred to the inspection of high schools. The matter was a very trifling one. The hon. Member for the Glasgow University (Mr. J. A. Campbell) said that this inspection would not cost more than £300 or £400 a-year; and that, notwithstanding that, the question had been hung up for six or seven years. When the Bill of 1878–9 was before the House there was a provision contemplated for the inspection of the higher class schools; it was proposed that the expense should fall on the rates, but that clause, he believed, his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Holms), then Member for Paisley, succeeded in getting struck out; the consequence of which was that when application was made to the Treasury they refused to bear the expense, and a correspondence between the Treasury and the Education Department had been going on ever since. For his own part, he (Dr. Cameron) did not think that such a paltry sum as that which was involved in this question of inspection

  1455
  was worthy of so lengthened a correspondence; and he trusted the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), whose tenacity of all public funds they well knew, would make up his mind either to do away with all hope of the £300 or £400 being obtained, or to give it at once, with the best grace he might, when called upon to disgorge the money. The right hon. Gentlemen the Vice President had also referred to the increase of £1,400 in the Estimates for this year, on account of those school board districts in which a rate of 3d. yielded less than 7s. 6d. per head of the population. He (Dr. Cameron) was glad of that increase, because it showed a more satisfactory state of things. The state of educational affairs in the Highlands was most unsatisfactory; there could be no doubt of that. The fact was evident to all who read the Report of the Royal Commission. The other night, when that Report was brought before the House, the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that the Government had not yet had time to make up their minds on the propositions brought forward by the Commission which involved legislation; but he stated that a number of reforms that were purely administrative would be considered and given effect to more or less speedily. Members of the Government had been questioned with regard to several of those proposals, one of which was to increase postal facilities, and the Postmaster General had been engaged on that point; and there was another paltry concession to the views expressed by the Commissioners. Now, the most important administrative recommendations of the Commission were those which related to education, and they were proposals which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to the Home Department said could be carried into effect by a stroke of the pen. One of them, which his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had referred to a few minutes ago, was to wipe out all the school debts—a plan which would, of course, involve legislation, and would require consultation with the Treasury. Still, he hoped that next Session his right hon. Friend would have allowed his kindly feelings to-wards Scotland to take a practical shape, and that he would be able to
  1456
  inform them that this recommendation of the Commission would be carried into effect. The population of the counties to which the scope of the inquiry extended embraced 80,000 children of school age. Those children could not, from the circumstances of the country, attend school regularly; the Commissioners pointed out that it would be in-human to compel them to walk many miles in bad weather to attend school the number of times necessary to enable them to obtain the grant. Well, the Commissioners recommended that a modification should be made in the case of the counties in question with respect to the exaction of regular attendance, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give effect to that very sensible and reasonable recommendation? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to answer that question in the affirmative. With regard to the instruction of the children in the Highlands by means of a language which they could understand, it was, to his mind, preposterous that this matter should be shunted from year to year. Now, they had it again recommended by this Commission, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to give that recommendation effect. It was not a fad; it was not a proposal advocated by men who, from sentimental motives, wished to see the Gaelic language perpetuated; it had been recommended by all sorts and conditions of educationists, and was a matter of very old date. The hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) had just told the Committee of a school in which there were some 40 children who understood nothing but Gaelic, and who were being instructed by a schoolmistress who understood only English. Why, everyone must perceive that education attempted in such circumstances must be a perfect farce. It was very well to speak of high Standards in specific subjects, and so forth; but what progress could possibly be made with the elements of education by means of a teacher who did not understand the only language understood by the children to whom those elements were to be imparted? As he had said, this recommendation as to the use of Gaelic for the instruction of Gaelic-speaking children in English was a matter of very old date. As far back as the year 1824, the Society for the Propa-

  1457
  gation of Christian Knowledge, reporting on this subject, said that so long as children talked no language but Gaelic, it was a mere waste of time and entirely vain to burden their memories for a few years with a vocabulary of dead and unmeaning sounds. Again, in March, 1849, an educationist of great authority, Sir J. P. Kay-Shuttleworth, Secretary to the Committee of the Privy Council, addressed a communication to the then senior Inspector of Schools in Scotland, to the effect that the Committee of Council on Education were convinced that it was expedient that better provision should be made for the education of Her Majesty's subjects in the Highlands of Scotland by promoting the employment of the Gaelic, as well as the English language, as a means of instruction in the Highland schools; that the Committee of Council on Education were satisfied that to instruct the children of a Gaelic population by means of lesson-books written in the English language alone, and by means of teachers not familiar with the written and colloquial idiom of the Gaelic language, must fail to give the scholars in the Highland schools a grammatical knowledge of the Gaelic language, as well as any useful acquaintance with the English language. That was the recommendation of Sir J. P. Kay-Shuttleworth in 1849; and the Crofter Commission, speaking of that recommendation, said they knew not why it had not been followed by any practical result. But the Commissioners might have known why. Nothing of the kind was ever followed by practical results, as far as he was aware, unless the strongest pressure was brought to bear upon Her Majesty's Government. The Scotch Members had been pressing Her Majesty's Government to adopt this principle for years, and he feared that nothing would result for many years to come. Again, in 1865, the Scotch Education Commission, a very competent and practical Body, reported in the same direction, saying that it must be obvious that in districts where Gaelic alone was spoken, the teacher should be able to communicate with his pupils in a language the meaning of which they could comprehend, and that it was a mistake to overlook the difficulties of the scholar, in learning what to him was a foreign language, without having first acquired the art of reading
  1458
  his own. Well, that recommendation, which appeared to him (Dr. Cameron) an eminently sensible one, was made in 1865; but, as far as he was aware, nothing had been done to give it effect; and, although there had been several other recommendations of the same nature, all that had resulted was the introduction into the Code, in 1878, of a paragraph which allowed Gaelic to be taught during the ordinary school hours by an English teacher employed for that purpose, the effect of which was to place Gaelic on the same footing as drill and cookery. We had abandoned the practice of instructing boys in Latin through the medium of that language; they were now taught Latin by means of English, and it must be obvious to the Committee that the same means must be adopted in the case of Gaelic; that where the children did not understand a language in which they were to be instructed, a language which they did understand should be employed for the purpose, because it was the only way in which such instruction could be imparted. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend the Member for the Inverness Burghs, who had visited the Highland schools in the capacity of Commissioner, assented to what he was now stating. There was, he believed, some prejudice against Gaelic, which he was afraid was shared by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman was asked a Question a short time ago, when, after saying that no encouragement was given in the case of Wales, he mentioned that, in the case of Ireland, bad rather than good results had followed. However, he was glad to find that he had misapprehended the right hon. Gentleman. He thought that everyone who had any acquaintance with languages must admit that the knowledge of a second language was of the very greatest importance as a means of education. He cared not whether that language was Gaelic, Welsh, Hebrew, Hindostanee, or any language not generally known. As a philological study, it could only be satisfactorily imparted on the principle applied to the teaching of Latin in our schools, and he thought that consideration was of sufficient weight to justify this appeal on behalf of the Gaelic-speaking population of Scotland. Certainly, it was much more

  1459
  important, as a matter of training, that children should be taught a language they had a chance of learning thoroughly. Here they had a specific subject that could be learned thoroughly; whereas he was afraid the knowledge of French, German, Latin, and Greek, which could be given in a board school in the Highlands, must be of an absolutely useless and rubbishy description. He did not wish to discourage the teaching of those subjects; but he maintained that a thorough knowledge of the language with which children were familiar was of infinitely more advantage as an educational training than a knowledge of foreign languages such as they would acquire in the Highlands. What he wished to insist upon was the carrying out of the recommendations of the Education Commission and of Sir J. P. Kay-Shuttleworth, that the children in the Highland parishes should be taught Gaelic; and he trusted that, at length, the matter would be settled by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) stating that the Government intended to give effect to the repeated recommendations made in the matter.
  MR. WEBSTERsaid, there was one branch of the Estimates which was only glanced at by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), and on which nothing had been said by any subsequent speaker—he referred to the very large sum which was devoted annually to the Training Colleges. This was a subject which excited considerable attention in Scotland; and he was going to submit to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee; whether the present system of distributing the whole of this large amount of national money between three or four churches ought not to be replaced by a better and more liberal system? At present, the whole of the grant, which amounted to no less than £27,000, was distributed—no doubt it would be said by some people for the benefit of the country—between four denominations—the Established Church, the Free Kirk, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Episcopalians. See how unfairly that bore upon those denominations whose principles precluded them from receiving anything in the shape of religious endowments from the State. For instance, the United Presbyterian Church had a great objection to receive any
  1460
  State grants in connection with religion—in fact, they were absolutely prevented from having any institution of their own similar to the Training Colleges which the other persuasions he had mentioned had. From all he had heard and seen he could quite believe that, in their practical working, the Training Colleges were as free from any religious bias as under such a system they could be; but, still, the odium of the system attached to the institutions. They were all, more or less, under the control and possessed the authority of the Bodies with which they were connected. The teachers of Scotland were dissatisfied with the existing system, and the proposal had been made by them that it should be discontinued. He supposed the Board had been urged, if not, it would be urged, by the teachers to consider whether the present system, which, after all, was a sectarian and denominational one in appearance, and which had all the objections attached to it which such a system naturally raised, could not be replaced by a freer and more national system. It had been proposed that, as there were Chairs at present in St. Andrew's and Edinburgh Universities, so there might be Chairs in the other Universities, which might be free from the present denominational difficulty, and might be a far more efficient system of affording the benefits of Training Colleges to all who were desirous of benefiting by them. He submitted that proposal to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) and to the Committee as one which was seriously engaging the attention of the teachers in Scotland, and as one which would free the present system of Training Colleges from the difficulty and objection with which it was surrounded. Before he sat down, let him refer to the question of the cumulative vote in school board elections. The question was not directly raised by anything in the present Vote; but the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council referred to it. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), very naturally, defended the system of which he was the founder and promoter in the Education Bill of 1872; but he (Mr. Webster) maintained that, whatever might be said to the contrary, the system was one against which a strong current of opinion had set in. When

  1461
  the hon. Baronet said that the advantage of the system was that the representative of a small and, perhaps, religious body was enabled to obtain a seat on the school board, it seemed to him (Mr. Webster) that such a state of things was the reverse of an advantage. Undoubtedly, in Scotland, the system tended to engender a sectarian feeling in the school board itself. The election of a school board was very often the scene of the rivalry of the various Churches. He considered it a very great disadvantage indeed that a man should be elected to a school board by a comparatively small class in opposition to the votes of the great majority of the ratepayers. This very often gave rise to bitter sectarian animosity. The cumulative vote produced a state of things which was opposed to the common feeling of the people of Scotland—namely, that a school board should be as free as far as possible from any infusion of sectarianism. He had only to say, in conclusion, that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had great cause to be pleased with the reception his statement had received. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire that that reception was a proof of the general feeling in favour of the system under which one Central Authority managed the primary and secondary education in Scotland.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) had raised the question of Training Colleges. It had always appeared to him (Sir George Campbell) an extraordinary thing that while we had a common school system, our Training Colleges should be purely sectarian. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had reminded the Committee of the fact that there were voluntary schools; but we were unmistakably coming to a general common school system of education, and, under such circumstances, it was an extraordinary thing that we should have these sectarian Training Colleges. He should have thought that, of all things, it was most necessary that teachers should be educated in non-sectarian Colleges, and be free from sectarian principles. He hoped his right hon. Friend would see his way to adopt the
  1462
  good advice of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, and in the interests of economy, efficiency, and justice, put the Training Colleges on the same unsectarian footing as the common schools now stood on. He had thought it right to allude to this matter; but on the general subject, in common with all who had spoken, he was very gratified by the very pleasing and favourable account of education in Scotland which the right hon. Gentleman had given. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was gratifying in every way. The new system of education had been a great success—they had lost nothing by it; but they had gained a great deal. At the same time, he was free to confess that, although they had such an old and successful system of education, they must not be too proud to learn from others—they ought not to be above learning from England, or from other countries. He was much impressed by what had been said on this, as well as on former occasions, with regard to infant schools in Scotland. It was quite true that the Scotch educational system was a somewhat higher class than that which existed in England, and the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying they had not learned to manage infant schools as well as the English had. He quite agreed with the Vice President of the Council, that if infant schools were managed on judicious principles, on the Kindergarten principle—if they made it an education, not only of the mind, but of the body—they would be an unmixed good. They would relieve the parents of the care of the children, and they would do very much benefit to the children themselves. He hoped, therefore, that Scotland would be willing to take a lesson from England in that respect. Then, again, he thought that what his hon. Friend the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had suggested with regard to the variety of education in infant schools chimed in with what the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had said. In his (Sir George Campbell's) opinion, overpressure resulted, not so much from the quantity of education, as from the want of variety in the education. It seemed to him that, if mental education were mixed with physical or manual education, in the way suggested, the benefit derived would not only be greater, but

  1463
  the fear of over-pressure would be avoided. He hoped that something would be done in the direction of providing a variety of education. He did not know whether England was above Scotland with regard to bodily lessons; but he thought Scotland had a good deal to learn on this subject from other countries. The only other subject to which he wished to allude was that of the working of the Endowed Schools Commission. He had no doubt people in England heard something of the subject with regard to the Charity Commission, which, be believed, had charge of endowments, and he had no doubt that they would hear something more of it with respect to England, and perhaps to Scotland also. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) said that the Endowed Schools Commission in Scotland was doing a great deal of very good work, he quite agreed with him; but, at the same time, he wished to repeat a warning which had been very often given, and that was, whether it be in England or in Scotland, in the arrangements which had been made for seconding education, there had been, and there was, a tendency to shift the benefits of endowments upwards, and in some shape or other to shift them up to such a considerable extent that the poorer classes received comparatively little benefit from them. The poorer classes received nowadays very little benefit indeed from endowments, a great portion of which were appropriated to the benefit of the higher classes. That was very much the case under the system of competition which now took place. As a matter of fact, where there was free and open competition, the poorer classes could not, as a rule, enter. Why, the great school of Eton was originally a Charity foundation. It was not so now. He hoped that, in Scotland, there would not be any of this shifting upwards; and he quite sympathized with the object the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had so much at heart—namely, the creation of a ladder which the poorer boys would be able to mount, and by which they should receive the full measure of the benefits of the endowments left for them. He spoke with some warmth upon this subject, because there was a very large and handsome endowment in the borough he represented, which, according to the will of
  1464
  the donor, was most especially and most particularly intended for the benefit of the poor, and a proposal had been made by which the benefit of that endowment should be shifted upwards. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them the assurance that he would take care that, in Scotland, at all events, there should not be any of the shifting up to which he had referred.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he might be allowed to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) would endeavour to do something to remedy the defect of the 60th clause of the Act of 1872, which dealt with the removal of teachers who were appointed before the passing of that Act. That clause provided that—
  "No teacher appointed before 1872 can be removed from his office except for cruel treatment of the children, immoral conduct, or inefficiency."
  A case had occurred where the schoolmaster was a most able teacher, thoroughly efficient, not immoral, and not guilty of any cruelty, yet he was negligent, and he remained. There was no power to remove such a man if the School Board wished to do so. The man would not fill up the returns, the managers of the school could not get any Government grant; indeed, everything was at a deadlock. It was not a theoretical objection he was raising; there was a case in point, and if the right hon. Gentleman would do something to remedy this defect in the Act, he would confer a great boon upon the country.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was prompted to say a word or two in consequence of what fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). He did not know the particular endowments to which his hon. Friend had referred; but he could assure his hon. Friend that no body of men could be more anxious to give the poor the benefits of any endowments than the Educational Endowment Commissioners were. He was persuaded that, on an examination of the scheme proposed by those Commissioners, the hon. Gentleman would be disposed to give them full credit for having carried the Statutes out faithfully in the interests of the poor. The hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Frazer-Mackintosh) and others had referred to the question of teaching

  1465
  Gaelic in the schools in the Highlands. As a matter of fact, one of the chief difficulties in getting Gaelic taught in the Highlands, was that parents would not allow their children to occupy their time in acquiring a knowledge of their mother tongue. School boards had full right at the present time, to appoint teachers possessing a knowledge of Gaelic; but only a very small number of the persons who had taken to the profession of teaching had acquired a knowledge of that language. What, therefore, could the school board do? He fully sympathized with the object his hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) had in view, and he was much struck by the case which had been cited of a school in the Western Highlands, in which not one of the children in attendance could speak a word of English, while the teacher was not able to teach a word of Gaelic. The truth was, that the Gaelic School Society, which was established more than a century ago for the purpose of teaching the children of Gaelic parents to read the Bible in their mother tongue, had been obliged to discontinue their operations in consequence of the failure of the children to attend — the parents would not allow them to attend. A school board he had in mind desired to elect the best teachers; but, in the election, they failed to secure the services of one who had a knowledge of Gaelic. There was an undoubted difficulty in getting teachers who spoke Gaelic; and, therefore, he thought that when the school boards in the Highlands found they could not get a teacher possessing a knowledge of that language, they did well to select one of the best acquirements. Where the rates were so high, as the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) had stated, school boards begrudged anything that could possibly add a further burden to the rates. No one could be surprised at such a feeling on the part of a school board whose rate was 1s. or more in the pound. If anything else was required to be done, it should be done at the expense of the Imperial Treasury. [Mr. COURTNEY dissented.] His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) shook his head very gravely at that suggestion; but he (Mr. Ramsay) felt that, as the State had regarded it as its duty to provide education for the whole of the population, there should not be a case in which
  1466
  the school rate was so high as it had been represented to be in some places in the Highlands. One of his hon. Friends had pointed out that the rates were unnecessarily augmented by the class of schools built. He had seen a well-taught school, where the teacher was acting under an umbrella. That was not a desirable state of affairs; but then the Department did not take into consideration the circumstances of the population who had been taught in the schools. On the contrary, they had laid down a hard-and-fast rule that all board schools should be of a certain construction and afford certain accommodation—in short, it was held that what was suitable for Middlesex was suitable for Ross-shire, or any other part of the Highlands. That was wrong. He thought it was wrong when the scheme was before the Board of Education, of which he was a member, and he then suggested that the circumstances of the population should be taken into account in deciding what sort of a school should be erected. That was not done, and the consequence was that a great deal of money was expended by the State in the erection of buildings which were in character very different, indeed, to the dwellings of the children who were educated in them. A good deal of money might, with advantage, have been saved; but that matter, however, was now past, and it was needless to cry over spilt milk. As he was acquainted with the Highlands, and took an interest in the education there, he thought it was due to the Committee that he should point out that one of the chief difficulties which beset the teaching of Gaelic was the unwillingness of the parents to allow their children to learn the language.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the debate had not been long; but it had been very practical and interesting. He thanked hon. Members, not only for the very interesting discussion that had taken place, but also for the personal references that had been made to his visit to Scotland. He was well satisfied with what he saw during his visit; but he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), that there was a great deal still wanting in the rural districts. He was anxious to know what could be done in those districts. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University (Mr. J. A. Camp-

  1467
  bell) gave them an excellent example of what could be done in the way of securing regularity of attendance; but he (Mr. Mundella) did not know how his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) relished the reference to the success which attended the movement the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. A Campbell) described. The hon. Gentleman showed that 4,880 children in Glasgow had never missed a single attendance in the year, owing to the fact that little prizes were given for regularity. He told them that for the small expenditure of £12 12 s. they largely increased the average attendance; but he did not tell them how much they increased the grant. He (Mr. Mundella) had no doubt that the £12 12 s. produced an increase in the grant from the Treasury of, at least, £50. He could not object—and he was sure his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) did not object—if the grants were much increased by these means; because grants were automatic, and their increase depended upon the good management of the schools and the regular attendance of the children. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. A. Campbell) complained of the great expense arising from the difference between the Municipal and School Board electoral roll. That difference was to be regretted, and if the Session had not been so far advanced, he (Mr. Mundella) would certainly have introduced a measure for the assimilation of the two electoral rolls in question. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) spoke of the Technical Commission, and of the desirability of adopting their recommendations. That very valuable Report would require to be carefully considered; and it must be remembered that it had only been presented within the last few weeks, long after the Code was laid on the Table. It was a Report which ought not to be dealt with hastily—teachers, themselves, would not like it to be dealt with hastily, because it recommended, for instance, that drawing should be compulsory in every child. Subjects of that kind required very carefully weighing before they were finally adopted. He could promise that whatever was done for England should be done for Scotland at the same time; he should establish no distinction between the two countries in that respect. His hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk
  1468
  (Mr. Ramsay) complained that they had not already carried out the recommendation of the Committee of which he was a Member—that a teacher should be found in every parish capable of teaching the higher subjects. He (Mr. Mundella) had a good deal of sympathy with the recommendation; but it was one which was not very easily carried out. They had sent very strong circulars to the school boards; but they had not met with that ready response it was hoped they would. Some of the school boards said—"Oh! we have no demand;" others said—"We are well satisfied with our schoolmaster, and we cannot afford to have another; it would largely increase our rates." All these were matters for careful consideration, and he was of opinion the recommendation could only be carried out by a gradual improvement in the quality of the teacher. It would be a great thing if every young teacher in Scotland would avail himself of the facilities which the a Scottish Universities afforded to obtain degree. He passed now to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser Mackintosh), who spoke, as did also the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), about the teaching of Gaelic, or rather about the instruction of the Gaelic-speaking population. He (Mr. Mundella) took exception to the statement of both his hon. Friends as to the desirability of making Gaelic a specific subject. He did not believe that was what was really required. It had been said that Irish was a specific subject in some schools in Ireland. Yes; but he had inquired how many children had been taught Irish. Twenty-five children had been taught the language. That was the net result. Undoubtedly, the capability of speaking two languages was most important; it was almost an education itself. There was no greater education than the mastery of a second language. But the folly of attempting to teach children, who only understood Gaelic, English through an English schoolmaster or mistress, was too apparent to need any comment. But what was to be said of the school board that did that? Here was a Highland parish; it was its own local authority; it had a Gaelic-speaking population, and yet it engaged a schoolmistress who could not speak a single word of Gaelic to teach children who

  1469
  could not speak a word of English. Surely, if the local authority were so deficient in common sense as to take that course, how was the Education Department in London to bring them to their senses? Long before the Report of the Crofters' Commission was published, he made inquiries as to the state of affairs in Wales; because, in the Principality, there was a large Welsh-speaking population. There was a vast and varied literature in the Welsh language, daily papers were published in Welsh, and some of our best standard works were written in that language. What did he find? From the Report made last year, with respect to Education in Wales, he found that 95 per cent of the persons who taught the Welsh-speaking population could themselves speak Welsh. No grant was given for Welsh; but not only could the teachers speak Welsh, and examine the children in Welsh, but the Department required the Inspectors to examine the children in their own language, and to see that the children could translate from the one language into the other. That seemed to him to be what was wanted in the Highlands. It was not wanted that the Gaelic-speaking population should be tied to one language; it was not wanted that the people should learn English as mere parrot-talk; but that they should be able to understand it, and translate English into Gaelic, and Gaelic into English, and thus get the mastery of the two languages. But where were they to get the teachers from? That was the first difficulty. The second difficulty was, how were they to get school boards to teach Gaelic? He would, however, give the matter careful attention. He felt bound to remind the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) that the Crofters' Report had only been out a few weeks. [Dr. CAMERON: I spoke of two other Reports.] Neither of the other two Reports the hon. Gentleman spoke of recommended Gaelic; they only said Gaelic should be the medium through which the Gaelic-speaking population should be taught, and in that he fully and heartily concurred. Well, now, he agreed with every word, which fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) with reference to infant schools. He was bound to say that some of the best infant school teachers in England
  1470
  he had known had been trained in Glasgow and Edinburgh. He did not think that the cheerful, joyous life which children of seven or eight years of age could and ought to enjoy in infant schools, had anything but the most beneficial effect in after years. If children were properly trained in infant schools, they never failed to pass their subsequent examinations; they were much better disciplined, and the progress of education was much easier for them during the rest of their lives. His hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Mr. R. P. Bruce) made some reference to the question of over-pressure. His remarks were very wise; he (Mr. Mundella) quite agreed with him. They must expect exaggerated statements. Those statements were often made from conflicting motives. Some of the persons who made the statements did not care for education; they rather disliked it, and would do anything to make it unpopular. Some of the persons were teachers who wished for less work to do, and more to be paid for doing it. The belief in over-pressure was prompted by a variety of motives. No doubt, some of the doctors were very sincere in regard to the question; but he (Mr. Mundella) should be very sorry to be under the doctors in everything. He was afraid that, like Sacho Panza in the Island of Barataria, we should get nothing at all if doctors were to have all their own way; if they were to govern us altogether, a very bad time we should have. The hon. Member for Fifeshire asked if the Department were prepared to apply the new Code to Scotland? The old Code was in existence in Scotland; indeed, there had been no change at all in the application of the Code to Scotland. He believed that Scotland would benefit enormously, educationally and financially, if the new English Code were properly applied in that country; but they could not apply anything new, either in Scotland or elsewhere, without encountering some opposition. The men who were doing well under the existing Scottish Code, did not desire to make any change. The Department, however, were familiarizing the Scotch Inspectors with the working of the English Code, and they were taking some of the best of the English Inspectors down to Scotland, to examine what was being done there and to see

  1471
  how the English Code would apply. He knew the jealousy—he might almost say the fear—which Scotch Members entertained of contamination from contact with England in educational matters; so that he should be on his guard against wounding their susceptibilities. He could assure them that he was as eager as they were that nothing should be done to lower the character of the Scottish education. His hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) referred to the question of school-building. What he (Mr. Mundella) said was, that it was believed £5,000 would cover the building grants. The 31st of December, 1873, was the latest period for application under the Act of 1872 for building grants, audit was his opinion that £5,000 would complete the grants. That was all he intended to convey. Glasgow, Dundee, and other great centres had to provide for an increasing population, and the Treasury would have, no doubt, to lend their money for the purpose.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he referred to the Report of last year, which stated that only about 10,000 school places were required in Scotland, and he went on to ask how the right hon. Gentleman could reconcile that statement with the fact that there was a deficiency of 54,000 places in seven counties.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the calculation was one he had not had an opportunity of looking into. He could quite understand that there might be an ample supply for all who attended, without meeting the ideal supply which was in the mind of the Department. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) questioned him as to the extension of the day industrial school system in Scotland. He should be very glad to extend the system to Scotland. He thought it ought to be extended to Scotland; but the initiative must come from the Home Office, or he must have from the Home Secretary, under whose charge this matter had hitherto been, power to extend the system to Scotland. He had been in communication with his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert), and he hoped that, during the Recess, an arrangement would be completed by which the Education Department would have power to deal with
  1472
  the wants of Scotland with respect to day industrial schools. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) dwelt upon another point, arising out of the Report of the Crofters' Commission, respecting the debts of the Highland parishes. To deal with those debts was not the work of the Education Department; he could only administer the Acts as he found them. As a matter of fact, the debts were incurred before the present Government came into Office; the provision made, was made and sanctioned before they came into Office. He was bound to say, from the evidence laid before him, that so far from there being undue pressure, there had been an anxious endeavour on the part of his Predecessors in Office to restrain expenditure in the Highland counties. Those counties were told that cheaper schools than they were putting up would suffice; but they were eager to spend money. His hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) drew attention to the Scottish Training Colleges, and he sketched out what had already been placed before him (Mr. Mundella) by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell)—namely, the unwillingness on the part of some Universities to undertake the training of teachers. The training of teachers in a University implied that they must have practice in school, that they must be taught the science of teaching, and that they must be under proper moral control. He was bound to say, knowing what he did of Scotch Training Colleges, that they were less sectarian than other Training Colleges; in fact, in England we took teachers from Scotch Training Colleges into all our schools—board schools, and other schools—and we were glad to get them. Scottish teachers did honour to their profession, for they included in their number the very best teachers in Europe. He knew that their qualifications were becoming higher and higher. He believed the Glasgow School Board appointed no one head-master who was not a graduate of a University. They were right in doing it, and he should be glad if more school boards would follow the example of Glasgow in that respect. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) complained of the inability of school boards to remove

  1473
  teachers appointed before the Act of 1872. He (Mr. Mundella) was aware of the difficulty. A schoolmaster might not be culpable; but he might be somewhat inefficient, he might be inert; yet it was not a very easy matter to deal with him. Where the inertness was not very serious, it was a question of time alone; the matter would cure itself, and they must be patient. Of course, a schoolmaster must not be allowed to stand in the way of the education of the children. He believed that, as to the case to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, the school board had consulted the Education Department. [Sir ALEXANDER GORDON: We have twice consulted the Department and failed.] Of course, it was requisite in such cases to prove that the master was culpable. The Department would be very glad to help the school board in question, as far as they could; but they could not go beyond the statutes, and he did not consider it a case in regard to which it was necessary to bring in a new statute. He expressed his thanks to the Committee for the patience with which they had listened to him, and hoped he had not failed to reply to any point which had been raised during the discussion.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was willing to admit the clearness of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had laid before them; he was willing also to admit that the right hon. Gentleman had replied to most of the points raised in a very satisfactory way; but he thought the Committee had reason to be dissatisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission. The Report of that Commission was brought before the House some time ago, and he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) then understood from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) that several of the recommendations of the Commission, particularly those relating to education, would be taken into the serious consideration of the Government. He, therefore, expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would have told them something definite to-night as to what was to be done by his Department with regard to the re-
  1474
  commendations made by the Royal Commission on the subject of education. The right hon. Gentleman had referred, he thought, to only two of the recommendations; one of which was the recommendation as to the teaching of Gaelic. He was not prepared to differ from the views of the right hon. Gentleman on that subject; but he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman what pressure his Department, or if his Department had not power, what pressure the Treasury had put on the school boards which indulged in the absurd practice of employing a teacher, who could speak nothing but English, to instruct children who could speak nothing but Gaelic. These absurdities were not the fault of the people, because, in almost every case, the landlord, or his factor, was chairman of the school board, and by means of the cumulative vote only those people were elected to the board who were acceptable to him. He was very desirous to know whether the Department could not prevent school boards throwing away the ratepayers' money in the way described? The right hon. Gentleman had rather unkindly put upon the Local Authorities in the Western Highlands the responsibility of incurring great expense in the erection of school houses. Upon this point the right hon. Gentleman was directly at variance with the Crofters' Commission, who reported thus—
  "These Highland and Island school buildings were erected under the stringent regulations of the Scottish Education Department, in a style and on a scale often beyond the requirements of the people, and at an expense quite disproportioned to their means, at a time when building was exceptionally costly."
  Such was the statement of the Royal Commissioners. He supposed they had good authority for the statement, and he had no doubt his hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), who was one of the Commissioners, would be able to refer them to the authority on which the statement was made. It seemed to him (Mr. J. W. Barclay) that the Treasury ought to have made up its mind, and that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) ought to have been able to inform them whether the Government really intended to relieve the ratepayers in the Highlands of part of the enormous charge placed upon them by the erection of schools. He thought it was probable

  1475
  that if something was not done to relieve them, some of the districts would break down under the load of the education rate, which now amounted, in some cases, to 6s. 9d. in the pound, and threatened to swallow up the whole rental of the parish. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Only in one case.] Was the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to do something for this one case? There were many cases in which the rate was over 1s. and 2s. in the pound. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the uproar which would be raised in the House and the country, if any school board in England were charged anything like 2s. in the pound. Complaints were now made by the ratepayers of London—by the wealthy ratepayers of London—where the school board rate was not more than 8d. in the pound. No sympathy was extended to the poor people in the Western Highlands, where the school rate amounted to 1s., 2s., 3s., and in one case to as much as 6s. 9d in the pound. If there was only one case in which the rate was so high, it deserved the serious attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Then, again, the Royal Commission recommended that some alteration should be made in the average attendance grant. It was quite clear that in parishes broken up by arms of the sea, the average attendance could not be so great as that in large towns. It was only right that some action should be taken upon the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission. It might not be a large matter; but if the right hon. Gentleman would say he would do what he could to carry out the recommendations, and to relieve the ratepayers so far as it was in his power, he would show that he had some practical sympathy with the Highlanders of Scotland. There was also the recommendation made by the Royal Commission to the Department to make an increased grant under Section 67; but upon that point the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing. In point of fact, he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) thought the right hon. Gentleman had not considered the Report of the Crofters' Commission at all, or he could hardly suppose that he would have overlooked these important points. The Commissioners further recommended an increased supply of teachers to the Western Highlands; and he should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman
  1476
  had to say upon that point. They also recommended the more extensive employment of women as school teachers, and commented upon the absence of higher class schools in the Western Highlands. These were points to which he thought they ought to invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman with some persistency. The Highlanders on the West Coast had been, and were still, looking anxiously forward to see what was going to be done, to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. They had already been informed that there was to be no legislation during the present Session of Parliament; but they still entertained some hope that, as far as it was in the power of the Government, the recommendations of the Royal Commission would receive careful consideration, and that some attempt would be made to carry them into effect. The right hon. Gentleman was only asked to state, for the information of the Committee, and of the people who were so deeply interested in the matter, what the Department really intended to do, or if it intended to do anything. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was told that there were about 80,000 children on the West Coast of Scotland who were comprised in the Report of the Crofters' Commission, and that was a very considerable number. The right hon. Gentleman had shown himself very desirous to promote the technical and higher education of Scotland, and he deserved the thanks of the people of Scotland for the interest he had taken in the matter. At the same time, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought not to neglect these poor people on the West Coast of Scotland. It seemed to him that they had special claims upon the attention of the Government. They had been very much neglected; they had very little ability to do anything for themselves; and in such a case as this it was naturally incumbent on the Department to stretch out to them a helping hand. They were looking forward now with considerable anxiety to what the Government would do; and he should have thought they would take advantage of the power they possessed to carry out to the fullest extent practicable the recommendations of a Royal Commission appointed by themselves. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some satisfactory assurance upon the matter.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he wished to place before the Committee exactly what it was the Scotch Members asked for. The Royal Commission had reported in favour of certain proposals requiring legislation, and also certain administrative proposals. The matter had already been brought before the House, and the Government told them that they could not deal legislatively with the recommendations of the Committee this Session; but they might give effect to some of the administrative proposals. They had also been told that certain concessions had been made in reducing the guarantee, which was in itself a trivial matter, and not worth talking about.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not within this Vote.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he was only going to show that the administrative proposals had been refused, as well as those which were legislative. In the matter of education, the Crofters' Commission made six administrative proposals; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) to say whether he intended to carry out any one of them. Those six proposals were the remission of school board debt in the Highland parishes, where the fees were excessive or abnormally large. The right hon. Gentleman had given an answer to them upon that question to the effect that he would not deal with it, and that he did not intend to remit the debt. [Mr. MUNDELLA: I did not say so.] Then, would the right hon. Gentleman do so, or would he not? He asked for something like a definite answer. As he had said, there were six recommendations. He had explained the first. The next was for an increased grant under Section 67. That would require some legislation. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to give legislative effect to it? He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to legislate this year; but he simply wanted to know whether he would legislate at all or not? He understood that the right hon. Gentleman did propose to legislate, and he hoped the Committee would be told something about it. The third suggestion of the Commissioners was that an increased grant should be given for average attendance, in order to meet the exceptional circumstances of the Highlands. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Hear, hear!]
  1478
  The right hon. Gentleman cheered that statement. Now, that was purely an administrative reform which could be effected by a stroke of the pen; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman if he intended to carry it out, or not? The next proposal of the Crofters' Commission was, that there should be a graduated grant for additional teachers. That was an administrative proposal, and could also be done by a stroke of the pen; and he would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman answer "Yea" or "Nay." The next proposal related to the establishment of high class schools. That, he imagined, was a subject which would require some consideration, and a reform which could not be carried out by a stroke of the pen. Therefore, they might fairly allow the right hon. Gentleman more time for the consideration of it. He now came to the last recommendation, which was that Gaelic should be made a specific subject, and be taught in the schools. Other Commissions and educational authorities had recommended the teaching of Gaelic as a means of instruction in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Commission alone had recommended it as a specific subject; but it must be remembered that this was the only Commission which had sat since specific subjects were introduced into the Scotch educational system at all; and, of course, it was the only Commission which had made any recommendation upon the matter. But Sir John Kay-Shuttleworth had lived and written long before the appointment of this Commission, and he had strongly recommended the adoption of this system. Long before the Commission was appointed, even early in the century, similar views were expressed; and in 1844 the absurdity was pointed out of teaching English to people who only understood Gaelic, by teachers who only understood English. Well, then, the six recommendations of the Commissioners were the remission of school board debt in Highland parishes; an increased grant under Section 67; an increased grant for average attendances, to meet the exceptional circumstances of the Highlands; a graduated grant for additional teachers; the establishment of high class schools; and, lastly, that Gaelic should be made a specific subject, and used as a means of teaching by

  1479
  Gaelic-speaking teachers. There ought to be a definite answer given by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether it was the intention of the Government to carry out any, or the whole, of these recommendations. He wanted to know whether the Government intended to give effect to any of the recommendations of the Highland Commission; or whether they intended to consign the Report of the Commission to the lumber basket, where slumbered so many Reports of Commissions on Scotch subjects?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought he had said all that was necessary upon this subject, and he was sorry he had not satisfied his hon. Friends the Members for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) and Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). He had read the Report of the Crofters' Commission many times over, so far as that part of it which referred to education was concerned. The recommendations of the Commission, on that matter, were quite familiar to him; but with regard to the rest of the Report, he should be sorry to be required to pass an examination in regard to it. He had studied the Report with a great deal of care during the Easter holidays; but there had been very little time either for conference or action upon it. He had already explained to the Committee that the Code was obliged to be laid upon the Table of the House within a month after the meeting of Parliament, and that Code was the law for the present year. It was not easy to make all the changes which his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) asserted could be made with a stroke of the pen. Not a single one of those changes could be made, as the hon. Member appeared to think, by a stroke of the pen, or by the Lord President of the Council, or by the Lord President of the Council and the Vice President combined. There was not one of them that did not involve the consent of the Treasury, because it would lead to expenditure. He would run over them. The first was the remission of school board debt in the Highland parishes. What power did the hon. Gentleman suppose the Privy Council on Education had to remit debt? It was no more in his power to do so than in that of the hon. Gentleman himself. The second recommendation was for an increased grant under Sec-
  1480
  tion 67. That was a Statute Clause; and, as it did not come within the limit of the existing grant, it would require a new statute. The third recommendation was for an increased grant for average attendance to meet the exceptional circumstances of the Highlands; and that also could not be done without the consent of the Treasury. He would ask the hon. Member what kind of Report would come from the Audit Department, if the Privy Council were to allow increased grants for the Scotch schools? That recommendation also involved increased expenditure, and would require the consent of the Treasury. The fourth recommendation for a graduated grant to additional teachers was in the same position; and the fifth proposed the establishment of a high class school.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that, of course, the Scotch Members understood that, as far as the Education Department was concerned, it could not carry out these recommendations of itself; but the right hon. Gentleman appeared there that night, as he understood, to answer for the Education Department, and they would expect from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) an explanation of the views of the Treasury when those of the Vice President of the Council had been given.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the propositions contained in the Report of the Crofters' Commission were all matters to be considered by the Government, and sanctioned by the Treasury. It was for the Government, as a whole, to say whether, in the Highlands, there should be a larger expenditure of money in connection with educational purposes. If they came to that conclusion, nobody would be more happy to administer the grant than he would. The establishment of a high class school he could not deal with; but with regard to the introduction of Gaelic as a specific subject, he hoped to be able, and intended to deal with it. The matter, however, was not so easy as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. Something must be done, in the first instance, to teach Gaelic to the teachers, it being a condition precedent to teaching Gaelic; and it should be understood by persons who also understood English. He should be most happy, as soon as he possibly could, to deal with the whole of the recommendations of the Commission.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the Committee had had nothing like a definite answer upon these points. His desire was to let the people of Scotland understand whether anything was to be done, as was promised the other night, or nothing at all. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), since he assumed that position on the Treasury Bench, had become an adept in referring to other officials before he made an answer. He (Dr. Cameron) had asserted that these reforms could be done by a stroke of the pen; and if they could not be carried out by one stroke of the pen, it was quite certain that they could be carried out by two—one on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and the other on the part of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. Let them put their heads together, and tell the Committee what was going to be done. The Government might depend upon it that the Report of the Commissioners would not be allowed to rest until the people of Scotland knew whether it was going to be acted upon, how far it was going to be acted upon, or whether it was to be pitched overboard altogether. Unfortunately, when they asked what the Government intended to do, there was always a put off, which was precisely what he protested against. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury could give the Committee any definite information upon the subject or not; he had certainly not given anything towards instruction in the higher class schools. As a matter of fact, they never got anything for Scotland, but were put off from pillar to post; and that was what he complained of. The Government had told them that they meant to do nothing legislatively — only administratively; and he wished to know what they intended to do? They were constantly expressing their desire to do everything, and were proposing to do everything, and consider everything; but they invariably ended by doing nothing. He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give them a satisfactory explanation.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he really thought the Scotch Members were entitled to some more definite statement from the Treasury, or from the right hon. Gentleman, upon that question. As his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow
  1482
  (Dr. Cameron) said, they had been put off from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department addressed pleasant words to them; he had told them the matter was going to be looked into, and they naturally expected the Vice President of the Council would have been able to tell them what was intended to be done. It appeared to him that the Government had not yet considered whether they would do anything or not; and he thought the most convenient course would be to postpone the Vote in order to give the Treasury an opportunity of consulting the Education Department with regard to the carrying out of the recommendations in the Report of the Crofters' Commission. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that the question was one of very considerable interest in the Western districts of Scotland; and not only there, but among a great many people who took an interest in the place of their birth, and who had left the Highlands many years ago. If it was competent for him to do so, he would move that the Vote be postponed, in order to afford an opportunity to the Education Department for explanation, and to the Treasury for making some statement as to their intentions in regard to the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not competent for the hon. Member to move the postponement of the Vote; he can only move its withdrawal.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that appeals had been made to him as to what the Government proposed to do with reference to the Report of the Crofters' Commission. The Report of the Crofters' Commission ranged over a great variety of subjects, and contained a considerable number of recommendations of great importance. They required to be considered carefully, not by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) alone, nor by the Treasury, of which complaint had been made, but by that select Body called the Cabinet. Until it came before the Cabinet collectively, it was impossible for him to say anything upon it; nor did he think that it was possible to consider the question in the present state of the Session, although, probably, it ought to be considered in the Recess. He should have thought that his hon.

  1483
  Friends would have understood that that was the state of the matter.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) was perfectly satisfactory. They now knew that nothing would be done, and they fully understood the position of affairs. The explanation was perfectly satisfactory to this extent, that the people of Scotland knew exactly how they stood in the matter.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £22,811, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission of England and Wales."
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he had ventured to place on the Paper an Amendment in reference to this Vote, in order that he might again bring the action of the Charity Commissioners before the Committee. In almost every part of the country where the Charity Commissioners were acting the greatest possible discontent prevailed. He should say nothing about the Allotments Act, or the Charitable Trusts Act, because the working of those two Acts had been referred to a Select Committee, who were making inquiries with respect to them; but with regard to the Endowed Schools Act, the administration of which was by far the most important part of the work of the Charity Commissioners, that had not been referred to a Select Committee. It was quite true that there was a rumour that it was to be so referred; and one of the objects of his Motion was to obtain, if possible, an official statement that it was really the intention of the Government to refer the working of that Act to a Select Committee—and not only to a Select Committee, but to the same Committee, or to some Committee which should have the Members of the present Charitable Trusts Committee upon it. He hoped, in any reply the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) might make, he would give a public and positive assurance that that should be done. He proposed now to turn to the manner in which he hoped
  1484
  his Amendment would be met. He trusted he would not be again charged with wasting the time of the Committee, which charge he had been surprised to hear made by his right hon. Friend on a previous occasion. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the cases quoted on a former occasion referred to this action of the Commissioners in respect of the Endowed Schools Commission, which, as he had already stated, was not referred to the Select Committee, and only one case under the Charitable Trusts Act was touched on incidentally—namely, that of Lenche's Trust. Not only was he desirous of urging on the Government to promise this inquiry, but he asked them to suspend the schemes which the Charity Commissioners had prepared until the result of that inquiry could be made known, no was quite aware that reforms in many of the charities of this country were necessary; but what he complained of was that the schemes of the Charity Commissioners inflicted great hardships upon the poorer classes. They almost invariably inflicted great hardship upon the poorer classes of the country, being framed in the interests of the wealthier classes. He also complained of the manner in which the Charity Commissioners ignored the expression of public opinion. They absolutely took no notice whatever of the local opinion of the various districts, whether it assumed the form of action by the Town Council, or of opinion expressed at public meetings. He had there a case which he had mentioned a day or two ago, because it was pressing — namely, the case of Kendal; and he would read a few lines from a letter he had received upon the case from a gentleman who happened to be a strong Conservative. He had also received one or two letters of a similar character from gentlemen who were on the other side of politics. This letter said—
  "The question of the Endowed Schools Commissioners confiscating the property of the poorer classes, and transferring the same to the rich, is, I trust, a matter in which you will persevere. It is one of the greatest scandals of the age—the way in which these Commissioners have robbed the poor. There are few cases more flagrant than their attempt to rob the poor of Kendal."
  The writer went on to describe the free schools in that neighbourhood, one of

  1485
  which was a Bluecoat School founded in 1670. He said—
  "Until this day, it has been one of the greatest blessings to the poor. There have been no complaints against the efficiency of the school; not a word of complaint as to any maladministration; and yet the step in process of being adopted seeks to upset the endowment, and to create a high school or boarding school for the benefit of the middle and upper classes, in return for which they give 14 Foundation Scholarships to boys who have been three years in any elementary school. That is the plea on which the property is taken away, or the compensation given for taking the endowment from the poorer classes. As an alternative, they coolly refer the children to the parish, if they are unable to pay the fees. In case of poverty, the fees are to be paid out of the rates—and thus these poor children will be converted into outdoor paupers."
  There had been a great stir in the town; every kind of remonstrance had been made by all classes in the town; and this gentleman concluded his letter thus—
  "But all this is persistently ignored, and they still seem determined to thrust their scheme upon us in spite of our protests."
  He stated in another letter, as the result of this action—
  "I may mention that a lady of my acquaintance, a day or two ago, on hearing of the scheme of the Commissioners, immediately went to her lawyer and struck out of her will a bequest of £500 which she had made to the schools, and for the truth of this statement I can vouch."
  In the school there were something like 80 children, who were not only clothed, but educated. Whether that was the right form or not he would not say; but it was a positive possession, belonging to these children, who certainly ought to have some compensation for being deprived of it. There had been a town's meeting convened by the Mayor, at which there was a strong expression of local feeling, although it had been passed over by the Charity Commissioners as of no account whatever. At that meeting the scheme of the Charity Commissioners was almost, if not quite, unanimously condemned; and he was told that nine-tenths of the inhabitants of the borough had signed a protest against it. The Town Council had protested against it, and had formed a Committee in order to get the scheme amended, but with no effect. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he ought to name the cases which he complained of. Now, he (Mr. J. Collings) complained of every scheme,
  1486
  without exception, which these Commissioners had forced upon the people. He complained of all of them on the same principle—namely, that nearly every scheme substantially deprived the poorer classes of their rights for the sake of the wealthier classes. He could assure his right hon. Friend that he had made somewhat too light a matter of this complaint; and he would find that it could not be settled, and would not be settled, unless some alteration was made. For instance, on a recent occasion, he had ventured to bring forward the case of Tunbridge Wells. He mentioned that, because he saw his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) there, who knew the circumstances of the case well. The reply of the Vice President of the Council was most unsatisfactory; and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been very much misinformed with respect to the facts of the case. He would, therefore, state them again. The original draft scheme of the Charity Commissioners was published in 1875; and they proposed in that draft scheme that out of the accumulation of the surplus funds of the high school established in Tonbridge there should be a middle or lower class school for the benefit of the people of Tonbridge. [Mr. MUNDELLA dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman dissented from that statement, and he had refused to accept it when it had been mentioned on a former occasion; but he (Mr. Jesse Collings) had a copy of the draft of the scheme published in 1875, in which it was stated—"A school in or near the town of Tonbridge." Now, on the faith of that, the Skinners' Company spent £20,000—£10,000 out of the corporate funds of the Company, and £10,000 out of certain other funds which stood as trust funds of the Company, so that altogether £20,000 were given by the Skinners' Company. That sum was accepted by the Charity Commissioners; and a supplemental scheme was issued embodying that proposal, and in that supplemental scheme the words "in or near the town of Tonbridge" were altered into "in or near the parish of Tonbridge." The inhabitants of Tonbridge objected to the alteration at the time, because the parish extended for five or six miles; but they heard nothing of the final intentions of the Charity Commissioners until 1882,

  1487
  two years after the scheme was finally settled. In that year, in a communication to the people of Tonbridge, the Charity Commissioners for the first time declared their intention of establishing these middle-class schools in the town of Tunbridge Wells, five miles off. The people of Tonbridge regarded that as a great grievance, because it practically deprived them of the benefits of these middle and lower class schools, and they considered it a breach of faith in this respect—that the £20,000 they had obtained from the Skinners' Company had been given on the distinct understanding that these middle and lower class schools should be established in or near the town of Tonbridge. Then there was another scheme which required to be stopped immediately—namely, the scheme for Rochdale. In the borough of Rochdale there was an agitation going on amongst all classes against the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, which proposed to destroy the free school which had existed for a very long period; and it was a curious fact that this scheme was almost identical with one which had been for some time propounded by the Vicar, and rejected by the Trustees. The existing school gave free education to the poorer classes, with a preference to orphans and the children of those who had large families. It might be said that persons in that condition might go to the parish to have their education provided; but the children had been supplied for a long period with these privileges in regard to a free school; they had enjoyed them for something like 100 or 150 years; and it was only in the present day, without a word against the conduct of the school, for he believed the Inspector had reported favourably in regard to it, but simply because it was a free school, which seemed to be the object in all cases of the positive hatred of the Charity Commissioners, that the privileges enjoyed by those poor children were to be taken away. The Charity Commissioners had but one policy respecting a free school, and that was to destroy it as soon as they possibly could. He knew of several cases in Rochdale in which the right of the poor to send their children to this school, not as a matter of charity, but in the enjoyment of their own absolute rights, made all the difference between applying to the
  1488
  parish and maintaining themselves in their decent poverty. Then, again, the Commissioners said to these poor children—"We take away your endowments, and we convert the school into a middle class girls' school, for the benefit of the middle classes; and you, if you cannot pay, must apply to the parish." A more demoralizing or more pauperizing proceeding could not possibly be conceived. Then they had the case of the village of Scarning, in Suffolk, about which he had received a very unsatisfactory reply. What were the facts of the case? In the village of Scarning there had been a free school for 250 years. It was founded with positive instructions from the donor that it should always remain a free school; and up to three years ago it had not only been a free school, but a very flourishing free school, for the income had really met the expenditure. Three years ago the Charity Commissioners decided that the free character of that should be destroyed. They imposed a fee of 1d. a-week, and the money so raised was to be expended in scholarships, which scholarships were offered to various parishes round, and which it was obvious the children of the agricultural labourer would have very little chance of obtaining. There had been meetings of the labourers in the parish, and the opposition to the scheme he could only describe by stating that the entire village and neighbourhood had been placed in a state of riot. The inhabitants felt themselves aggrieved; they refused to believe that half-a-dozen men sitting in London, or any central power, could come down, without their consent, and, sweeping these schools away, deprive them of privileges which they regarded as theirs as much as the houses they lived in. So greatly was their just indignation manifested, that these poor people refused to send their children to the school at all if they were to pay a fee. They had sent them on several occasions, as a test, without the fee, and they had been turned back, and for two years the children had been taught in a Methodist Chapel by a volunteer teacher. He did not think that was a satisfactory state of things to introduce into the parishes of England; and, undoubtedly, a strong sense of hardship and injustice had been created among the poor in a variety of cases. He was aware that by making strong representations they

  1489
  might induce the Charity Commissioners to hold their hands. He had just been told that they were going to stop the schemes for Kendal and for Stroud; but there ought not to be a system which rendered it necessary in each case to bring this strong pressure to bear. This he knew had been done in some cases; but where the poor in the poorest districts had nobody to help them their remonstrances had been disregarded, and they had simply to suffer. He knew it would be argued by his right hon. Friend that the Charity Commissioners had no option; that they were simply to carry out the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. The complaint he made was against the unfair administration of the Act of 1869. Clause 11 of the Endowed Schools Act—and he asked the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to this clause—provided that—
  "It shall be the duty of the Commissioners in every scheme which abolishes or modifies any privileges or educational advantages to which a particular class of persons are entitled, and that whether as inhabitants of a particular area or otherwise, to have due regard to the educational interests of such class of persons."
  What had happened in the case of Ton-bridge? The original grant was "in or near the town," not "parish;" and, in spite of that, the Charity Commissioners had signified their intention to put the school at Tunbridge Wells. [Mr. MUNDELLA: It was the decision of the Court of Chancery.] No matter what the decision of the Court of Chancery was, the right hon. Gentleman would not dispute that it was done under the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, and that the Commissioners intended, against the wishes of the people in the area, to remove the school to Tunbridge Wells, five miles off. Then as to the class of persons entitled to the benefits of the endowment. Clause 12 provided that—
  "In framing schemes under this Act, provision shall be made, so far as conveniently may be, for extending to girls the benefits of endowments."
  Take the case of Kendal; the girls, under the new scheme, had no advantages. In Rochdale they received advantages in the free school; but, by destroying the schools and putting the funds to the strengthening of existing grammar
  1490
  schools, girls were deprived of every atom of advantage which was bequeathed to them, and which they enjoyed for so long a time. Then, again, if they turned to the 30th section of the Act, they found that—
  "In any scheme relating to such endowments, due regard shall be had to the educational interests of persons of the same class in life, or resident within the same particular area as at the commencement of this Act," &c.
  He maintained that the spirit of these instructions had been violated. He was quite aware what the answer was—namely, that by the establishment of a certain number of free scholarships in the grammar schools the interests of the poorer classes were secured. Never was anything more illusory. As a matter of fact, the interests of the poorer classes were not secured in any way; and he would prove the position he took up. Let him take, as an example, what the Charity Commissioners considered one of the most liberal schemes—that was, the Birmingham scheme, under which he (Mr. Jesse Collings) was one of the Governors. It was quoted as a very liberal arrangement on the part of the Charity Commissioners to secure the rights of the poorer classes. The school had, at the present time, an income of £30,000 a-year. For 300 years it was a free school—it was free until the Charity Commissioners insisted upon making it a paying school. The school had been divided into one high school, and a certain number of grammar or middle-class schools. For the high school the Commissioners had imposed a payment of £9 a-year, besides books, which formed a very considerable item, and an entrance fee. Now, in 1883, to what extent was the advantage of the school enjoyed by anyone below the middle class? There were two scholars admitted free from the elementary schools into the high school in that year; and that, he thought, might be taken as a rough test of the extent to which the poorer classes were benefited, so far as the high school was concerned. There were a good many children who were not poor in the grammar schools, and he admitted that they had got some benefit from those schools. The annual fees for the middle class grammar school were £3; there was an entrance fee, and the charge for books amounted to a considerable sum in the course of the year.

  1491
  Now, in 1883 there were 58 children who came from the elementary schools, and were admitted free into these grammar schools. So there were 60 children of the poorer classes in the borough of Birmingham who were admitted free, and that was the whole advantage these classes received out of the income of £30,000 a-year. Most of those who were admitted free were children who were at private schools, or boarding schools, or who had private tutors. To the children of the poorer classes, the elementary school children, whose parents were willing to make sacrifices in order that they might enjoy the advantages of the education of a middle class school, the Governors had been under the painful necessity of saying—"No; you cannot come, unless you can pay £3 a-year and provide books." He had taken the trouble to ascertain the reason why more of these children did not attend the school, and some of the parents had admitted that it was on account of their poverty. Of course, many people would not give any reason. He maintained that the poorer classes, who had as much right to a fair share of the foundation as any other class, had, practically, but very little benefit. That was the opinion of the people of Birmingham generally. The matter had been before the Town Council, and on several occasions a resolution had been passed condemning the scheme as being contrary and opposed to justice. So strong was the feeling in the borough, that if any Town Councillor out of the 64 were to attempt to defend the present grammar school scheme, he would not have a good chance of being returned to the Council. Was it not monstrous that Birmingham, which could manage its own concerns, which had a debt of £7,000,000 sterling, and over £300,000 income, should not be allowed to disburse £30,000 a-year in the manner in which the town required it to be spent? If they wanted the smallest thing done by the Board of Governors, they had to go to London to get the consent of the Charity Commissioners. On a recent occasion, he (Mr. Jesse Collings) complained before the Town Council of the enormous increase of the legal charges. The answer was—"We cannot help it; there is such expense in going to the Charity Commissioners, and dealing with them, that we cannot avoid an increase." Of course, it would be
  1492
  argued that the result of the fees was to increase the education. [Mr. BRYCE: Hear, hear!] His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets cried "Hear, hear!" The income had been increased by fees to the extent of £2,000, £3,000, and even £4,000; but what effect had there been on the education? If the grammar school did not exist there, the education of the children of the well-to-do parents would be attended to. In consequence of the fees, however, the poorer children could not take advantage of the grammar school; they lost their education; so that this £4,000 really meant a barrier to the education of the children of the town; many children were shut out from the advantages of the school; and, as a consequence, the general culture of the town, the general education of the town, was far lower than it would be if the fees were removed. He contended that their object ought not to be to produce a few University men, a few giants in education; but it ought to be to lift the whole educational condition of the borough. They wanted the factories and offices to be filled with well-educated men; and it was his opinion that if every exhibition were abolished to-morrow, and masters were forbidden to concentrate any efforts on this or that special point, but told that their business was to lift the whole educational status of the school, the cause of education would be greatly advanced. For what did he find? Why, that parents in sending their children were only too apt to ask—"What is to be won?" or—"What exhibition is to be got?" Imbued with this miserable commercial spirit, their children ground away at some exhibition; but when they had got it, and when they had passed at the University, Heaven knew what became of them. If they advertised a situation with a salary of £50 or £100 a-year, how many University men, out of work, would they find to apply for it? He turned to the Report of the Charity Commissioners themselves for 1883, and what did they say? Why, that the endowments with which they had been called upon to deal might be taken mostly to have been given for the benefit of the poor. What was the argument of the Charity Commissioners in promoting these schemes? They argued—and he was sorry to say there were a number of people who agreed

  1493
  with them—that free schooling was demoralizing to the poor. They ought to discard the word "charity;" because, if a man left money in trust for somebody else, and that somebody else received money, he received it as a right. At Birmingham they were giving an education which cost the foundation £35 a-year — they were giving it to the wealthy classes for £9. Was there no demoralization there? They were giving the wealthy people £26 per annum. Not a word was said about demoralization in that case; but the moment they began to pay 2d. or 3d. a-week for the poor, paid really out of their own money, there was great demoralization. The whole of the poorer classes, and a large number of the other classes of England, were with him in saying that the present state of things was monstrous. He had only one other argument to advance, and that was that the action of the Charity Commissioners tended to perpetuate the present abuses. He knew many cases where Trustees of endowments, knowing the weaknesses in the Trust they were administering, would gladly make improvements and do away with abuses; but they say—"No; we dare not apply to the Charity Commissioners, for what they will do is to take the Trust away altogether." He contended that that fear was the cause of the perpetuation of a large number of the abuses which existed. He put it to the Committee whether this confiscation was wise? Was it right to teach the people that for no cause, and without their being consenting parties, there could be taken away what they had believed from generation to generation to be theirs? If ever the people did get absolute power in this country, a very bad example was being set them; they would say—"There are other classes who possess property which we do not think is put to as good use as it might be; therefore, we will turn it to some better and proper use." Rightly or wrongly, they were giving the people an idea—and they felt the wrong bitterly—that they were taking away something which was theirs. He was no advocate for keeping things as they were; but if reform were brought in, let it be reform in accordance with modern ideas. He protested against the Commissioners going down to a place, and, in opposition to the whole public opinion of the
  1494
  borough or locality, saying—"We will take away the Trust and set up an institution, not in the same place, but miles away." The grievance to which he had given utterance would not sleep; it was gaining ground every day. Some definite declaration was required from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella). It was not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Endowed Schools Act imposed certain duties upon the Charity Commissioners; his (Mr. J. Collings's) contention was that it was the administration of the Act that was to blame in the matter. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £17,811, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that no one who had listened to the earnest speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) would dispute the great importance of the question he had raised. He thought, however, his hon. Friend had not taken the best means of raising the question. His hon. Friend had not been content to call the attention of the Committee to the importance of granting an inquiry; but he had asked them to follow him in the details of a great number of cases which Members of the Committee, and he dared say even the Member of the Government who represented the Charity Commissioners, had not come prepared to deal with. The hon. Gentleman's complaint was one that could not properly be made on this Vote. It was not a complaint against dereliction of duty on the part of the Charity Commissioners, but it was a complaint against the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, itself based upon the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission. He (Mr. Bryce), therefore, could not ask the Committee to listen to him while he went through the clauses of that Act, or called attention to the various points of the Report on which that Act was founded. But hon. Members who had read the Report of the Committee of the House which sat, he thought, in 1873, would see that the questions to which his hon. Friend referred really belonged

  1495
  to the policy of that Act. He was far from saying his hon. Friend had not an excellent case for inquiry; but the matters to which he had referred were not matters for which the Charity Commissioners could fairly be either blamed or commended, inasmuch as the Charity Commissioners had done nothing but give effect to the Act of 1869, and the Report on which it was based. He should not attempt to follow his hon. Friend into the cases he had cited; in the first place, because there was not time; and, in the second place, because he was not prepared to do so. He had, however, a passing observation to make in respect of one of the cases. His hon. Friend referred to the case of Tunbridge Wells. He could not understand his hon. Friend's anxiety that, in the interest of the poor, that endowment there should be confined to the particular local area in which it had hitherto existed. Anyone who knew Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells knew that Tonbridge was a small and stagnant place, while Tunbridge Wells had grown up rapidly of late years, and that, having so recently grown up, it had got no endowed school. The Commissioners finding, under the terms of the will, that it was not only legal, but just as legal, to have the new school in Tunbridge Wells as in Tonbridge, thought they were doing the best for the community in establishing a school at Tunbridge Wells. He submitted, however, that, whether they acted rightly or not, it was a question of policy, which was, at any rate, totally distinct from the ground on which his hon. Friend had made a charge against the Commissioners. He believed the Commissioners were right in what they did, and that, so far from quarrelling with their conduct, the Committee would do well to enlarge their discretion and administration in such matters, and to require them to make the endowments follow the population, because in that way they would do more for those whom the testators intended to benefit than they would by confining the endowments to small local areas. There were far more people in Tunbridge Wells than in Tonbridge. Tunbridge Wells was growing every day, whereas Tonbridge was standing still. The effect of the argument of his hon. Friend would be to confine the £120,000 available in the City of London for charitable purposes
  1496
  to the City of London itself, instead of distributing it, as Parliament had last Session directed should be done, for the benefit of the population of the Metropolis generally. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: My argument tends in exactly the reverse direction.] His hon. Friend referred to Birmingham. He (Mr. Bryce) was not sufficiently conversant with the facts to follow him into that case; but the enormous majority of the cases in which free grammar schools existed in the country showed that, at the time the Endowed Schools Commissioners commenced their labours, the schools were used by the wealthy classes. The poorer classes had left the schools because the education was not one suited to their needs; and the Charity Commissioners, and the Endowed Schools Commissioners before them, had conferred infinitely greater benefit on the poorer classes of the country by their schemes than any rights they might here and there have lost. His hon. Friend had frequently said that the poorer classes were under the impression that these endowments were theirs. He would like to know what his hon. Friend meant by "theirs." The hon. Member would say, he (Mr. Bryce) supposed, that if in a parish bread to the value of £100 was given at the church doors every year to the poor, the dole belonged to the poor. The hon. Gentleman would say that if it was the property of the poor, the poor had a right to say in which way they would receive it. But it was not the property of the poor in the same sense in which a man could say of £1,000 he had invested in the public funds that it was "his." It was rather in the nature of public property, and the State had accepted it, on the tacit condition that it should have the right to dispose of it from time to time. He (Mr. Bryce) thought it ought to be applied to the purposes of the poor, because they needed it most; but not because it was theirs. The public opinion of a neighbourhood ought not to be the guide of the Commissioners; but they ought to be empowered to apply the property in a way in which it was calculated to do the greatest good to the poor. He could not deny that the hon. Member for Ipswich had made out a strong case as to the need of an inquiry into the working of the Acts. There could be no doubt that what his hon. Friend said did represent

  1497
  a large feeling in the country, and that there was a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the working of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. He believed, and he hoped his hon. Friend would agree with him, that the dissatisfaction was confined to the working of the Endowed Schools Act. He did not think it was any breach of Order to say that the evidence taken before the Committee which had been sitting upstairs on the Charitable Trusts Acts had convinced the great majority of the Committee that no charge could fairly be brought against the Commissioners as to the spirit in which they had administered those Acts; and that, therefore, whatever the complaint was, it was founded upon the working of the Endowed Schools Act. He willingly adopted the argument of his hon. Friend that the Government ought to institute a searching and complete inquiry into the working of the Endowed Schools Act. The Committee upstairs—
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I rise to Order. I ask you, Sir, whether it is in Order for an hon. Member to refer to the proceedings of a Committee which has not yet reported to the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order in referring to the proceedings of the Committee now sitting.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he had no desire to pursue a subject which would carry him out of Order. He merely wished to show that the evidence laid before the Committee was such, that the inquiry advocated by his hon. Friend was desirable with regard to the Charity Commissioners. He did, at any rate, admit that before the work proceeded further it was desirable that there should be an inquiry of this kind. He had lately seen cases in which the schemes of the Charity Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Act had been disputed; and things were alleged to have been done which ought to be fully sifted before a Select Committee; and, therefore, he hoped the Government would promise to appoint a Committee of Inquiry. He thought the Government would do well to consider whether it would not be desirable to give the Charity Commissioners direct representation in that House; for he was convinced, if that were done, such complaints as his hon. Friend had brought forward would be far less likely to occur; and if
  1498
  they did occur, they could be much more satisfactorily disposed of if the Charity Commission were a Department of the State, which could be approached in that House whenever it was necessary to call attention to their proceedings. He wished to refer to another subject in connection with this Estimate, and that was the branch of the Vote which concerned the City of London Parochial Charities. Last year an Act was passed to add two Commissioners to the existing Charity Commissioners, for the purpose of dealing with the Parochial Charities of the City of London, whose present income amounted to about £120,000 a-year. If he were wrong, he should be glad to be corrected; but he believed it was a fact that a room could not be found in the house occupied by the Charity Commission for these additional Commissioners and their staff, and that, in consequence, they had to be, so to speak, boarded out in an office in Craig's Court, a constant expense being incurred in that way to the amount of something between £700 and £800 a-year. It was true that this expense had to come ultimately out of the funds of the charities; but he pointed out that, in the first instance, it came out of the public Revenue; and he said, therefore, that a more satisfactory arrangement was desirable. However, there was another reason, still more important, why the two Commissioners should not be separated from the rest of the Charity Commissioners—namely, that the operations of the Charity Commission were delayed by that separation. It was a fact that there existed a good deal of information on the files of the Charity Commission relating to the London Parochial Charities, which it was necessary that the two additional Commissioners should obtain, and the effect of their being separated from the rest of the Office was that much time was lost in going to and from Gwydyr House to get that information which, under a better management, would be saved. He could not help hoping that the Government would see their way to meet this evil; and, for his own part, he thought that the best way of doing so would be to increase the accommodation at Gwydyr House by adding to it another storey, and by charging a portion of the expense thereby incurred on the funds of the Parochial Charities—an arrangement which would be per-

  1499
  fectly air, because that portion of the expense would represent the rent and other charges which had to be met now in providing other accommodation. He believed it would be necessary before long to increase the whole of the staff, and accommodation for the staff, of the Charity Commission; and that it would be found that a great deal more work could with advantage be undertaken by the Charity Commission if its staff, as well as its premises, were increased. He did not think his hon. Friend would object to that, because the expense would be naturally incidental to the already existing Office; and there could be no doubt that this action of the Commission was the means of saving a large sum of money every year to the charities. As a matter of fact, a great deal of work was done by the Commission which otherwise would have to be done by the legal advisers of the Trustees; and that had the effect not only of preventing the loss of endowments, but also of saving money in the working of the Trusts. Therefore, he said that the country would receive ample value by an extension of the staff and the premises of the Charity Commission. He quite admitted that the expense was one which the charities ought to be called upon to pay. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated that the charities might be taxed to pay the expenses of the Commission. He (Mr. Bryce) could not help hoping that that promise would be redeemed, and that before long they should see the public Revenue freed from any charge for the management of these charities, which ought, so to speak, to pay their own way.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was sorry to intervene between the Committee and hon. Gentlemen who rose to address it; but, at the same time, he thought that a very short statement from him would probably be to the convenience of the Committee, and tend to shorten its labours. There were three different branches of the work of the Charity Commissioners—first, Charitable Trusts; secondly, the Allotments Act, passed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings); and, thirdly, the work of the endowed schools. With regard to the first two branches, he would point out to the Committee that they were now the sub-
  1500
  ject f inquiry and investigation by a Select Committee of that House, which they might reasonably expect would present its Report shortly; and he thought it would be hardly fair to occupy the time of the Committee by either discussing the action of the Charity Commissioners, or rebutting charges against them with reference to the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich; while, as a matter of fact, the whole question at that moment was sub judice. His hon. Friend had entered, in some detail, into the question of endowed schools; and he referred, amongst others, to the school at Rochdale, and the mode in which the Commissioners were dealing with that school. But he pointed out that the Commissioners had not yet dealt with the school; and it would be improper for him to express any opinion on the case to which his hon. Friend had adverted until the schemes of the Commissioners had been brought under the attention of the Department, and until they had been considered by that Department. His hon. Friend did not seem to be aware that the schemes of the Commissioners had to be advertised for two months, that they might be petitioned against by a single individual, and that they would have to be laid upon the Table of the House, where they could be challenged by any hon. Member.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I referred to the right hon. Gentleman, not only as presiding over the Department, but as a Member of the Charity Commission. I refer to him in both capacities. He is the only Charity Commissioner whom we can get near.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he did not sit on the Commission; it would be impossible for him, as Vice President of the Education Department, who had to supervise the work of the Commission, to do so. He might add, that no Vice President of the Council on Education had ever taken any part in the work of the Charity Commission. Therefore, he said it would be improper for him to pass any opinion upon the work of the Commission at that moment. He repeated that the question was now before a very able Committee of that House, and he expected that, in a very short time, they would have before them a complete Report upon the evidence laid

  1501
  before that Committee. He did not complain of the action of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich; but twice during this Session he had brought this question before the House, and on the last occasion he spoke on the question at considerable length. He had given him no Notice that he was about to make any complaint, and the very next day the witnesses in the case of the Birmingham Trust came before the Select Committee, and gave their evidence upon the whole question. Surely, it was hardly fair—he must say it was not fair—that, while this matter was before the Select Committee, the hon. Member should come before the House and complain of the conduct of the Charity Commissioners. His hon. Friend was aware—he (Mr. Mundella) had told him over and over again in public and in that House, and he repeated it then as publicly as he possibly could—that he was quite resolved that the whole policy and administration of the Endowed Schools Act should be referred to a Select Committee next Session. For his own part, he was quite satisfied about the matter; and that because his hon. Friend had indulged in doctrines which he believed, when they were sifted before the Committee, would hardly bear the light of day. They were the most antiquated and Conservative doctrines that he had ever listened to. The ideas of the hon. Member were up in the clouds; and he believed that, so far as the poor were concerned, they would be the most unfortunate that could be carried out; but the hon. Member was not alone in his views. There were many people in the country, who, he believed, had forgotten what had taken place; they had forgotten the Schools Inquiry Commission, appointed at a time when a mischievous state of things existed; that had been forgotten by many, and insufficiently realized by others; and they had no knowledge of what would result from such a system of education as that advocated by the hon. Member for Ipswich. Therefore, he hoped the whole subject would come before a Committee of the House, and that some Gentlemen who were serving on the present Committee would again serve on the Committee of next Session, so that there might be something like continuity of inquiry. Finally, being anxious that there should be a complete
  1502
  inquiry, and because he understood that his hon. Friend, in moving the reduction of the Vote, did not intend to cast any slur on the manner in which the Commissioners had discharged their duties, he hoped the discussion would be allowed shortly to terminate, and that the Vote would be agreed to.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, that in the remarks he was about to make he must not be understood to say that all the schemes of the Commissioners were bad; because his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) would know that, on a recent occasion, he supported one of their schemes, when his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) divided the House upon the question. His object in addressing the Committee on the present occasion was to say a few words before it was too late as to the ancient school of Sir Andrew Judd, at Tonbridge, and to the proposed Middle School for Boys, established by the Skinners' Company, who were the Governors of Tunbridge School. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) spoke of the Tunbridge scheme as if he knew all about the matter. He (Mr. Causton) did not know whether his statement was the result of inquiries made; but it was not a question with him whether Tunbridge Wells was or was not a larger place than Tonbridge. The question was, what object had Sir Andrew Judd in view when he founded the Tonbridge School; and he (Mr. Causton) asked if it was his intention to benefit the townspeople of Tonbridge specially, or that the town and the people in the adjacent country should be benefited? And, again, he would inquire whether there were sufficient boys in the town of Tonbridge who were qualified to be educated at the proposed second grade school? He did not know whether Mr. C. I. Elton was the Gentleman who now sat in that House, or whether he was one of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners referred to in the course of the discussion; but, at any rate, he went down as one of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners to Tonbridge, and, as the result of his inquiry into the Judd Charity under the powers of the Endowed Schools Act, he said—
  "It would, no doubt, be a good thing for the town if a Middle School could be established in connection with the Grammar School."
  When the Charity Commissioners drafted their first scheme for the Grammar

  1503
  School, in 1875, they made careful provision for giving effect to this suggestion, and accordingly directed, in Clauses 67 and 68—
  "67.—The residue of the income of the School shall.… be treated as unapplied surplus.… and shall be invested.… but placed to a separate account to be called 'The Middle School Fund.'
  "68.—When the amount standing to the credit of the Middle School Fund shall be considered sufficient for the purpose, the Governors shall apply for a Supplemental Scheme, which the Charity Commissioners shall have power to frame, for the application of such fund in or towards the establishment and maintenance of a Middle or Lower School in or near the Town of Tonbridge."
  This suggestion for a Middle Class School for Tonbridge came first from Mr. Elton. There was also a suggestion in the new scheme that the then Governing Body should be altered. The Governors objected very much to that, and it became a question as to how much would be given if they were allowed to remain as they were; and a resolution was passed to the effect that if the Charity Commissioners would consent to a sum of £10,000—an accumulated loan trust—being applied for the purpose of the school, the Skinners' Company would supplement it with another £10,000. The draft scheme was framed, and, on being sent back to the Commissioners, it was returned with the suggestion that before the scheme was published the words relating to the locality should be made less vague than they were in the draft; but the Governors, without giving up the intention which they had held from first to last, of benefiting the town of Tonbridge, expressed their willingness to allow the word "parish" instead of "town" to remain in the scheme, because they did not wish to bind themselves to any particular spot; for they knew, as men of business, that it was most undesirable, when intending to purchase land, that they should allow it to be known that they had fixed on a particular spot, because, as the Committee would be aware, the price of the land under such circumstances would be greatly increased. As he had before stated, the original intention of Sir Andrew Judd was to benefit the town of Tonbridge. The school originally established there was a free school; but, early in the century, fees were instituted, amounting to £10 in the case of boys living within a radius of 10 miles, and
  1504
  £20 for boys living at a distance of between 10 and 20 miles. Since then the fees had been again raised. With regard to the second grade scheme, the Governors would most certainly have insisted upon the words "in or near the Town of Tonbridge" being retained, had they known the way in which the Commissioners would act towards them. There was no doubt that there were a sufficient number of boys in or near the town of Tonbridge to justify the Commissioners in allowing the school to be placed there. A Return had been furnished in 1878, which showed that within a radius of 10 miles of Tonbridge there was a population of 104,115; whereas the similar district round Tunbridge Wells had a population of 83,631. If his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, who had referred to this subject, objected to a 10 miles' radius, he would give him a six miles' radius, which gave the population of Tonbridge at 51,560, and the population of Tunbridge Wells at 46,912; from which it was clear that the argument with regard to population was in favour of the town of Tonbridge. All he would say further was, that the action taken by the Charity Commissioners with regard to this second grade school would force the Governors to place it at Tunbridge Wells against their will. The purchase for the land selected had not yet been concluded; and it appeared to him that, unless the Governors and the Charity Commissioners could agree, further difficulties would arise, and the Governors would have to come again to Parliament. He would add that the Commissioners had vetoed every proposal with regard to a suitable site for the school which the Governors had made to them. Under the circumstances, the Governors had given up the matter in despair, in the belief that it was of no use to attempt to come to any arrangement with the Commissioners, who were going against their wishes, and against the intentions of Sir Andrew Judd. He hoped that in this case, if opportunity arose, the right hon. Gentleman would use his influence with the Charity Commissioners to bring about a satisfactory settlement of this question.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he considered the Committee were under an obligation to his hon. Friend the Mem-

  1505
  ber or Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) for having brought this question before them. The topic was one of very pressing interest. He believed he was not wrong in saying that there was a general impression throughout the country that every single endowment which could be got hold of was being taken away from the poor, and put into the hands of the rich. The City Companies were once the property of working men. [Mr. Alderman W. LAWRENCE: Never.] He repeated, that they were; but now one saw tailors who did not know how to cut out a coat, and spectacle makers who did nothing but make spectacles of themselves, and a variety of persons who had got into their hands property which did not belong to them. Did anyone mean to tell him that people who called themselves carpenters 400 years ago were not carpenters; and that those who called themselves tailors were not tailors? Everyone knew that the foundations of the City Companies were laid before the Reformation, and that they were in the hands of working men. He knew a College at Oxford, the Charter of which declared that no one should be in the College who had more than £5 to spend. Why, a servitor of that College was a noble Earl a few years ago. And the same sort of thing might be said of a number of such institutions. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education (Mr. Mundella) said that the endowments of the grammar schools were in a scandalous condition 40 years ago; but, whatever their condition was now, he (Mr. T. Rogers) did not believe that they had been set straight by the action of any Commission or by any Act of Parliament. The first move in that direction was taken by the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland), who was one of the first persons who started the Oxford scheme of examination, which was shortly afterwards copied by Cambridge. The scheme of local examination had done what the Charity Commissioners ought to have accomplished. He contended that there was throughout the country a strong impression that every one of the schemes of the Charity Commissioners, so far as education was concerned, tended towards appropriating the money of the poor, and putting it into the pockets of
  1506
  the rich. They were told that the poor were demoralized by free education. They had free education in America; but there was no demoralization there. The middle class was not demoralized by free education. Were the rich demoralized by being able to get hold of old endowments? It was high time that this ridiculous cant came to an end. He was perfectly ready to admit that when they gave doles at the church doors to poor persons, they were doing them an injury in a certain sense; but it was absurd to say people were injured by free education. For his part, he felt sure there was a growing feeling among a large number of working persons that the whole tendency of the Acts of both Houses of Parliament was to make the lot of the poor man worse, and the lot of the rich man better. They were told constantly that they could not discuss what was going on in a Commission, and they must, therefore, treat the Commission as not existing; but these were great grievances, and they ought to be redressed. There was another instance. In his borough there was a grammar school, which was one of the most admirably managed schools in the county. He had been a member of the Oxford Board of Examiners ever since it was established; and, although he had not the ubiquitous knowledge of the hon. Member on the Treasury Bench, he knew what grammar schools should be. He was referring to St. Olave's School; and he had known, over and over again, the son of a working man who had been freely educated in that school do himself and his parents great honour. In one case, the son of a washerwoman, after going through that school, became a scholar at Balliol, and he did not think the boy had been demoralized. When he got through the University, he put his mother into a position of comfort, and did himself and her great credit. The Committee might take his word for it that a great deal of this talk about boys being demoralized was cant. It was a shame, and it was unfair, because what was applied to one class was not applied to another. He thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich for bringing this matter forward, and he hoped what had been said would sink into the minds of Gentlemen who were Members of this Commission, and

  1507
  that they would do something to relieve the naturally unsatisfactory state of mind of the working men. He hoped that such an interest would be taken in this subject that no more would be heard about the demoralization of the poor by gratuitous education, and that people would understand that it was the first duty of this House to deal justly with all classes, and that the House would not indicate by legislation that they had warm sympathy for struggling men with £500 a-year, but none whatever for struggling men with 20 s. a-week.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was a Member of the Committee on Endowed Schools in 1869; and, as far as he recollected, the object of that Committee, and of the Bill that followed, was to render the schools having endowments more efficient and more applicable for the purposes for which they were intended. He could not help thinking that the operation of the Charity Commissioners under the Act had gone rather beyond what was originally intended by the framers of the Act, and of those who took an interest in passing it. The Committee were, he thought, indebted to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) for bringing this question forward. It was a fair and legitimate question for consideration, and he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella) proposed to consider it during the Recess. He very much agreed with the hon. Member for Ipswich that the Commissioners had gone too far with respect to these schools, and had levelled up rather than levelled down; that they had handed over the schools to a class for whom they were not originally intended; and that they had left behind a number of people to whom the schools would be fairly and properly applicable. There was, he believed, great room for education such as was originally contemplated — something between the board schools and the National schools—for the advantage of what he called the working classes; such as clerks, agents, law-writers, and persons of that description, and what he would call the lower middle class, who would be very glad to avail themselves of these schools. They might be rendered very efficient for that purpose, and he hoped the result of such an inquiry as was contemplated by the
  1508
  right hon. Gentleman would be to render the scheme applicable to its proper purpose, and to bring it within the reach of the people for whom it was intended. There was another matter connected with this Vote which he would venture to touch upon, and that was the expenses of the Commission itself. There was an Estimate of something like £39,000 for the expenses of the Commission; and as the Vote stood, that amount was entirely charged on the taxes of the country and upon the Imperial Revenue. It seemed to him that that ought not to be. The object of the Commission was to regulate the charities, and the country might fairly be called upon to contribute to this object; but the question was, whether the charities themselves, which were actually in the hands of, and administered by, the Commission, should not do so also. Great benefit was derived by a number of small charities, and the objects of them, which he was not sure was fully appreciated by the Committee. It might be seen from a Return which had been laid before the House that the Commissioners had large funds and property vested in them. How had that arisen? In this way. Trustees of these charities were authorized to vest the property in the Commissioners, and the Commissioners might administer it for the purposes of the Trust. The greater part of the property of the Charity Commissioners had come to them in that way. The funds were perfectly safe, for they were vested in a responsible public Body. They were administered without any expense to the charities, and there was no transfer and no succession of rights, because they were vested in an existent Body. He had in his own case availed himself of the facilities so afforded, as doubtless had many others who had been appointed Trustees of charities either by deed or will; and by that means considerable expense was avoided in the administration of the Trust, and any risk of misapplication of the funds by those parties or their successors avoided under these circumstances. He did not see why the Charity Commissioners should not pay something towards the expenses, by some slight tax on property so vested in, and administered by, them. He merely threw out these suggestions now, and he should not press them at the present time; but

  1509
  he thought the matter was one worthy of consideration. He only wished to do what was right for the benefit of the public, and for the benefit, on the whole, of the Trusts. So far as the present Motion went, he hoped the hon. Member would not press it further. He had gained his object by the discussion, and he hoped he would not attempt to reduce the Vote by the salaries and the staff of these Commissioners, who were efficiently doing their duty.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, as he had happened to be a Member of the Committee of 1873, he might, perhaps, say a word or two. In the first place, it must be evident to the Government that there was a widely awakening interest in regard to the Commission; and the Committee was indebted to the hon. Member for Ipswich for bringing that subject forward. His hon. Friend, he knew, was a great advocate of free education; but that was a broad question of national policy; and if free education was good in itself, it was good all round, apart from the question of endowments. The position of the Charity Commissioners was not altogether satisfactory. It was far too autocratic in its character. If cases were brought before the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, he said he was not an acting Commissioner—and for that there was excellent reason; for if he was a Member of the Commission he would be sitting upon it, and then reviewing it. But the right hon. Gentleman went further, and said he had no power over the Commissioners; and in that case he (Mr. Illingworth) was bound to say the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was ground for altering the relationship between the Commission and this House. A reference was made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) to the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, and the hon. Member had said that if that Act was defective it would be necessary to have further legislation; but it had been stated over and over again in this House, and on the Committee, that there had seldom been an Act which had given so much power and discretion as that Act had. There were many respects in which very fundamental changes must be made in the character of the Commission and in the policy it pursued. At one time the Endowed School Commission was made
  1510
  up entirely of Churchmen, and that was the case with the Charity Commission. He (Mr. Illingworth) freely acknowledged that, by a side-wind, the Prime Minister was able to appoint a Commissioner who did not belong to the dominant sect in this country; but he did not hesitate to say that the whole policy of the Commission, in regard to the appointments they made, must be changed. The other day he had had brought before him the re-appointment of a Trustee of a dole of £200 or £300 a-year. There was one Trustee required, and four were suggested for the appointment. All of them were Churchmen, and three of them Conservatives; and he had no doubt a Churchman would have been appointed, but for the force of public opinion. There must be a sense of justice and equality of treatment in these appointments. It had been the policy in all Departments to treat Nonconformists as not identified with the great majority of the foundations in this country. Take the case of the grammar schools. It came out, before the Committee of 1873, that on the question of religion, in 90 per cent of the foundations of the grammar schools, the original instructions were absolutely silent as to any religious teaching, and yet there was hardly a single Governorship in the country held by a Nonconformist. In Bradford there was a grammar school which was, when endowed, never intended for any particular sect; but a Dissenter never dreamt that he had any right to share in the government of the school. He was glad to be able to acknowledge that there had been already a favourable change established in the spirit in which these endowments were administered; but matters must go very much further, so that there should be no traces of partiality left on the one hand, or of injustice on the other. They had been reminded by the right hon. Gentleman that the Charitable Trusts Act was under consideration, and he had promised further inquiry into the working of the Endowed Schools Act. This discussion could not now be exhausted; it could only be postponed until the result of the inquiries were obtained; but it must be taken as unquestionable that there was a growing interest in this great subject of the charities and the working of the Endowed Schools Act. Although he did

  1511
  not believe the direction ultimately taken would be on the lines of the hon. Member for Ipswich, he hoped the House would give some assurance to the public as to the working of these Acts.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he was glad that this discussion had taken place, for it gave him an opportunity of alluding to a case which happened in the South of England. There was in Blandford an endowed school of the same nature as that referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). It was endowed about 300 years ago for boys only, a short distance from Blandford; it was removed to Blandford; and about seven years ago it was closed entirely by the Charity Commissioners. They were asked to open it again, and then they turned it into a girl's school. What the people wanted to know was, upon what principle the Commissioners arrived at their decision and took that action, which, he could assure the Committee, was entirely against the wishes and feelings of the whole neighbourhood? The Trustees of the charity were asked the other day whether they could make any recommendation on the matter; but they said they could not, because they did not approve of that course. Meetings were held in the town, and Petitions were presented, both to this House and to the House of Lords; but, notwithstanding the scheme of turning the school into a girl's school was carried out, the people wished it to be a boy's school; but the Commissioners were determined that it should be a girl's school. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) said he had no power over these schemes; that they were not before the House; and that the proper course was to wait till they came before the House. But where were these schemes to be got? He believed they could be bought for 6d., or for 1d., if anyone knew where to get them. That was the first difficulty; and then the next difficulty was to know to whom a Petition was to be sent; and then, when at last the schemes came before the House, it was said that proper proceedings had not been taken, and the House of Commons, of course, supported the Commissioners, who were also supported by the Government of the day. So the schemes were passed into law against the wishes of the people for whom they existed. The hon. Gen-
  1512
  tleman opposite (Mr. Gregory) said the object of this Commission was not to divert, but to render more efficient, the benefits of these charities; but he (Mr. Guest) contended that if they went absolutely against the wishes of the neighbourhood in regard to one scheme, they were diverting the benefits of the scheme. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had urged that public opinion should not be the guide in these matters; but he (Mr. Guest) held that the public opinion of the neighbourhood should be the guide as to these schemes being reformed. In the particular case he had mentioned, the Educational Committee of the County of Dorset had proposed that this school should be made a girls' school; but the proposal was absolutely rejected by the Synod of Dorset. Three or four gentlemen formed the Educational Committee, who made that proposition; but there was hardly a person in the county who was anxious to have this a girl's school. He was glad to have an opportunity of putting a stop to these schemes; but it was exceedingly hard to put a stop to them. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that next year there would be a Committee of Inquiry, and he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not, in fairness and justice, withdraw the schemes now before the House, until that Committee had decided what should be done? He did not think it would be fair to press these schemes, and run them through the House, until the Committee, which was likely to be proposed next year, had reported upon this branch of the Charity Commissioners' work.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he was a Member of the Committee of 1869, which was presided over by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in a manner which gave great satisfaction to everyone on the Committee; and he must say that never before was a Committee so disappointed as that Committee was when the Act was passed. They were told that the Act was not to touch the good schools, but was only to touch the bad schools. There was a school in which there was only one scholar; the proprietor of the school to which he was sent paid the money, and the school-house was made use of by the clergy. There were other endowments which

  1513
  were most improperly carried out. What happened was this—schools, some of them with an income of over £1,000 a-year, were to make their own schemes, and the Endowed Schools Commissioners were not to interfere with them; but these Commissioners paid no attention to that arrangement, and made their own schemes. If the schools so treated did not approve of the schemes of the Commissioners, it was open to them to get the scheme opposed in the House; but it was almost an impossibility to get them upset by that process. The Act had been carried out on the theory that there should be no free education, except as a reward of merit; and what did that mean? Children of six or seven years of age were not to have any free education, except as a reward of merit. But the thing was so absurd and so ridiculous that the Order had to be withdrawn. It came to this—that it was a matter of competition between the children of poor parents and the children of the better classes. The poor child, the child of the widow, and the children of labouring men, stood no chance as against the child of the well-to-do tradesman. So far as the reward of merit was concerned, the well-to-do tradesman was enabled to give his child a better education, in the first place, so as to enable it to obtain the reward of merit, than was the widow or the poor man. In this way the children of the better class were enabled to avail themselves of advantages which the child of the poor parent was deprived of. It was no wonder that this reward-of-merit principle became contested, looking at the excitement the policy of the Commissioners caused throughout the country. He thought the ratepayers of London were entitled to the greatest praise for the way in which they had met the Commissioners as to Emmanuel Hospital. Their conflict with the Commissioners had ended in the Endowed Schools Commission being dissolved, and its work handed over to the Charity Commissioners. The theory was that only those children who had had a certain amount of education were to be assisted. He felt obliged to his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. J. Collings) for bringing the question forward, because it showed that there was a change taking place in the country, and that the feeling was spreading that where
  1514
  endowments had been left for the education of the community the poorer classes ought to have a distinct benefit. There could be no doubt that the tendency had been to take away endowments intended for the poor, and to hand them over to the higher classes. It was the tendency in all endowed schools to do that; because, in the first place, a master was appointed in a school, that master took in boarders, and paid great attention to them, in order that it might be shown that he was giving better education than ordinary to the children, and so get an increase to his salary; the master, therefore, took in boarders, the boarders got on and obtained prizes, and eventually that class of student took possession of the school, the day scholars, or the children of the poorer parents, being turned out, and really robbed of that which the founders of the schools had intended for them. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) was not now in his place, as he should, have liked to have had an opportunity of answering some of the statements he had made as to what his (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence's) opinion on the Committee had been. He had been on the Committee of 1873, before the Endowed Schools Act was renewed. At that time his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford did not hold the opinions he had enunciated in the House to-night. The hon. Member evidently thought they had gone far enough in handing over the endowments of the country to the superior classes of the community, instead of to those for whom they were intended. With regard to the Tonbridge School, it seemed to him (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) that the manner in which the scheme had been carried out, and in which the Governors had been treated, was in the highest degree discreditable to the Charity Commissioners in every shape and form. The Tonbridge School was left to the community by Alderman Judd, a gentleman who knew the advantage of education long before it was generally appreciated throughout the country. Knowing the value of putting schools of this kind under the care of strong and influential Corporations, he placed it under the control of his Livery Company—he placed it in charge of the Skinners' Company, just as the Monmouth School was placed under the control of the

  1515
  Haberdashers' Company; and as many other schools set up by those who, like Alderman Judd, knew the value of education, had been left on trust. These founders had themselves felt the want of education, and knowing the value of it had not entrusted the schools to country gentlemen, who were only capable of exercising temporary control; but placed them under Livery Companies, which they knew would be in existence long after their contemporaries had passed away. These founders and these Livery Companies had set an example to the whole country, having energetically taken up the business of education long before it was the fashion as it had now become. After the lapse of many years, the theory now seemed to be that this valuable work for the education of the community should be undone, and that higher education should be given—that the money which had been set aside for the benefit of the poor should be devoted to the conferring a better education upon the higher classes of the community. He was glad that that theory, which had held ground for some time, was receiving a check, and that the feeling was gaining ground that the classes for whom the money was originally left should be benefited, and not those for whom it was never intended. The Endowed Schools Commissioners were crumpled up, because they were endeavouring to carry out a false theory, and had at last come to a point when they could carry it out no further. He did not complain of the action of the Charity Commissioners so much; they had succeeded the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and, the latter Body having got into a certain groove, the Charity Commissioners had followed them, and now found it very difficult to get out of that groove. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had said—"What did it matter if an endowment left for one town was used in another town, if it was more likely to do good in the town other than that for which it was left." That was a most dangerous policy. [Mr. BRYCE: I did not say that.] He had understood the hon. Member to say that. He understood the hon. Member to say that, by moving the Tonbridge School to Tunbridge Wells, it would be much more largely availed of, and would do a great deal more good than if re-
  1516
  tained in the place in which it was originally bequeathed. The hon. Member asked—"What did it matter where it was left for, so long as it was found to do a great deal of good in Tunbridge Wells?"
  MR. BRYCE: It was not removed out of the parish; the school is still in the parish of Tonbridge.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that, at any rate, it was not in the district in which it was originally established; and he denied the right of anyone to ignore the intention of the founder as to the locality of the school. The discussion that night would, no doubt, be properly appreciated by the Head of the Education Department; and it might be fairly expected that great benefit would arise from it. As to the suggestion for taxing charities, he begged to remind the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gregory) that a system of that kind had been tried, and was a very difficult and dangerous project for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to enter upon. He would remind the hon. Member that when these moneys were originally bequeathed, 10 per cent was taken out by the Government as a tax. The question under discussion was a large one, and it deserved being looked carefully into; but he certainly did not think that the principle of no free education, except as a reward of merit, was a sound one, and would commend itself to the people of this country.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he did not wish to trouble the Committee at any great length upon this question. He desired merely to say a word or two in support of the appeal made by his hon. Friend opposite the Member for Wareham (Mr. Guest), with regard to the Blandford School. Though not interested as a proprietor in the district, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had considerable knowledge of it. He had had representations from a score or a score and a-half of persons connected with the district, who took the same view of the case as that adopted by his hon. Friend. They said that the present objects of the school ought not to be departed from, and that the scheme of the Charity Commissioners ought to be rejected. It was considered a great hardship in that district that the objects of the original founder should have been departed from. He agreed with his

  1517
  hon. Friend who had just left his place (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence), and who had addressed the Committee in terms so energetic as was his custom, and, at the same time, so persuasive—he agreed with the hon. Member to this extent—that the original intention of these old Trusts should be fulfilled as far as they could be, and if the local interests should be considered — in fact, that what a lawyer would call the cy-près doctrine should be carried out, and the objects of the trusts fulfilled as far as possible. He had seen with regret that, in many instances, the Charity Commissioners had departed from that principle, and had adopted another one which was hardly calculated to advance the interests of the poor, and which was contrary to the wishes and instincts of the people in the districts in which the schools were situated.
  MR. CROPPERsaid, he desired to thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) for having brought this subject before the Committee; but, at the same time, the hon. Member having chosen to take the Kendal School as an illustration of some of the evil done by allowing the Charity Commissioners to have control of the endowed schools of the country, he would like to say that if no more harm had been done by these Commissioners all over England than had been done in the case of the Kendal School, there would not be very much to blame them for. It must be remembered that we had an Education Act in this country, and that, therefore, where the object of the founders in establishing these Trusts had been merely to give an elementary education to the poor, the schools they had left did not now stand in the same position that they had occupied years ago. Where large foundations had been established, it might, now that the Education Act had been passed, be greatly to the advantage of a town, and greatly to the advantage of the poor, as well as to the better classes of the town, that an opportunity for higher education should be given, instead of continuing the opportunity of elementary education at a cheap or gratuitous rate. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) when he said that the popular opinion of the country was not always to be relied upon on this subject. There would always be a popular
  1518
  opinion against doing away with any gratuitous grant. There would always be a popular opinion in favour of free education in a town, although that free education might be carried on in a costly and wasteful manner. In Kendal the same amount of money which had been invested in the endowed school would have educated an increased number of children; but the object of the Charity Commissioners was to give to the poor children the chance of a much higher education than anything that was to be got at that time. The Corporation of Kendal had taken the question up, and the subject had been thoroughly well studied and discussed amongst the townspeople; and the only differences of opinion, as far as he knew, was as to the number of scholarships that should be established in the school that the Charity Commissioners wished to commence. They had heard something of the advantages of this higher education; they had heard, for instance, how the son of a washerwoman had become the head of his College. Such a thing would not have been possible if it had not been that schools existed in which a high class education could be given to the poorer classes. To his mind, the great object of the Charity Commissioners in the diversion of Trusts, and in the appropriation of the money that they had to deal with, had been to give such opportunities as these. He admitted that, in some cases, they might have done too much for higher education alone, and might have offered too few scholarships to the lower classes in some towns; but, at the same time, he was sure that by directing the energies of the Commissioners, and carefully studying and deciding upon the scope of their work and their schemes in this House, that they would obtain better results than they would by such action as would lead the Commissioners to think that the House was opposed to their work. He was sure that the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) would always render them every assistance in considering the schemes of the Commissioners. He desired to support the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) in what he had said; and, for his own part, in connection with the school he had taken for his illustration, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for being assured

  1519
  that the scheme would not be laid upon the Table without being thoroughly looked into, and without any real grievance that there might be being redressed. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), he did not think that the hon. Member was right in saying that the effect of legislation on these matters had been to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. In no case had the temporal benefits of a section of the community been more increased during the past 20 years than they had in the case of the working classes. He believed this was true both in education and in all social advantage, and he should very much regret this discussion, if it were to go out as the general opinion of this House that the legislation of the past 20 years had been to make the poor poorer and the rich richer, as the hon. Member had remarked.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that as he had the honour to be a Member of the Committee sitting upstairs to examine into the whole work of the Charity Commissioners and of the Charity Trusts Acts, he did not wish to say anything with regard to those subjects, because that Committee would now very shortly present its Report to the House. He only wished, as a Member of the Committee, to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) for having pledged the Government to appoint a Committee next Session to inquire into the working of the Endowed Schools Act. He might say that the Committee had come to the opinion that this subject should be inquired into. He dissented from the remarks of the worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) as to what the hon. Member thought a great reform in the abolition of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. To his mind, that was a retrograde step; but the object with which he had risen had been to refer to a subject which had already been alluded to by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory)—namely, the financial position of this Vote. They were asked, in round numbers, to vote £30,000 to the Charity Commissioners, between £4,000 and £5,000 of which was for the City of London Parochial Charities Department. The legislation of this Parliament had recognized that charities were not to have the cost of their management
  1520
  paid out of the Consolidated Fund for the future—that, in fact, the Department managing them should be made self-supporting. They were called upon to-night, however, to vote something like £24,000 towards the expenses of the Charity Commissioners, and something like £7,000 for the work of the Charity Commissioners as Endowed School Commissioners. He should like the Committee to consider what that Body was, and what was its income, for which the whole body of the taxpayers of the country were called upon to pay, to manage. In 1876 that income of the charities then known to the Commissioners amounted to £2,200,000 per annum, exclusive of the incomes of the Universities, the public schools, and the Cathedral foundations, and all such institutions supported by voluntary contributions. There were something like £11,000,000 of Consols at the present time standing in the name of an official Charity Trustee—a sum which represented something like £330,000 a-year. It was neither just nor right that the expenses of the Commission should be defrayed out of the general taxation of the country, but that the charities for whose benefit the Commission was founded, and still existed, should themselves defray the cost. He was glad to see the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney) in his place, because that hon. Baronet had already succeeded in carrying a Resolution through that House, which, he was sorry to say, had not been acted upon, calling upon the Government to do something in this matter. As far back as 1845 an attempt had been made by Lord Lyndhurst to impose a tax upon charities. That attempt failed. Another attempt was made in 1863, and that also failed; but in 1868 the hon. Member for Chippenham succeeded in carrying a Resolution empowering the Charity Commissioners to meet part of their expenses by charging fees; and the same provision was also extended to the Drainage Commissioners and the Tithe Commissioners. In 1871, the then Member for South Essex (Mr. Andrew Johnson) carried a Resolution to the effect that an Income Tax be imposed upon the charities, and that something like a Succession Duty should be put upon these large funds that were being administered at the cost of the taxpayer. The matter was brought

  1521
  before the House in 1879, during the existence of the late Administration, and a Motion, the effect of which was now submitted to the House, was made. He should like to call attention to the words of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney) on that occasion. He had said, in effect, that the income of the charities of this country at that time amounted to something like £4,000,000 per annum, and that the amount was rapidly increasing. He pointed out that they had been so nursed by the country, that they had been exempted from the payment of Income Tax, Succession Duty, and Probate Duty, and he contended, that they should be taxed, and certainly every 25 years should contribute to the Probate Duty. After a very considerable debate, the then Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for West Essex, shadowed forth a scheme the Government were prepared to support, for throwing the burden of the administration of the charity funds on the funds themselves. He said that the object of the Government would be to make the charities, as far as possible, self-supporting, and to prevent the cost of the Office of the Charity Commission from being charged on the public. That plan had not then been submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was merely the hon. Member's attempt to mark out a solution. He was followed by the present Prime Minister, who commenced his speech by saying that any mitigation, however slight, of the false and absurd positions—for it was nothing less than an absurd position—in which they stood as to these charities, ought to be thankfully received. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on to contend that the property of the charities should be subjected to the general taxation of the country. The Prime Minister was followed in that debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had said that he had never asserted, nor had he ever believed, there was any doubt as to the propriety of making charity pay the expenses of charity. A Bill was brought in on the subject; but, unfortunately, brought in at the end of the Session, and, though it passed through the Committee, the Government ultimately withdrew it, on the distinct pledge that it would be brought
  1522
  in again the next Session. In the following Session, however, that Government was no longer in Office. That brought him down to the year 1880. Nothing was done in that year—they were now in the year 1884, and still nothing had been done. To-night they had a good opportunity of getting at the sense of the Committee on the subject; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to carry out now that principle for which he had so long contended, and which was supported by both sides of the House in 1879—namely, that the cost of the Charity Commission, which was a valuable institution, doing a great deal of most valuable work, should be administered by the charities themselves, and should no longer be allowed to be a burden on the taxation of the country. Here they were asking the general ratepayers of the country to pay some £30,000 a-year for work from which the general ratepayer got no benefit whatever. He earnestly hoped the suggestion he had made would be favourably considered by the Government.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) for taking up this subject, and he trusted that before long the hon. Member's suggestion would be carried into effect. Nothing could be more monstrous than the state of things which at present existed. The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper), in the early part of the evening, had referred to the evils of the existing condition of the free schools in the different localities of the country. He (Sir Gabriel Goldney) quite agreed with the hon. Member that the general feeling of the poor was that they would be glad, in any shape or way, to get higher education for their children. Following out that view in the borough he represented some six or seven years ago, they came to an arrangement of this kind. It was arranged that, looking at the obligation imposed on every one to educate their children, that something like a benefit should, at the same time, be held out to the poor to encourage them to send their children to school, where enormous benefits might be derived. The Governing Body—the Charity Trustees—and the Corporation of the town, on his suggestion, came to a conclusion which the Charity Commissioners

  1523
  aided them in carrying out. They arranged that all the funds in the free schools should be appropriated for the purpose of creating scholarships for children taken from the elementary schools of the town. The scholarships were open to children of all denominations, and to the children of all the elementary schools, of which there were some six or seven. A certain number of boys received scholarships which were maintainable for three years. That system was more appreciated in the town to which he was referring than any other charity which existed there. Its effect was to build a social bridge between the classes, and a principle of that kind they should encourage as much as they could between the poor and the rich. The poor boy, by that system, had an opportunity of learning the subjects only included in higher education, which he would not have been able to obtain if the free schools had been continued. The most satisfactory results had attended the arrangement he had described, for large numbers of boys who had availed themselves of these scholarships were taken as a matter of request by different employers in the town, and were engaged in positions of great trust where skill and education were requisites. They had at this moment no less than 13 or 14 boys filling high positions in the City of London, and a large number of other boys were employed in the different manufacturing businesses in the town in which they received their education, having been selected on account of the excellence of their training. If the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would do all in his power to develop that system and encourage its adoption amongst the Governors of free schools, the effect would be, as he had said, to build a social bridge between the classes, and to do an enormous amount of good.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, it was quite impossible for the Committee to enter into the details of the different schemes formed by the Charity Commissioners, because of the difficulty of determining the accuracy of the information submitted with regard to particular schools. The Committee would at once see that it was impossible to test the extent and the validity of the complaints made against the action of the Charity Commissioners without knowing
  1524
  all the circumstances, and without hearing the other side, and knowing the grounds on which the Commissioners had come to their conclusions in particular cases. It was impossible to test the validity of these complaints without knowing whether they proceeded from the whole or a portion; and, if so, what portion of the population they proceeded from. No doubt the Motion made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) involved a question of policy of great importance. He (Mr. Horace Davey) believed it to be impossible to exaggerate the importance of the question which underlay the Motion of his hon. Friend, as to the proper mode of employing the educational endowments of the country; and he was bound to admit that he was not altogether in agreement with the policy that had been pursued by the Charity Commissioners, acting under the powers and under the directions contained in the Endowed Schools Act, up to the present time. However, he thought it extremely unfair to charge on the Charity Commissioners, acting under the powers of the Endowed Schools Act, the reform of that system with which his hon. Friend did not agree. He (Mr. Horace Davey) agreed with many of the observations made in the course of the debate. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the policy of the existing legislation was not altogether satisfactory, though they might differ somewhat as to the reasons why they respectively thought so. It seemed to him extremely unfair to blame the Commissioners for the policy of the Act. The Commissioners were a public Department of the country—they were a public administrative Board, who were placed where they were with certain definite powers, for the purpose of carrying into execution statutes defining their duties, powers, and obligations; and it would be impossible, as the Committee would see, for the Charity Commissioners, acting under the Endowed Schools Act, to do otherwise than carry into effect the policy of those Acts. If the policy of those Acts was not satisfactory, it was this House, and not the Charity Commissioners, who could alter it. What were the charges his hon. Friend brought against the Charity Commissioners? He had said, in the first place, that the schemes prepared inflicted great hardship on the poor. Underneath

  1525
  that lay the great question of policy. Undoubtedly, the policy of the country and Parliament, in dealing with these educational endowments, up to that time, had been this—to carry into effect, and to its logical conclusion, the arrangement first made by Lord Melbourne as to eleemosynary charities—that they should not be applied in aid of the ratepayers; that to apply them in aid of elementary schools would not be expending them in the interest of the poor. He believed that his hon. Friend would find that in several schemes of the Charity Commissioners under the Acts, though they had not directed the endowments to be applied directly in supporting elementary schools, they had, in many instances, applied endowments to those schools on the faith of the school pence—that was to say, on the faith of a contribution paid by the children. He thought—in fact, he knew—that if they searched among the schemes of the Endowed School Commissioners, or, rather, of the Charity Commissioners, acting under the Endowed Schools Act, hon. Members would find that they entirely bore out what he said. Personally, he did not feel the force of the reasoning which said that charities for the poor, whether it were for education or the relief of posterity generally, should not be applied in such a way as to relieve the rates. It appeared to him that these were public moneys devoted to a particular purpose for assisting the poor. He regarded the school rate as a compulsory contribution or subscription; and it seemed to him that those who were asked to contribute to it had a fair right to say—"First apply towards the education of the poor the funds which have been devoted to that object." But he did not desire to initiate a discussion on that point. He only wished to point out that there was a serious question of policy underlying the statement of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend was quite right in calling the attention of the Committee to the question, and he was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) say that he meant to ask the House to appoint a Committee next Session to consider the whole subject of legislation under the Endowed Schools Act, when this important question and others would be considered; but what he (Mr. Horace Davey) desired to point out to the Com-
  1526
  mittee and his hon. Friends was this. In what had happened the Charity Commissioners had not been to blame, but that the complaint was really as to the policy of the legislation. He was entitled to say that, because, as he had already remarked, he himself was not in entire agreement with his hon. Friend. The other complaint of the hon. Gentleman was that the Commissioners ignored the expressions of public opinion. If the hon. Member had had as good an opportunity as he had had of knowing the work of the Charity Commissioners, he would not have made that complaint. These gentlemen could not please everyone. If there was a difference of opinion in the locality to which the charity related, the Commissioners could not form their scheme in such a way as to satisfy everyone. He hoped the Committee would believe he was speaking from personal experience. He had no doubt that, whether they succeeded or not, the endeavour, and the earnest endeavour, of the Commissioners, as far as they could, consistently with the limits imposed by these Acts, was to carry out the wishes, and feelings, and views of the localities in which the charities were situated. Of course, in many cases it was impossible for them to do so, because it would be inconsistent with their powers, and inconsistent with law; but he believed they took every possible means they could to ascertain the condition of the locality generally, and the feeling of the inhabitants, by sending down an Inspector. He believed that in every case they sent down to the locality Inspectors appointed under the Endowed Schools Act. But he must say that the value of his learned Friend's criticism on this point had been strongly illustrated in the course of this debate, because the strongest case brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) was the case of the school at Kendal, in which the hon. Member had represented that the establishment had been altered from an elementary school into a school of a liberal character, with exhibitions for boys; and, as he (Mr. Horace Davey) had understood, against the wishes of the whole, or, at least, a vast majority of the inhabitants of the place. Well, what did the hon. Member for Kendal say? If he wanted to know what the feeling

  1527
  of Kendal was, he should go to somebody who was acquainted with the place—he should go to the hon. Member for Kendal. He could place reliance upon what that Gentleman said—certainly more reliance than he could place on the letters which his hon. Friend had said he had received from ladies and gentlemen living in Kendal. No doubt, the correspondence in question had been composed with the utmost good faith, and that the hon. Member's correspondents believed every word they said; but he thought that when they had the advantage of having the town of Kendal represented in the House, the Committee were entitled to place more reliance on what fell from its Representative than on letters submitted from private individuals. He agreed with a great deal his hon. Friend had said about those; the complaint he had made was not as to the administration of the Commissioners, but the working of the Act. That he had already referred to. Before he sat down he should like to say that if the hon. Member for Ipswich had moved to strike out the whole of this Vote he should have cordially agreed with him, because he thought it most unfair that the charge should fall on the taxpayer of the country. He saw no reason whatever why the charities of the country should not only be relieved from taxation in the form of Succession Duty or from Income Tax, but should ask to have the ordinary expenses of administration defrayed out of the consolidated Revenue of the country. This was too big a question, he presumed, for a private Member to take up; but was it too much to express a hope that the Prime Minister, whose eloquent speech on the subject of the taxation of charities formed, if he might say so, the text-book of this subject—was it too much to hope that before the right hon. Gentleman left Office he would find an opportunity of putting in the form of a Government Bill and passing into law a measure dealing with this great grievance of the taxpayer of the country? It would be impossible for him (Mr. Horace Davey) to argue the question fully before the Committee now; but he must say that he could not conceive any reason whatever why the charities should not pay their full quota to the Income Tax. As he had said, they were relieved from Succession Duty,
  1528
  because the law gave them the singular privilege of perpetual possession. They paid no Succession Duty; they paid no Income Tax; and then the taxpayer of this country was asked to defray the cost of their administration. Whenever this question came before the House, as he hoped it would before long, he should give his cordial support to any measure for remedying that which he conceived to be a great grievance. One part of this Vote related to the administration of parochial charities. The cost of this administration was made, in the first instance, out of the Revenues of the country, and was to be recouped out of the funds of the charities, so that, so far as the administration of the Parochial Charities Act went, justice would be done. He could not see why what was right in connection with parochial charities should not be equally right in connection with other charities.
  MR. COURTNEYsuid, that he would briefly refer to the general question put by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). He (Mr. Courtney), in the early part of the Session, had had an opportunity of explaining his views on the subject, and he did not wish to repeat what he had then said; and, moreover, the Vice President of the Council had given an assurance that a Committee of the House would be appointed next year to consider the question—or that the scope of the inquiry of the Committee now sitting would be enlarged, so as to enable it to consider the Endowed Schools Act. That was sufficient satisfaction for the moment, and was a fair reason why they should not go into all the matters that had been referred to in the course of this debate. With regard to himself, he could only say that he was convinced that the result of the inquiry would be to strengthen the principle of the Endowed Schools Act, which his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) was so much opposed to. He trusted the hon. Member would allow him to make that expression of opinion. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Montague Guest) with regard to the suspension of the action of the Charity Commissioners acting under the Endowed Schools Act, pending the inquiry to which he had referred, he must point out to the hon. Gentleman that every scheme promulgated by

  1529
  the Commissioners could be opposed by any single person interested. It must be remembered that before an opposed scheme could have the binding effect of law it must come before both Houses of Parliament, and that an adverse vote of either House would be fatal to it. If, therefore, it was true, as the hon. Member for Wareham suggested, that the House of Commons was overcrowded with Business, and that the majority of its Members were too anxious to support the Government to desire to set aside any scheme of the Commissioners, the opponents of that scheme could but resort to the other House, where, at least, there would be plenty of time to consider the subject, where there would not be an overcrowding of Business, and where the affection for Her Majesty's Government was not so strong as to preclude the House from setting aside a scheme if they thought it desirable to do so. He had heard the Tonbridge scheme mentioned. A good deal had been said as to the establishment of that second grade school at Tunbridge Wells instead of Tonbridge. Well, he did not wish to enter fully into the question; but he thought he was correct in saying that an investigation of the Trust of Sir Andrew Judd would show that the intention of that founder was to establish an educational institution for the benefit of persons residing within at least 10 miles of Tonbridge. The matter had long since been made the subject of legal inquiry, and that was the decision of no less ardent a reformer than Lord Eldon. If there was a case, any reasonable case, shown against any scheme, as he had said, hon. Members were not precluded from securing opposition to it in the other House if they thought they had no chance in this. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney), there could be no doubt whatever as to the justice, and he might almost say as to the necessity, of taxing the charities to an extent which would, at least, cover the expenses of the Commissioners. There could be no doubt as to what the disposition of the Government was on this subject—no one who had read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, made 20 years
  1530
  since, could doubt it. However, at the same time, no one could doubt that at the fag end of a Session, or the fag end of a Parliament, it would be a very difficult thing to carry a measure upon the subject through the House. He remembered at the end of the last Parliament, when a Bill was introduced by the hon. Baronet who then held the Office of Secretary to the Treasury, who was earnest in his desire that it should become law—a Bill which proposed to establish a charge of 1 per cent on all charities, and which would have gone far towards defraying the expenses of the Commission—that Bill which was brought in by a Conservative Government, and carried with it, therefore, the assent of a certain reluctant section of Members—of whom he was not speaking in adverse terms if he said they were not on the first blush in favour of the principle—it was found impossible to pass. It was supported by many who might be expected to be antagonistic to it; and of course Members on the Liberal side were eager to carry it—["No, no!"]—well, most hon. Members on the Liberal side must have been eager to see it pass. In spite of all that, the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had found it impossible to pass the Bill of 1879. It was said—"Oh, but it was brought in very late in the Session." Just so, but later on the hon. Baronet had said that such was the reception his Bill had received that the Government were not encouraged to go on with it. It was impossible not to see the enormous forces arrayed against a Bill of this kind. No doubt if, at no very distant time, this change were to be accomplished, he confessed he believed it would have to be done on the first blush, and in the new life of a new Parliament. He trusted that the Bill might be brought in under the auspices of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone). There would be no indisposition on the part of the Government to undertake the task and to carry it through. With regard to the remark made at the commencement of the discussion by the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), who took a very intelligible and honourable interest in the working of the Parochial Charities Act—the question as to whether anything could, be done by bringing the Commissioners charged with carrying out the Act into

  1531
  closer relation with the body of the Charity Commission—he must, in response to the hon. Member, agree in the extreme inconvenience of separating the Parochial Commissioners from the general body of the Charity Commissioners. No doubt a great deal of time was lost by going to and fro from one building to another; and no doubt a great deal of inconvenience was caused by the difficulty of access on the part of the Parochial Commissioners to information in possession of the Charity Commissioners. The Parochial Commissioners, no doubt, would be very much facilitated in their work if the inconvenience to which he referred were obviated. One of them had told him the other day what a length of time he had been in endeavouring to get at some information which he would have been able to procure at once if the Commission had been more conveniently situated on the premises of the Charity Commission. Unquestionably, at no distant date measures would be taken to relieve the Commissioners from the disadvantages they were labouring under.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he believed that on both sides of the House the verdict would be that whether they approved of the policy of the Charity Commissioners or not they were, at least, satisfied that they had proceeded honestly in the direction of carrying out the Act. He was bound to say that he thought the conduct of the Commissioners was very fair and respectful towards all those they had had to deal with. There could be no doubt, as was admitted by the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr. Horace Davey), that they had taken very great pains to ascertain the local feeling in the places whose educational establishments they had dealt with. It was quite true they did not always carry out all the views of all the persons in those places. They would have to be very clever men to do such a thing, because naturally, when there was a strong difference of opinion prevailing amongst members of a community, if the Commissioners pleased one section they would be sure to displease another. But this discussion had been a very instructive one, because they had heard doctrines propounded from the other side of the House which he thought it would have been a pity that they should not have had the advantage
  1532
  of hearing. They had heard, for instance, a good deal said about the question of confiscation; and, certainly, if he could have shut his eyes before the hon. Member rose, and hearing what was said, had wondered where the word came from, he could not possibly have believed it was the hon. Member for Ipswich who used it. He could almost wish that the hon. Member for Ipswich had sat in the first Parliament in which he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) sat, when they used to say so much on the Opposition side of the House with regard to confiscation. Very little had been heard about it on the other side of the House, and the result was that the Endowed Schools Act passed as it did. Great importance had been attached to the wishes of Sir Andrew Judd with regard to the Tonbridge School; but Sir Andrew Judd was only now made the concrete representative of the "pious founder" of whom so much used to be heard in years gone by. He was astonished to hear so much about the wish of Sir Andrew Judd; and, more than that, he was astonished at the statement of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) when he talked about "political economy run mad." All these things were not only instructive, but very refreshing to hear from such a quarter of the House. But he had not risen for the sake of taking part in banter. His object in rising had been to impress upon the Government these utterances—these, no doubt, unguarded utterances—which, at the same time, were spontaneous—but yet represented a certain amount of feeling outside, and a feeling which should not be ignored. The hon. Gentleman must remember that these matters had caused an enormous amount of discussion in 1869 and 1870. He was not going to contest the policy then laid down. He took what part he could in the matter, and was ready to support, as far as he was able, the proposal of the hon. Member for Ipswich and others, who regarded themselves as the defenders of the rights of the poor in respect of education which had been handed down to them. But he wanted to impress on the Committee that it was possible to go too far in what was called a popular direction in matters of this kind, and that, as years went on, they might find themselves in conflict with opinions at first denounced

  1533
  by them as reactionary. Personally, he had a great deal of sympathy with the feelings which prompted the action of hon. Members opposite, and he was bound to say that he considered there was much to be said for the right of the people, which hon. Gentlemen advocated, to retain for themselves the privileges of the foundations. He should not take up the time of the Committee by entering then into the question as to whether they had equal rights in this matter. He was, however, ready to admit that the question was a large one. But there was this to be said—if the hon. Member was right in insisting on the rights of the poor in this matter, he must allow others, from whom he might differ, to contend for other rights which they held to be equally sacred. But he desired to say a few words with regard to the powers of both Houses of Parliament to amend the schemes of the Charity Commissioners. He had been glad to hear, on the great authority of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, an argument which was, perhaps, more often heard on that side of the House than upon the other—namely, that there were some great functions which the House of Lords could be trusted to perform. The hon. Gentleman had been good enough to assert and to emphasize that doctrine; and, in so doing, he was quite right to remind the Committee that if the House of Commons failed to do its duty with respect to the schemes of the Commissioners, the House of Lords might generally be relied upon to do theirs; in other words, that if those schemes required amendment, and were not amended in that House, they would be amended in "another place." And then, with regard to another point of a practical nature. The Government talked about appointing a Committee next year to inquire into the whole question of the action of the Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Act. Personally, he had some doubts as to the position taken up by the Government in this matter, and a few months would probably show whether they were justified in the very confident view which they took of the future, and with regard to being able to afford such facilities. But he would point out that, even if the Committee were not appointed next year, there was power, under the En-
  1534
  dowed Schools Act, to reject the schemes of the Charity Commissioners. He was speaking of what related to the House of Commons, not of what might take place in the House of Lords; the House of Commons had the right to object to a scheme of the Charity Commissioners, and, if it were necessary, to amend it. The state of Public Business, it was true, often prevented that right from being exercised; but, theoretically speaking, the power existed, and he wanted the Government to consider whether, by any means, they could give this statutory, although inoperative power, something like vitality. The Act provided that the schemes of the Charity Commissioners should lie on the Table of the House for 40 days, during which time any Member of that House could move an Address to the Crown, praying to have them amended; but, as he had pointed out on previous occasions, it was almost impossible, under present conditions, to find an opportunity of moving such Address.
  MR. COURTNEY: An Address of the kind has been moved during the present Session.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he did not state that the case had never occurred of an Address to the Crown being agreed to; he meant to say that it was exceedingly difficult for the Government to find days for the discussion of Motions for Addresses when there was any pressure of Public Business. What happened was that the Government withheld the Order until half-past 12 or 1 o'clock, when it was not an easy matter to proceed satisfactorily with the Business. Again, on private Members' nights, if they were not seized by the Government, there was always the danger of the House being counted out, which often took place on occasions which, though they might be of interest to many people in the country, did not happen to command the attention of many hon. Members. For these reasons, he urged upon the Government to find some means of reducing to practice, and rendering available, the valuable protection he had referred to, which, at present, might be said to exist only on paper. Finally, in taking leave of the subject for the present, he wished to emphasize what had been the general tone of the discussion, and to express the hope that when this sub-

  1535
  ject again formed the topic under consideration the same moderation would be observed, and the same desire shown, to arrive at a just conclusion with regard to the proceedings of the Charity Commissioners as had been manifested that evening.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that having regard to the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education that he would appoint a Select Committee next Session to inquire into the whole question of the action of the Charity Commissioners in respect of the schools, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. In doing so, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not agree with all the statements which had been made in the course of the discussion with reference to the Endowed Schools Act. He agreed that that Act was, in some respects, defective; but his complaint had reference entirely to the way in which it had been administered by the Charity Commissioners. That Act vested large powers in the Charity Commissioners, and his contention was, that those powers had been exercised by them in a manner opposed to the public will, and in such a way as to inflict great hardships on the poor of the country. He had no wish to detain the Committee; but he desired to make some remarks with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), whom he understood to say that it was a just and proper thing to take away free schools from the poor, wherever they existed. That was to say, that what was taking place at that moment at Rochdale was just and proper. The Charity Commissioners were abolishing a free school at Rochdale; they were taking away free education from the poor, for whom it was intended, and were about to give it to the middle class, for whom it was never intended; and they were saying at that moment to the poor people at Rochdale—"You must apply to the Board of Guardians for education"—or, in other words—"We take away your right to this free education; we give what was meant for you to people of the middle class, and we reduce you to the class of outdoor paupers." On that contention of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets he joined issue; he protested against this
  1536
  assumption; and he ventured to say that the action of the Charity Commissioners, in respect to the schools belonging to the poor, would not be borne by that House or by the country.
  MR. WARTONsaid, there was one point in connection with the schemes of the Charity Commissioners which he trusted the Committee would pardon his referring to under the present circumstances. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had alluded to the check which was supposed to exist with regard to the schemes of the Charity Commissioners when brought up for consideration in either House of Parliament. But the attempt had been made before, and would be doubtless made again, to prevent the right of Members of that House to object to and amend the schemes of the Commissioners being exercised. He had himself called the attention of the House on more than one occasion to the perverse determination on the part of the Government to render ineffectual the right which hon. Members undoubtedly possessed; and in this way—by laying the scheme on the Table of the House, and taking very good care that it should not be printed for 15 days, and then not debated for a considerable time after that. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education said that a scheme could not be blocked, yet the schemes were most effectually blocked by having three-fourths or two-thirds of the time at the disposal of hon. Members taken away. He had called attention to this practice of the Government by putting a Notice on the Paper; but it had, unfortunately, always happened that the Government took possession of the day on which the Motion would have come forward. All he could say was that the protection referred to by the Secretary to the Treasury was really no protection at all, as against the schemes of the Charity Commissioners, which there was reason to believe was sometimes very bad. Without entering into that question, however, he would express a hope that it was not too late for the Government to say that they would have the schemes of the Charity Commissioners printed soon after they were laid upon the Table of the House, because his experience was that the time during which hon. Members were kept waiting for the schemes was never less

  1537
  than 15 days, while it was very often even longer than that; and he was bound to say that it was an evasion of the Privilege of the House for the Government to persist time after time in not having the schemes printed at once. This was one of the ways by which the Government kept hon. Members out of their rights; and, as a practical matter, he said it ought to be dealt with at once. It was scarcely creditable to the Government that Reports which had been laid upon the Table of the House should not have been printed for two or three weeks afterwards, and that while they monopolized the time of private Members for their own proceedings they should never afford facilities for the discussion of any subject which reflected on the conduct of the Charity Commissioners.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £16,340, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of the Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, he thought it was scarcely right at that late hour (12.30 A.M.) to enter upon a Vote for the Office of Woods and Forests. There was one subject alone in connection with the Vote of great interest to many hon. Members, and the discussion on it would certainly occupy an hour and a-half. Several hon. Members, he could assure the Secretary to the Treasury, had a great deal to say upon the Vote; and he felt bound to point out to the Committee what had been the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the discussion of the particular question he referred to on a former occasion. He and his hon. Friends were prepared to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, and to have continued the discussion; but after the Motion of his noble Friend, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury arose and replied in a speech which did not answer all the charges brought forward. At a quarter past 12 the Go-
  1538
  vernment, feeling rather doubtful with regard to the Motion for a Select Committee, organized, with a great deal of skill and care, a "count out;" the result being that the House adjourned at a quarter past 11 o'clock. That would be in the recollection of hon. Members; and he thought that, in asking the Committee to agree to a Motion to report Progress at that stage of the Estimates, there was nothing unreasonable, because, in his opinion, so important a Vote as that just put from the Chair should not be brought on at half-past 12 o'clock in the morning, and especially after the prolonged and exhaustive discussion they had listened to on the difficult and important subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Viscount Lymington.)
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the Motion of the noble Lord to report Progress, because, unless the Committee continued its labours, it was evident that some days would be added to the length of the Session. There was nothing unusual, at that period of the Session, in continuing in Committee of Supply to a later hour than had been reached. The noble Lord said many hon. Members were anxious to take part in the discussion on this Vote, and no doubt there was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question. That being so, he thought the best course would be for the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion, and allow the debate to proceed.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he rose to support the very reasonable proposal of his noble Friend that the Chairman should report Progress. He knew that several hon. Members wished to speak on this important question, which, in his opinion, could not be satisfactorily discussed at that hour of the morning. Under the circumstances, if his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury wished to make further progress with the Estimates, he suggested that the Vote for the Office of Woods and Forests should be postponed.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he hoped the Motion to report Progress

  1539
  would not be agreed to. He concurred with the view of the subject taken by the Secretary to the Treasury, that it was desirable to get on with the Estimates, having regard to the period of the Session reached. As the hon. Gentleman truly said, they would be kept at work a number of days longer unless they made further progress. The proposal of hon. Members opposite, he would point out, appeared to be of an obstructive character.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, whether the Motion of the noble Lord was agreed to or not, he hoped that nothing would be allowed to interfere with the order in which the Votes were to be taken. Nothing but dissatisfaction had ever resulted from that course being taken.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would agree to the Motion to report Progress. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was a great deal to be said on this Vote. It was a Vote on which many hon. Members desired to address the Committee; and there were materials for a debate of, at least, three hours' duration. The discussion on a former occasion having been interrupted at an hour when it could have been reported by the course taken by the Government, as described by the noble Lord, he thought it was only fair that the discussion on this Vote should be taken at a time when it could be reported.
  MR. WARTONhoped the Committee would be allowed to proceed with the Estimates.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 111: Majority 78.—(Div. List: No. 164.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he was anxious to call the attention of the Government to the great desirability of taking some steps to promote the study of forestry in this country. He thought they were much indebted to the hon. Members who had directed attention to this very important question, whether or not they were able to accept the remedies which they had suggested for consideration. They had to thank the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons),
  1540
  also, for having secured the valuable Report by Mr. Howitz; and he wished that it and M. Boppe's could be more generally known. Our annual imports of wood were estimated at no less than 300,000,000 cubic feet; worth some £17,000,000 or £18,000,000 sterling. He did not, however, base his argument mainly on that consideration, important as it was. The losses which had recently pressed with much severity on landowners, and the diminished value of land, ought to render them anxious, if possible, to open up some fresh source of profit; and the recent depression would not be altogether without some compensating advantages if it induced them to devote more attention to questions connected with land, not the least important of which certainly was that of forestry. They were sometimes told that forestry was not, after all, of much importance in this country, because our national forests were small compared with those of several other countries. Even the national woods and forests were, however, of sufficient extent to make the question between good and bad management one well deserving attention. But they constituted a very small part of the subject. It was estimated that there were altogether some 2,500,000 acres of woodlands. But, in addition, there were, at least, 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 acres which it would pay to plant. Indeed, Mr. Howitz estimated the amount at 5,000,000 acres in Ireland alone; and M. Boppe, in his Report, expressed his opinion that in Scotland also there "still remained 5,000,000 acres capable of furnishing valuable forests." Nor must they forget the enormous area under wood in India and our Colonies. A remarkable illustration of what might be done by judicious planting was afforded by the French "Landes." This region, which 20 years ago was one of the poorest and most miserable in France, was now one of the most prosperous. The increased value was estimated at no less than 1,000,000,000 francs. Where there were previously only a few thousand poor and unhealthy shepherds watching their flocks pasturing on the scanty herbage, were now saw-mills, charcoal kilns, and turpentine works, interspersed with thriving villages and fertile agricultural lands. Our own experience in India was another startling

  1541
  case. The institution of the Forest Department in India was first placed on a scientific footing in 1863, when Dr. Brandis was appointed Inspector General of Forests. But it was not until 1867 that his plans for the training of foresters for India were matured and adopted. What had been the result? In 1870 the forest revenue of India was £357,000, with the net income of £52,000. In 1880, the gross revenue had reached £545,000, while the net income had increased from £52,000 to £215,000. The effect of forests on climate seemed now to be generally admitted. It was mainly by the destruction of trees that Asia Minor, Palestine, Northern Africa, and so many other countries, once rich and populous, had been reduced almost to the condition of cinders. In this country, indeed, we need apprehend no such danger; but, as regarded India and our Colonies, the case was different. In Scotland it was probable that the management of forests was better understood than in England or Ireland; but it was very questionable whether, even if Scotch foresters were available in sufficient numbers, an English or Irish landowner would be wise to place his lands under anyone whose whole knowledge had been acquired in the practical management of Scotch forests, because the condition of the countries were so different. Moreover, it was probable that even Scotch foresters had much to learn. M. Boppe, one of the highest French authorities on woodlands, had recently visited our English and Scotch forests; and his Report, though short, was most suggestive. On the whole, he concluded that, even in Scotland — though in that country forestry was more advanced than in England—much remained to be accomplished in order "to place forest management in Scotland on a sound economic basis." His expressions deserved all the more attention, because, from the kindness and hospitality he everywhere experienced, and from the pleasant character of his visit, he evidently wished to make the best of everything. Still, it was easy to read between the lines; and, while his Report was full of praise of the soil and the climate, the ability and the hospitality and industry of the people, it was clear that, in his judgment, the system of forestry was altogether archaic, expensive, and obso-
  1542
  lete. One fundamental difference between the management of woods and forests in England and France seemed to be that we planted, and then thinned, and then finally cut down the trees. The French foresters, on the contrary, made it an essential part of their system that the forest should renew itself. In this country, they observed, there did not exist "any link between the old forest and the new." M. Boppe mentioned, with much pathos, such a forest which he visited. The trees had all been cut down for railway sleepers; the ground was covered with the blackened remains of roots torn up and burned, reminding him of an "immense ossuary;" and the proprietor was replanting, at a great expense, and with much loss of time, both of which might, to a great extent, have been saved under a better system. Again, M. Boppe called attention to the presence of sheep as, in his judgment, inflicting a great injury on the Scotch forests, because they effectually prevented the trees from renewing themselves. Not that he would exclude sheep altogether. He observed that a forest required, say, 120 years to come to maturity, and that sheep ought to be excluded during the first 20 years, when the trees were still small, and also during the last 30, when they ought to be renewing themselves. This, however, left 70 years out of the 120, or more than half the period, during which sheep did no injury, and might safely be admitted. Moreover, he pointed out that, in a forest so treated, the young trees killed off the heather and gorse, and the herbage was thereby so much improved that he believed sheep could be more profitably kept in a forest so treated, than if they were allowed to be continually present. Another point of the greatest importance was the association of suitable species. No foreign foresters would think of planting oak by itself. But in our country, sometimes side by side, and on identical soil, there might be seen oak alone, sometimes larch alone, sometimes oak and Scotch pines, sometimes oak and beech, oak and larch, or oak and chestnut. It was clear that most of these were economical errors. The New Forest had been so mismanaged, and so much injured by the unrestricted exercise of the right of common, that it was said that 49,000 acres would before very long be nothing

  1543
  but a barren heath! Whatever difference of opinion there might be between British and foreign authorities as to the best management of woodlands, all were agreed in advocating the establishment of a Forest School. The Journal of Forestry had ably and persistently advocated this step. The Journal of Horticulture observed—
  "That it is little less than deplorable to witness the miles of woods that are practically valueless from a commercial point of view; whereas under skilled supervision they might yield a substantial revenue to their owners, and in addition be an advantage to the trading and agricultural community."
  The same view was advocated by Colonel Pearson, who read an excellent Paper on the subject before the Society of Arts; by Mr. Brown, Mr. Griger, Mr. Boulger, and, in fact, he might say all our English authorities. Mr. Cruikshank, in his Practical Planter, summed up the matter very tersely when he said—
  "Nothing is more common than to see trees, which are proper only for moist soil, placed in the most parched positions, and those which Nature has adapted for dry ground alone planted in swamps and morasses. Those species that would flourish on a light soil are often absurdly stationed in the most tenacious clays, where they can make but little progress; while those that would have attained a large size in stiff land are planted in gravel or sandy loam, as if for the express purpose of making them dwarfish, unsightly, and entirely worthless."
  All the great countries of Europe had established Forest Schools. Austria, Italy, Germany, France, Russia, Switzerland, and even Roumania had done so. Great Britain was the only exception, and it was surely very remarkable that it should be so, when it was considered that this Empire was probably the most richly endowed with woods and forests of all the countries of the world. Our Colonies contained millions and millions of acres of forest land, much of it of very great value. It was estimated, on high authority, at not less than 340,000,000 of acres. Surely, then, the arguments in favour of establishing a Forest School in this country were very strong. He was, indeed, not clear that the establishment of a Government school was desirable. He understood that in future the Indian forest students were to receive part of their instruction at Cooper's Hill. For his part, he was sorry the Government had not taken a wider view of the question. It would be well worth
  1544
  inquiring whether some of the existing Colleges could not be made available for such a purpose. Possibly some arrangements might be devised by which, under careful regulations, the Professors and students attached might periodically visit our national forests. Of all our national woodlands those known as Lord Gage's Woods were, perhaps, the most suitable; and if the authority in charge of them could be appointed Professor of Forestry at Cirencester or Downton, perhaps that might be the best course to adopt. He, however, only threw it out as a suggestion. Surely, also, it would be desirable that Professors of Forestry should be appointed at our great Universities. Considering that so many of the landed proprietors of England were educated at these great Institutions, it was, to say the least of it, unfortunate that their attention should never even be directed to a subject in which they were so vitally interested. He did not mean that they should receive necessarily any thorough system of instruction in forestry; but the devotion of a very short time would suffice to give them an idea of the nature and the importance of the problem—of the manner in which it affected their interest—and the sources from which they might subsequently derive more definite information. It was, he feared, still true that, as the House of Commons Committee of 1854 reported, timber was "everywhere worse managed than any other species of property." Where, indeed, could a country gentleman with a few hundred or a few thousand acres of wood find anyone competent to undertake the management? Whore could he send his son so that he might learn something of forest management? Private enterprize could not supply the want, because it was absolutely necessary that a Forest School should have forests connected with it. In this respect, therefore, the concurrence of the Government was essential. There was one substantial difficulty, which, however, only brought out the more strongly the necessity for some such step. We had, M. Boppe declared, no single piece of woodland in the country which would serve as a model. Last year, when he (Sir John Lubbock) called the attention of the Government to this question, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury promised to give it his serious considera-

  1545
  tion. He would respectfully urge him and Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee or a Commission to inquire into the whole subject. Averse as he was, on general principles, to Government interference with private enterprize, the objection did not seem to apply here. He did not, at present, ask for a Government school; it would be preferable, if it was possible, to utilize the national forests in connection with Cirencester, Downton, or some other similar institution; but he would very respectfully, but earnestly, press on the Government and on the House the great need of some such step, the result of which, he felt satisfied, would be that our existing forests and woodlands would be more remunerative; large tracts might be profitably planted; we should create additional employment for the people, considerably increase the incomes of our landholders, and make a substantial addition to the wealth and resources of the nation.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he wished to question one or two points in the administration of the Office of Woods and Forests; and, by way of emphasizing what he had to say, he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,200. He would first refer to the case of the Crown Waste of Towyn Trewen, in Anglesea, over which the neighbouring freeholders and occupiers had, from time immemorial, enjoyed rights of common. Last year the Office of Woods and Forests offered the common for sale by tender, there being about 700 acres; and it was bought for £1 per acre by a speculative and enter-prizing individual, who at once fenced it round and built a house upon it. That high-handed action of the new lord of the manor had not been met by equally high-handed action on the part of the commoners. Instead of pulling down the fence and the house, these law-abiding people preferred to appeal to the law; and with the result of involving themselves in one of those costly suits which generally went in favour of the longer purse. Early in the Session he had presented a Petition, signed by nearly 200 of these commoners, complaining that the Office of Woods and Forests had not protected their rights. What was the justification the Office put forward for their action? They said they sold the common subject
  1546
  to all the rights of the commoners. He did not suppose they could have sold it upon any other condition; but what could be the value of a paper reservation that was powerless to prevent enclosure? Surely, to have enclosed the land would have been an invidious thing for the Office of Woods and Forests to attempt. But it was hardly less invidious to leave it in the power of some other person to carry out an in-closure. He thought that in such a case as this the principle of noblesse oblige must be held to apply with peculiar force. But the Waste of Towyn Trewen was not the only tract of Crown land in the Principality of Wales, and he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether this was a specimen of the policy that was to be pursued in other cases; whether it was intended to put up these properties for sale one by one, and to hand over these poor people to the tender mercies of the highest bidder? This case illustrated the disadvantage the House laboured under in being left without any direct oversight or actual control of the Department charged with the administration of Crown Lands; and he thought it would greatly conduce to the public advantage if transactions of this character had to pass the ordeal of a Standing Committee of this House. He would not, at that late hour, go into other matters; but he wished to say a few words as to the administration of the Department in another respect—namely, with regard to the management of leasehold property of the Crown in the Metropolis. The Office of Woods and Forests appeared to have no settled rule or principle of action in dealing with this property. At one time the land was offered for sale by tender, which was the method pursued by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and strongly recommended by a Select Committee of this House which investigated the Crown Lands administration 30 or 40 years ago; but at another time no tenders were invited or any public notice given that the lands were for sale. The negotiations were privately carried out. That was the course pursued in the Pulteney Street case, of which the House was cognizant through a Paper laid on the Table; and the result of that course was that by far the largest share of the property fell to the least suitable tenant. There was no certainty that under this system the best

  1547
  price could be got, or the best tenant. Then as to the machinery of the Office. There appeared to be no provision for the salary of the Crown Surveyor, whose name, indeed, he could nowhere find in the official list of the Department; but he had been told that that officer received, by way of remuneration, the first year's rental of the leases which he negotiated. If that was so, it ought to appear in the accounts as an item of the cost of administration. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give some satisfactory explanation as to this official and his remuneration. It would be more satisfactory that all these sales should be conducted by some responsible official who held a recognized position on the staff of the Office, and not by professional persons who did not appear to have any ostensible connection with the Office. These were only two of the instances which might be adduced to show how unsatisfactory in many respects was the administration of this Office. The more these matters were investigated the more apparent would be the necessity for that inquiry for which he had moved earlier in the Session. After the attack that had been made he was rather surprised that the Department had not themselves courted an inquiry. He hoped his hon. Friend would yet see his way to granting the Committee that had been asked for inquiry; but, in the meantime, those who felt strongly on the matter must deem it their duty to take advantage of every opportunity of calling attention to the points in which the administration of the Crown Lands was defective; and, to mark his sense of the unsatisfactory conduct of the Office of Woods and Forests in the instances adduced, he should move the reduction of the Vote by £1,200.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £15,140, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."—(Mr. Cheetham.)
  DR. LYONSsaid, he desired that nothing he was about to say should be taken in any way invidiously in regard to the distinguished officials who held the chief positions in this Department,
  1548
  for he had always received from them the greatest encouragement, and all the information available had been placed at his disposal, so that he had the most kindly feelings with regard to this great Department. This Office had grown up in a way it was not easy to understand, into a sort of compound agency for questions connected with mines, the disposal of house property in London, Crown estates, and other interests, much in the same way as an ordinary agency. In a small degree it represented the policy of the Government in regard to the forest interest of the country, but only in a very small degree. It was a kind of Departmental superintendence of woods and forests, in connection with other less important matters. It was being rapidly enforced on the public mind that in regard to one of the great interests of this country the Department had got its affairs into a very critical condition; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman who represented the Treasury would apply himself seriously to this question. In his own efforts to deal with this great question, he had been treated only to smiles; this important subject of the extension of the forests of these countries was looked upon with a certain kind of good-natured toleration, if not indifference—as a kind of "fad" of his; and the most he had been able to get from the Representatives of the Treasury, and also, he was sorry to say, from the Irish Office, and the different persons who were responsible in Ireland, had been good-natured smiles. But he believed that all great subjects with which the House was not previously familiar must pass through that phase. He had borne a good deal of good-natured banter on the subject; but the matter had forced itself upon the public mind in a way which could no longer be ignored. In India and some of the Colonies this question represented an enormous interest connected with the resources upon which the strength and capabilities of this great country might ultimately have to rest; and the question of our future timber supplies at home must be faced in a serious manner at the earliest possible moment. It was too generally supposed that the supplies of timber from abroad were practically inexhaustible, and were never to come to an end; but he had ascertained from the highest authorities

  1549
  on the subject—and the House could now judge for itself through the admirable Reports of the Foreign Office officials in Rurope and America—what was the real state of facts in the chief timber-producing countries. He was afraid these resources could be no longer relied on, and that henceforth those who wanted timber would no longer be able to look to America for continued sources of supply. There were 112,000 miles of railway in America; and as most engines were still fed with wood, beside the demand for sleepers, the consumption was enormous. With regard to the supply of wood from America, it was hopeless to expect that we should be able to get a large quantity from there in the future. The quantity would decrease by degrees, and the American people would find that they had need for all that they could grow, and would refuse to let us have any more. As to Canada, a similar description would hold good; but that question would require to be separately dealt with. [Ironical cheers, and cries of "Divide!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must say I am altogether unable to see the application of the hon. Member's observations to the Vote before the Committee, which is that £16,340 be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments.
  DR. LYONSsaid, that, looking at the latitude the Chairman had allowed the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), he confessed he was tempted to go beyond the point the Chairman was entitled to allow him to overstep; but he would now confine his observations more strictly to the Vote before the Committee. Whenever this subject was carefully considered and discussed, it was universally conceded that the supply of timber in America, and in other countries, was barely sufficient, or would be, in the course of a very short time, barely sufficient for the domestic wants of these countries. We were the largest importers of timber in the world, importing, as we did, 29,000,000 cubic feet per annum, which, with the other forest products, reached the annual figure of £20,000,000 sterling; and the question which presented itself, therefore, was, whom were we to look forward to in
  1550
  the future for this supply? Every other country was awake to the knowledge of the fact that it would be its own duty to supply itself with the wood it required in the future. That principle was recognized in all the countries of Europe and in America—in fact, in every civilized country, with the single exception of the British Empire, which occupied the unfortunate position of being the greatest consumer of timber in the world with the smallest amount of land devoted to its growth at home. That being the case, it was a matter of vital consequence to us that in whatever direction efforts could be made they ought to be made to supply this great want. We spent £20,000,000 sterling on timber and other forest products; and it was a question where in the future that vast supply could be obtained. The Department of Woods and Forests in England should address itself seriously to this question as soon as possible, for it was beyond doubt that we would have to supply ourselves with a large portion of the timber we used in the course of a very short time. It was stated on the authority of those who were familiar with the subject that a large portion of the timber which was used for various industries in this country could be cut down from its seventh to the tenth year of growth. It was well known that for minor industries a great deal of timber did not require a larger period of growth than that. At the end of 25 years timber would have matured so as to be available for a great number of manufactures. As time went on of course the timber became superior and more matured, and capable of being used in various forms of architecture, and applied to other purposes to which sound matured timber was put. His contention was, that it would be possible for this country, in a comparatively short space of time, to produce a timber supply of its own. If there was one principle more fully established than another, it was that every country, looking at the general aspect of its soil and other conditions upon which a forest growth depended, could devote a proportion of from one-fourth to one-fifth of its area to the production of timber. Not only would this forest growth be of enormous value to the country from a commercial point of view, but it would improve the natural physical conditions of the land, for it would regulate the

  1551
  springs and water supply, which was a most material point, and one which was the subject of legislative enactment in Canada in this current year. This afforestation of the country would prevent an enormous waste of the nutrient materials of the land, now constantly swept away by the down-wash of the rains, and in many other ways would act in a beneficial manner. If they accepted the fact that from one-fourth to one-fifth of the surface of the land should be devoted to the growth of timber—[Ironical cheers, and interruption.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the question of planting large forests in this country, and of supplying ourselves with home-grown timber, does not come under this Vote.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Why not?
  DR. LYONSsaid, he bowed entirely to the Chairman's decision. [Cries of "Go on!"] Some of the details to which he had alluded were to be found in the Report of the Woods and Forests Department which was connected with this Vote; and therefore it seemed to him that, in touching upon these matters, he was not going beyond his right. However, he did not for a moment challenge the Chairman's ruling. The Woods and Forests Department had a vast function before it. They found that it was devoted to the important duties to which he had endeavoured to call attention, and that for the purpose of carrying out these duties two Commissioners were appointed. The amount of the fund at the disposal of these gentlemen at the present moment was that contained in the Vote—the comparatively small sum of £23,340. What occurred to him on this point was, with all respect to the Commissioners, that the duties of the Office as they were at present discharged could be quite satisfactorily carried out by a single Commissioner. Here they had a remarkable instance of a great Public Department having two gentlemen in precisely parallel Offices discharging precisely the same class of duties—at any rate, the last printed Report published in 1883 did not show any difference in the duties—they had a remarkable instance of two gentlemen occupying the same position doing work for which one would be more than capable. It appeared to him that that was a waste of force and a waste of public
  1552
  money, particularly when they came to consider that neither of these gentlemen was specially qualified by education to discharge the duties which were regarded as so important in other countries in connection with the timber growth and the supply of timber. The more he looked into the matter, the more he was struck by the consideration that one superior official would be quite sufficient to manage all the work of this Department. The amount of land under the Commissioners was, unfortunately, not very large, the largest area of land of which they had the control being, so far as he could learn, the New Forest, which included 22,000 acres. In some countries the Woods and Forests Departments had to do with millions of acres. The great forests of Russia, for instance, comprised over 400,000,000 of acres; and, if he were not mistaken, France possessed something over 22,000,000 acres of forest, and other countries were supplied with timber in like but varied proportions—Norway, over 18,000,000 acres; Sweden, over 40,000,000 acres; Germany, 34,000,000 acres; Austria Proper, 23,000,000 acres; and Hungary, 22,000,000 acres. Looking at the small amount of land in England devoted to timber (only about 1,400,000 acres), and that our largest forest did not exceed 22,000 acres, it was idle to say that one Commissioner could not manage all the duties of the Office. He would also suggest that there should be a competent official selected without the least possible delay to take up the consideration of the extension of the forests which were especially under the charge of those two gentlemen. No doubt, the two Commissioners very ably discharged their duties at the present time; he did not for an instant bring any charge against them. He was speaking of the Department as a Public Department, and his complaint was not of individuals, but of the manner in which the whole Department had been permitted to be worked under successive Governments. No doubt the two Commissioners were as competent to discharge the duties which devolved upon them as they could be; but he was finding fault with the scope of those duties—in fact, with the whole construction of the Department, his contention being that it was altogether insufficient and inefficient for the

  1553
  wants of this great nation. He desired to see the funds of the Department properly applied. It was impossible for this country to maintain itself in the position in which it had so long and so honourably stood, without taking active and immediate measures to replace the forests which once existed in it, and which were so absolutely necessary, from every possible point of view, to the maintenance of her industries and to the welfare of the State. [Ironical cheers.] He saw the hon. Gentleman below (Mr. Courtney) treating him with his usual smiles. He regretted to find the hon. Member, notwithstanding the ability and energy which were so eminently characteristic of him in common with his countrymen, about the last to recognize the position in which the country found itself in regard to this great question. He always found the hon. Member, and some of those associated with him, looking coldly upon proposals such as he (Dr. Lyons) had been making. He should have thought that, even to the unbelieving mind of the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney), it would be apparent that, under the circumstances of the case, there was no necessity for the employment of a second Commissioner, and that the funds devoted to the Department could be better utilized in the remuneration of high-class skilled Forest Conservators, such as those who had raised the forest system of India to such a high standard of excellence and financial success within the lifetime of men still amongst us.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Cheetham), who had moved the Amendment, would persevere with his Motion. This he (Mr. Bryce) regarded as the very worst of all the Departments of the Crown; and though he did not intend, at this hour of the night, to go into a long catalogue of its misdeeds, still he would remind the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury that he by no means would get rid of the question, either by counting it out on a Motion on a Friday night, or by putting it off until a late period at night. The Department was grossly mismanaged — its whole course was marked by a succession of jobs. There was a great deal of suspicion attached to its action. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite need not interrupt him and
  1554
  cry "Divide!" because they might rest assured it would not make the least difference to him. He could wait until hon. Members had done. The hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury knew, or ought to know, that there was grave dissatisfaction entertained regarding the way in which Crown property in London was managed. It was very difficult to fix responsibility, contracts being effected by middle-men; but he might say that the public was benefited neither by receiving the best available price for Crown land let or sold, nor, on the other hand, by the placing of that land with thoroughly good tenants. He would again urge on the Government the duty of acceding to the request which had been so often made to them for a full inquiry into the whole matter. If the Government did not make this concession to-night, he could promise them that this debate would be renewed in every Session of Parliament, whenever hon. Members had an opportunity of bringing it before the attention of the House. Constant complaints would be made of the mismanagement of the Woods and Forests Department until the Government permitted the whole matter to be thoroughly inquired into. It would only be fair to the Commissioners to let them vindicate their conduct before such an inquiry. It would only be just to allow them to endeavour to win back the confidence they had forfeited.
  MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that he hoped the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) would pardon him if he altogether failed to follow him into the subject he had so fully discussed. All he would say was that, if he could do anything in the way of putting the hon. Gentleman into communication with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, so that he might give them the advantage of his knowledge and experience in these matters, and ascertain from them the way in which the duties of the Department were discharged, he should be very glad to do so. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Cheetham), he would point out that he (Mr. Cheetham) did not make out a case by bringing general accusations—however serious those accusations might be. To make out a case, it was necessary to descend to details. What he (Mr. Courtney) had ven-

  1555
  tured to say, when the subject was last under discussion, he now repeated, and it was that no case had been made out against the Department. Some little carelessness, on one or two occasions, might have existed; but there did not seem to be any ground for the suggestion now made of malversation of the funds of the Department.
  MR. CHEETHAM: I did not say there had been.
  MR. BRYCE: The complaint is that there is suspicion of gross blunders.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, at all events, the accusations had now been unrooted to some extent. He had said at great length, in answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Cheetham), that he could not recognize in the evidence sufficient ground for granting the inquiry asked for, and that statement he must now repeat. Whether, with more details and particulars before them than they now had, a case might not be made out, of course he could not say. It was stated that manors were sold, and that commoners were treated in an illegal way; and, bearing upon this, there were questions at present before a Court of Law. But it must be remembered that those who acquired property must be allowed to proceed to act in a way they believed to be an assertion of their rights; and their neighbours might take action against them on what they conceived to be a violation of their rights. A man who bought a house in the City could pull it down, and proceed to build a larger one; and if by so doing he obstructed the light of his neighbour, recourse must be had to a Court of Law. If the case of the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Cheetham) was anything at all, it was a case for an application to a Court of Law. The Crown could only sell common land subject to the settlement of the claims and rights of the commoners; and in this matter purchasers would have to defend themselves. The hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Cheetham) had found fault with the administration of the Department in the Metropolis, because, in many cases, property was not sold by tender. He (Mr. Courtney) had stated that, as a general rule, it was let by tender; but in any case where previous tenants had, by long usage and relation, been connected with the Crown, if any claim to preference was allowed, it was allowed
  1556
  to them. The principle which had been adopted had been to give preference to old tenants. As to the remuneration given to the Crown Surveyor, it was understood that he got a year's rental for his services in dealing with property.
  MR. CHEETHAM: Do those charges appear in the accounts?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not think they did. As regarded the subject of a forestry school it had not been lost sight of; but it must be considered in connection with India, and he had been once or twice in communication with the India Office. In order to carry out such a scheme, and to justify so large an expense, it would be necessary to have the co-operation of the India Office; and they had taken the view that it was impossible to give instruction to their forest surveyors and forest men in England which would be necessary to qualify them for their duties in India. Whether it would be possible to come to some partial arrangement he could not say; but the subject had not been lost sight of, and there was a great desire on the part of the Government to promote the matter.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury had rather unfairly criticized hon. Members for not having gone into sufficient detail, for it was impossible, at this late hour, to go into detail. The reason why the Motion had been made was, that it was impossible, at this late hour, to fairly and fully discuss this matter; but he would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. Although the Government had twice succeeded in stifling the discussion of this subject, he must tell the hon. Member that those who were interested would take the first opportunity, on some other occasion, of raising the question and having it fully discussed; and he thought they would be able to convince the hon. Gentleman that there was some reason in what they urged.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he would withdraw his Motion; but, in doing so, he must say that he could hardly accept as satisfactory the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury. It seemed to him that the Government were bound to take some steps to safeguard the rights of the Towyn Trewen commoners.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that, in the case mentioned in London, one tenant was favoured at the expense of other tenants, and nearly the whole of the property was allowed to pass into his hands. That, he held, was a case of miscarriage of public policy.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Resolutions [16th July] reported.
First Four Resolutions agreed to.
Fifth Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
MR. MOOREsaid, he wished to refer to a matter to which he had alluded yesterday. He was then treated with scant courtesy; but he intended to challenge this Vote. He yesterday charged the Local Government Board with having reversed the policy of their Predecessors with regard to the removal of Catholic children from workhouses. While he was speaking someone called out "Nonsense!" but he thought he might at least expect that deference which was usually paid to hon. Members of that House. He at once went and made inquiries, and he found that what he had said as to the policy of the Board in London was certainly too strong. He was hardly justified in saying that they had reversed the policy of their Predecessors; because he found that the President of the Board had, in 1882, ordered the removal of a Catholic child in London, and that he had exercised his powers in such respects. Having gone that far, he could go no further. He must, in spite of the interjection from the Treasury Bench yesterday, reavow what he had then stated. The Roman Catholic population were very much dissatisfied, and he and other hon. Members were flooded with letters upon their grievances; and although he might have been technically inaccurate, there was no doubt that he had substantially laid the true state of affairs before the House. There was, in London, a large
1558
workhouse which refused to allow Roman Catholic children to be brought up in their own religious persuasion, though the Roman Catholic people were willing to pay for them, and to provide accommodation. It was all very well to say that, after three years' litigation and correspondence with the Local Government Board, something might be done; but it was the duty of the Board to have done it without this great upheaval, and without throwing every possible obstacle in the way. To show how they had failed in their duty, and in the exercise of the law placed in their hands, he had had placed before him, for the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), the Correspondence with the Local Government Board relating to two cases in Sheffield, in which they distinctly refused to exercise their power. Those were his reasons for making his assertions, and he thought they were of a very substantial character, and he intended to emphasize their reassertion by a Division to-night. It was very well to whitewash the Government, and to say they were doing everything they could; but there was the greatest dissatisfaction among the Roman Catholic public. Then he had made another statement, in which he was slightly inaccurate. He had stated that at Hampstead there were four hospitals which were attended by Roman Catholic chaplains gratuitously. In that he was slightly wrong; but he did not think he ought to have been subjected to discourtesy. He ought to have said High-gate; but there the matter was worse. He had mentioned this matter as another cause of dissatisfaction, and as a great hardship upon the Roman Catholics, upon whom the whole burden of providing religious instruction and consolation for the sick and dying was thrown, while chaplains of other religious persuasions were paid for and provided. He thought he had most fully and with substantial accuracy maintained the two assertions he had made, and he must again express his disapproval of the manner in which the Local Government Board conducted their affairs. Although they might make some small concession, he intended to take a Division against the Vote, in order to mark his dissatisfaction with the way in which the Business of this Department was administered.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 27: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 165.)
The next Six Resolutions agreed to.
Twelfth Resolution read a second time.
MR. SEXTONsaid, when this Vote was discussed in Committee on the previous day, a question was asked of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) to which, perhaps, he could now reply, in reference to the Calendar of Instruments and Entries in the Public Record Office relating to Ireland prior to the Reign of Henry VII. For this purpose the sum voted last year was £400; but in the present Estimates there was no such item. What was the reason for the reduction? Was the Calendar complete? If not, how soon would it be completed? He hoped the hon. Gentleman could satisfy Irish Members that the Calendar would not suffer from the cessation of the grant.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had made inquiries, and had ascertained that the compilation of the Calendar was going on, and he hoped not with diminished speed; but the work was now undertaken by the permanent officials of the Office, in office hours, and the expense was covered by salaries in the regular way.
Twelfth Resolution agreed to.
Thirteenth Resolution agreed to.
Fourteenth Resolution read a second time.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury a question in reference to the distribution of Acts of Parliament passed during the Session to Members of the House, and he was told he could ascertain at the Vote Office. He had inquired; but was told at the Vote Office that they knew nothing about such Acts; they had received none, and had no order to distribute them. He thought Members should have them as they came out. Would the hon. Gentleman take steps to have them supplied?
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought they must have been withheld on the supposition that they would be supplied in bound volumes. He would make inquiries.
COLONEL KING-HARMANasked, had they been issued in bound volumes?
MR. COURTNEYsaid, no; but it was suggested that many Members would desire them in that form.
Fourteenth Resolution agreed to.

DEAN FOREST AND HUNDRED OF SAINT BRIAVELS BILL.
(Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
DEAN FOREST AND HUNDRED OF SAINT BRIAVELS BILL.

  [BILL 184.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WARTONsaid, was it really intended to go on with this Bill? He was told there was a Commission of Inquiry into the ancient rights and privileges of the foresters of Dean, and that their Report would have reference to matters connected with the Bill. Was it not a farce to postpone the Bill from day to day, when there would not be time to carry it during the Session?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that when the hon. and learned Member rose he (Mr. Courtney) was on the point of moving that the Order be discharged.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for the Second Reading of the said Bill be discharged,"—(Mr. Courtney,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill withdrawn.

POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]
(Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Gray, Mr. Mayne, Mr. Mr. O'Sullivan, Mr. Marum.)
POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Amendment he begged to move was to insert a new clause after Clause 8 (or Clause 9 in the Bill as reprinted); and on the list of Amendments he had drawn up, it would be observed that, at the end of Clause 9, he had a Motion to insert the words, after the word "polling," "except as hereinafter provided," which would bring in the new clause he now proposed. The clause was a very simple one, and was entirely founded on remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in a previous discussion. The right hon. Gentleman, in addressing himself to the question of the proxy vote, acknowledged that the

  1561
  proxy vote was right and proper to be used. The right hon. Gentleman objected to giving the right to absentees; but he expressed himself as agreeing to the argument that a man who held property in several Unions, or separate divisions of one Union, could not possibly vote personally at a great many different places; and it would be in the recollection of the House that, while the right hon. Gentleman objected to confer the right on absentees, he agreed that a man resident in the county who did, or tried to do, the duties incident to his position, should not be deprived of the right of representation when he paid his taxes, and that while he attended in person at one polling district he should be allowed to vote by registered letter in other districts where he had the right to vote. This was perfectly fair and right. He (Colonel King-Harman) did not assent to the abolition of the proxy vote; but upon the unasked for statement of the right hon. Gentleman he placed this clause before the House, and asked them, not wishing to occupy time at that late hour, to judge it by the words of the right hon. Gentleman.
  New Clause—
  (Recording vote by registered letter.)
  "Any person owning rateable property entitling him to vote in more than one Union, or in more than one division of any electoral Union, and who shall in person attend and vote at one place of polling, shall be entitled to record his vote for each and every other electoral division for which he is a registered elector, by means of a registered letter addressed to the Returning Officer;
  "Any woman entitled to a vote at a Poor Law election shall be allowed to vote in like manner by registered letter,"—(Colonel King-Harman,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he trusted the Government would not accept this proposal. If the Tory Party wished, to insert such a clause let them do it in the House of Lords; their Lordships, he understood, intended to mutilate the Bill there as much as they could. It would be monstrous to go behind all former electoral law to introduce a state of things in Ireland unknown to ordinary law. The tendency of the modern system of election was to abolish these proxy votes of
  1562
  landlords. If men would not take the trouble to attend personally to register their votes, surely they were not persons who should have votes. He hoped the Government would not accept the clause; but, if they did, let there be a clear understanding how many votes a landlord was to be entitled to give. Could he give his 18 votes by registered letter? Practically, as the Amendment stood, it provided a man should record his vote. Was it intended to be read in the singular number, one vote? [Colonel KING-HARMAN: No.] Then it meant 18 votes by registered letter. Did the Government mean to state that a man who would not attend in person could give 18 votes by letter?
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was surprised at the hesitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; surely he had no serious intention of accepting the clause? Apart altogether from the fact that it was an effort to restore the proxy vote already abolished, the clause, if engrafted on the Bill, would be quite unworkable. How was the clerk of a Union, who presided at an election, to know whether a person who sent a registered communication was actually occupied in voting in another Union? This was the principle upon which the clause was based—that a man occupied in voting in one division could not attend in another—that was the only reason upon which the proposer of the clause defended it. How could the presiding officer know whether a person who sent a letter was occupied in voting in another Union in the same, or in a distant county, perhaps 100 miles away? And then with regard to electoral divisions of the same Union, how would it inconvenience a man registering his vote in the board room, to record his vote for eight or 10 electoral divisions on the same day? If he attended at the Poor Law Board Room, and if he had property in ten electoral divisions, he could record his vote for all. In fact, the clause was a sham, an attempt to re-enact the proxy vote. And, again, the clause proposed to give women the right to vote by letter. That was altogether contrary to the principle of the ballot. The letter would go to the clerk of the Union; he would have to see if the proper number of votes were given, and the clerk would know how every woman voted. That

  1563
  was altogether contrary to the spirit of the ballot.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Harrington) had remarked upon what he termed hesitation on his (Mr. Trevelyan's) part; but he rose at the same time as the hon. Member, and the only reason why he did not rise immediately after the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) was, that he had expressed himself very decidedly in the second reading debate, and again in Committee. He had placed Amendments on the Paper, which he must not now particularly refer to, especially as he proposed to move one which he hoped would meet with general approbation. It was a question not so much of principle as of practice, and he would express the opinion of the Government, and the decision arrived at after two or three years' consideration. His argument against the proxy vote was given on the second reading. He met the possible argument in favour of it; first, by the clause about triennial elections; and, next, by stating that the Local Government Board would use their power in naming the days of election, so that elections should take place on different days in different electoral divisions; which would enable the Returning Officer to do his duty more thoroughly and efficiently. The Government were satisfied that if the ballot were adopted in Poor Law elections throughout the United Kingdom, it would be altogether inconsistent with that to accept the clause, or sanction the proxy vote.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Trevelyan) gave this as the result of consideration by the Government for two or three years. Why, it was only nine or ten months since the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested a similar Amendment from the Treasury Bench. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) had merely transcribed, in the form of a clause, the very words the right hon. Gentleman had used, and it was rather cool on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to convey that the Government were against it all through; and when they came down to a subsequent Amendment, it would be found that, instead of two or three years' consideration, the Government had actually changed their minds since the last time the Bill was
  1564
  before the House on what might be said was more mature deliberation. The clause did not propose any privilege or special advantage to the landlords—nothing of the kind; it was merely a clause that endeavoured to save them from disfranchisement; that a landlord who had to pay half the poor rates, who had property in more than one Union, should be enabled to register his vote in Unions whore he would be unable to attend, in consequence of being engaged in registering his vote in person in one particular Union. If his hon. and gallant Friend wont to a Division he should support the Amendment.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the decision at which the Government had arrived was the only reasonable course open to them. The Constitution recognized three methods of voting—by word of mouth, by ballot, and by proxy; but this novelty, born in the brain of the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), voting by registered letter, was one that assuredly could not command acceptance for a moment. His hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) had pointed out, with conclusive force, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when drafting that part of his clause relating to electoral divisions, could not have known what he was writing about; for, no matter in how many electoral divisions a man's property might be situated, he could concentrate all his votes for the division by recording them at the workhouse; he could vote centrally for all the electoral divisions.
  COLONEL KING - HARMANasked, where did the hon. Member find that in the Bill?
  MR. SEXTON, in reply, asked where could the opposite be found? As to landlords who owned property in different Unions, the number was few; and it was monstrous to propose a general principle for their convenience; it was nothing less than an attack on an essential principle of the Bill. In the 4th and 9th clauses, the Bill recited that from and after the passing of the Act elections should be held by ballot. From and after the passing of the Act, votes in every contested Poor Law election would be given by ballot, the 9th clause providing that every voter should attend in person at the place appointed for voting; but the clause would create a

  1565
  class of persons who should vote by registered letter, and he could only say that no device could be more fruitful of fraud and deceit than this privilege to vote by registered letter. He was not aware that in Parliamentary elections facilities were reserved for the physical convenience of persons entitled to give votes in different constituencies; he was not aware that sheriffs had to fix elections at such different days that the fortunate pluralist voter could exercise his Constitutional power to the utmost; and if that was not so in Parliamentary, why should it be so in Poor Law elections? As to the proposal that women should vote by registered letter, he thought that any reason that existed against the clause in the case of men was much more marked in the case of women—it would be equivalent to denying them the ballot; it would apply to them all the risks of an open vote; it would leave the sex most open to influence, most requiring protection, open to all the influences of intimidation.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had never heard such a change of opinion executed by the Government with so little excuse or palliation. The clause now proposed to be added to the Bill was exactly the putting on the Paper a suggestion made last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had not stated since then one word in defence of the alteration of his opinion; and the very argument put forward, that provision would be made by the Local Government Board, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with last year, and treated as wholly illusory. He had said nothing whatever to explain why he had changed his view. It was a surrender for the convenience of the Government—a surrender in which they gave up a valuable principle of justice to landlords, who might pay half the rates; and it exhibited, to an extraordinary extent, the undisguised, the undefended inconsistencies manifested on their part.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he could scarcely believe the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel King-Harman) was serious in his Amendment. The framework of the clause itself was contradictory; it proposed to give landlords the power to register one vote by registered letter; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he did not mean that—
  1566
  he meant the multiple vote. The fact was, the clause did not read with the Bill; it was incongruous. The one single argument put forward in its favour was that last year the Chief Secretary for Ireland said something which was construed into acceptance of the clause. But that was not a good argument for the House, whatever it might be against the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman, who might have changed his mind. No attempt had been made to justify the clause to the House; and, as a matter of fact, there was no justification.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 71: Majority 38. — (Div. List, No. 166.)
  Clause 3 (Definitions).
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to the clause, to make it clear that the prescribed Order was to be issued by the Local Government Board. The Amendment was a verbal one, and would, no doubt, be agreed to by the House.
  Amendment proposed, in page, line 1 24, after the word "issued," insert the words "by the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he proposed to meet the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) in another form—namely, by leaving out the words "to the fifth section of this Act."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, leave out "to the fifth section of this Act."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.
  Clause 4 (Guardians to hold office for three years).
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "three" years, and insert "two" on page 2, line 6. The principle involved, however, was not of very great importance, and he should not think it necessary to move it; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether

  1567
  they were still of the same opinion as that which they held before with regard to the duration of this Act? He would be glad to know why the right hon. Gentleman now proposed three years instead of two.
  [No reply.]
  Clause 11 (A day to be fixed to hear claims of persons omitted from lists).
  MR. HEALYsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Small), he rose to move the Amendment standing in the name of that hon. Gentleman, which had for its object to facilitate the attaining of copies of the Register for electoral divisions.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, at end of Clause, insert, "and every returning officer shall, on demand, furnish to any person requiring the same a copy of the Register for any electoral division, at a charge not exceeding one shilling for each hundred names, or fraction of a hundred names, contained therein."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 25 (No minor entitled to vote. Fresh election to be ordered forthwith on vacancy. Justice of peace not to be qualified as ex-officio guardian unless a ratepayer).
  MR. HEALYsaid, he proposed to reinstate the words "shall forthwith" in place of those which had been added by the Government—namely, that the Board
  "May, if they think fit, and shall, if applied to by the Board of Guardians, among whom the vacancy exists,"
  order a vacancy to be filled up. He desired to look at the possible effect of the Bill as it had been amended. Supposing that the Nationalists had a majority on the Board of Guardians, and the Tory Party had a vacancy, it was clear that the Nationalists might prevent the election of the Tory candidate by failing to do anything in the matter. The effect of the clause as it stood would be undoubtedly to give the decision, as to whether a vacancy should be filled up or not, to the majority of the Board. He trusted the House would agree to the Amendment he was about to propose, which simply restored the Bill to its original form; whereas the Amendment of the Government was framed in
  1568
  such a way as, in his opinion, to leave great room for partizan action.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 23, after "Board," to leave out the words "may, if they think fit, and shall, if applied to by the Board of Guardians among whom the vacancy exists," and insert the words "shall forthwith,"—(Mr. Healy,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, this was rather a matter of confidence in the Local Government Board. If a case of distinct injustice on the part of the majority of a Board of Guardians were brought to the notice of the Local Government Board as at present constituted, he felt satisfied that they would order a new election. It was rather a question in this case of postponing an election for two or three weeks; and he thought it was a matter which might safely be trusted to the combined good sense of the Local Government Board and that of the Board of Guardians. He did not think that the clause as amended was practically open to the comment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in reference to the case which he had supposed.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, notwithstanding the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, cases would undoubtedly arise in which there would be no community of feeling between the Local Government Board and the Boards of Guardians. The right hon. Gentleman had declared at the Table that the question was one of postponing an election for a short time—that was to say, for a week, or a month, or any reasonable period—which Irish Members were perfectly willing to agree to; but the clause gave power to the Guardians to postpone the election of a candidate until the next triennial election.
  MR. WARTONsaid, the majority might be on one side or the other; and there might also be an equilibrium, in which case there would be a dead-lock. Therefore, he thought that the word "forthwith" would hardly meet the object in view. He suggested that words should be inserted to make it clear that the election should take place, say, within a month or two.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Local Government Board would act of its own free will in the case of a vacancy. If the Guardians did not apply, the Local Government Board, upon the representation of the case, might themselves see fit to order an election.
  MR. HEALY: We do not trust the Local Government Board.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would admit some provision into the clause which would restrict the action of the Local Government Board. As the clause stood, the Local Government Board, if the majority of the Guardians took no action in respect of a fresh election, might actually permit the vacancy to exist for three years, short of one day. That was a very extraordinary position of affairs, and could not occur in the election of a Town Councillor or a Member of Parliament, or, indeed, in any other election. If it were merely for the purposes of convenience, in the case of a bye-election, within a fortnight or a month of a triennial election, Irish Members would all grant that the clause was a reasonable one; but there was no such restriction of the clause, and he did not see why the Local Government Board should have the power of permitting a vacancy to exist for three years. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to amend the clause by putting in a period of three months, as the limit during which a vacancy might remain unfilled, he believed that would be agreed to by his hon. Friends.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would be improved if the words "shall within a reasonable time, which shall not exceed three months," were substituted for the words "shall forthwith."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he proposed to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 23, after the word "Board," to leave out the words "may, if they think fit, and shall, if applied to by the Board of Guardians among whom the vacancy exists," in order to insert the words "shall within a reasonable
  1570
  time which shall in no case exceed three months under any circumstances."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Words inserted accordingly.
  Another Amendment made.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 29, at the end, to insert as a new sub-section—"The value of the qualification for elected guardians shall be uniform in all electoral divisions, and shall, by virtue of this Act, be fixed at the net annual value of not less than twelve pounds."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, this was a most extraordinary proposal. It was well known that the general valuation throughout Ireland was £12, and no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the class of men who would be elected under this sub-section. Yet he proposed to lower the qualification, and get, consequently, a lower class of men on the Boards. The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, master of the situation, and could do what he liked in this matter; but he (Colonel King-Harman) believed he was proposing an Amendment which went against his own knowledge and experience, or, at any rate, the experience which he ought to have. It was impossible for him to trouble the House to divide at that hour of the night. All he could do under the circumstances was to protest against this utterly unstatesmanlike proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GRAYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) having entered his protest against the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he (Mr. Gray) would ask the right hon. Gentleman to let the House know what was the meaning of the words "not less than" so far as the Amendment was concerned? He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would consider the propriety of adopting a uniform maximum qualification; but this wording did not satisfy his idea of a maximum qualification; it was a minimum qualification; and, under it, the Local Government Board might find the

  1571
  discretion of fixing the qualification at £50 in one case, and at £12 in another. The exact meaning to be attached to the words appeared to be very doubtful. He thought that what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do was to provide a uniform qualification of £12; and, if that were so, the proper words to use would be "not more than twelve pounds;" because, as the sub-section stood, the Local Government Board might fix £112 as the qualification. [Mr. COURTNEY dissented.] The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury shook his head at that statement; but, surely, the words "not less than" implied, possibly. "more than?"
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that a person would not be qualified with a net annual value of less than £12.
  MR. GRAYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walker) had misunderstood him. As he apprehended the position, it was this—that the Local Government Board had a certain discretionary power to fix the qualification; and, as a matter of fact, it was so. The words would leave the Local Government Board a discretion still, if they had any meaning at all. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what meaning was to be attached to the words? Their plain meaning was, more than, or not less than; and, unless it was restricted by a clear definition to the contrary, the Local Government Board might fix any qualification they thought fit, as long as it was not less than £12, in the case of any Union.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, if the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Gray) would read the clause carefully, he would perceive that the qualification was to be fixed, "by virtue of this Act," at a sum not less than £12.
  MR. GRAY: Exactly. But how much more may it be?
  MR. HEALYsaid, if the Government intended what their Amendment was supposed to mean, they should make it clear that any ratepayer in a Poor Law Union, rated at £12, should be qualified to be elected as Guardian for such Union, and that the value of the qualification should be uniform.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, they were willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy);
  1572
  and he would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment before the House in order that the words of the hon. Member might be substituted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 29, at end, insert as a new sub-section—
  "Any ratepayer in a Poor Law Union, rated at, or exceeding, twelve pounds, shall be qualified to be elected as guardian for any electoral division in such Union, and the value of the qualification shall be uniform in all electoral divisions."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not at all sure that the words proposed to be added to the clause were not open to considerable objection. They seemed to say that the value of all the qualifications in the Union should be £12. [Mr. HEALY: They are Government words.] He was aware of that; but still he was not satisfied that they were not open to objection. Assuming the object of the Government to be what was stated, he admitted at once that the words now proposed were better than those originally moved; but whether the words added to the tail of the clause were not open to the charge of confusion and uncertainty, was altogether another matter. He thought they were. So much for the drafting, which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland would consider. He made these few observations in order to show that the Government were not only generally inconsistent, but that they were unstable in their purpose from day to day, and hour to hour. Why, this Bill had been before the House on two or three occasions last week, and on each of those occasions the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had come down to say that he would consider, with his responsible advisers, whatever turned up in the way of Amendments, and then that the result of his consideration was so and so. The next day he would come down and change a certain wording, and on the following day he would alter the wording so changed. On the last occasion that the Bill was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman gave very powerful reasons to show that uniformity of qualification was a thing

  1573
  which, under existing circumstances, in Ireland was not to be sought for and not to be desired until those circumstances altered; and now he said, by proposing this Amendment, that uniformity of qualification was to be sought for. If the right hon. Gentleman had consulted his legal Colleagues, who necessarily knew more of the position of affairs in the various Unions in Ireland than he could be supposed to know, they—indeed, anyone acquainted with the subject—must have told him that in every county of Ireland the elements of difficulty were to be found, and that it was almost a matter of necessity that the administration should have different scales of valuation applied to each county. While, therefore, like his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), he should not divide the House against the Amendment, he must not be taken as assenting to the principle which had been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that night.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it appeared to him that the words of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would be far better without having the Government words tacked on. The latter were superfluous, if not absolutely absurd. Certainly, he hoped that the Amendment would be put into a reasonable form, and the objectionable words left out.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government were quite willing to take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan as it stood. He remembered, on the last occasion, arguing against the proposal of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite that it would be no qualification at all; but, certainly, he did not remember arguing against a uniform qualification.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Words inserted accordingly.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he now proposed to move a sub-section, worded as follows:—
  "(5.) The number of ex-officio guardians of any Poor Law Union shall in no case exceed one-third of the number of guardians to be elected by the ratepayers of such Union, and, in every case in which the number of justices qualified to be such ex-officio guardians shall exceed one-third of the whole number of guardians to be elected by the ratepayers, the justices to serve as ex-officio guardians shall be
  1574
  selected from among the qualified justices at the prescribed time after the passing of this Act, and in every third year subsequently, in the manner provided by the twenty-fourth section of the said Act of the Session of the first and second years of the Reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-six."
  "Casual vacancies occurring among the ex-officio guardians shall be filled up in like manner at a meeting convened for the purpose at the prescribed time."
  In proposing those words, his desire was to make the Irish system as far as possible the same as the English system, except in certain particulars, in which Her Majesty's Government considered that very great improvements had been made—that was to say, in respect of the vote by ballot and the more rapid means of voting. The number of ex officio Guardians had never, or scarcely ever, been one-third of the number of Guardians, and it was very often below that proportion. It was true that it could be so in England; because, in those Poor Law Unions in the Metropolis, where there was nothing like an adequate number of Justices of the Peace as ex officio Guardians, it was the custom of the Local Government Board to appoint ex officio Guardians who were not Justices of the Peace, and they had been limited to the proportion of one-third. The object of having ex officio Guardians was to get men who would attend, and that object was not at present fulfilled in Ireland. They wanted men who would attend the meetings constantly, and do the work that was to be done; but there were, under the present system, a considerable number of absentees and persons who had little or no interest in the work of the Poor Law Board. He had been very anxious to find some means by which the most efficient magistrates might be chosen for the purpose of the Poor Law Board, and he was glad to find that such machinery was ready to his hand in an Act passed at the beginning of Her Majesty's Reign. He proposed, therefore, to add to the Amendment on the Paper the words which he had read to the House at the commencement of his present statement. The manner of the election would be that the Justices assembled with the senior Justice as Chairman would elect those of their number whom they thought would make the best ex officio Guardians, and whom they thought would serve most continuously. In this way only those would be chosen who

  1575
  would do the work really; whereas the grievance was that a great number of persons who were only Guardians in name were appointed, and they only attended when there was patronage being distributed, or when the Chairman was to be elected. Those who would be chosen would be made to feel that they had to work.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words,—"(5.) The number of ex-officio guardians of any Poor Law Union shall in no case exceed one-third of the number of guardians to be elected by the ratepayers of such Union, and, in every case in which the number of justices qualified to be such ex-officio guardians shall exceed one-third of the whole number of guardians to be elected by the ratepayers, the justices to serve as ex-officio guardians shall be selected from among the qualified justices at the prescribed time after the passing of this Act, and in every third year subsequently, in the manner provided by the twenty-fourth section of the said Act of the Session of the first and second years of the Reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-six; casual vacancies occurring among the ex-officio guardians shall be filled up in like manner at a meeting convened for the purpose at the prescribed time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GRAYsaid, that if this Amendment were agreed to, it would have a very different effect from the one previously proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the best men in each case would be selected, and that, consequently, there would be a great improvement in the Boards of Guardians; but he (Mr. Gray) was decidedly of opinion that the reverse would be the case. The selection would not be made on the ground of their attendance, or through special capacity, but purely and exclusively on Party grounds, and the enormous majority of those qualified to be ex officio Guardians were of one Party in politics and religion. In many of the Unions, at present, some of the Magistrates and Guardians were of different politics from the majority of the magistrates resident in the Union. In Dublin, for instance, certain magistrates, ex officio members of Poor Law Boards, were Liberals and Catholics; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, who must know something about the Justices of Dublin, what chance any one of these magistrates would have, no matter how competent he was, or how
  1576
  regular in his attendance, of being selected as a representative of the magistrates of Dublin? Not a glimmer of a chance. And the result would be that in every Poor Law Board there would be a compact body of one-third elected by an exclusive and rather bigoted constituency, and those men would be all of one political Party and of one religion, and occupying a purely political and Party position on the Board. That would introduce an element of Party strife in the Boards in Ireland, and, he believed, would make the state of things worse than they now were. He could scarcely believe the right hon. Gentleman had considered what would be the effect of his Amendment in the present state of affairs in Ireland. The Amendment was certainly most unwise and unfortunate; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it further before he pressed it, because the effect would be to completely expel from the Unions any man of Liberal opinions or Catholic religion.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would not argue as the hon. Member (Mr. Gray) had done as to what would be the case; but he would deal with what they had been told was the case before the Act was altered. It had been stated that the Catholic and the Protestant magistrates had no bitter feeling between them; but the Protestant magistrates used to help the Protestant Guardians as they required it. At present, there was no bitter feeling; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland was taking the best course to bring that about. He (Colonel Nolan) himself was Chairman of a Board of Guardians; but, if he wanted to be elected, he must please the majority of the magistrates; otherwise he should not be elected. Then he would also have to please the majority of the ratepayers; but he did not think he could please both parties, and if there was any feeling of bitterness, he should not get elected. No man who was a popular man with the people could be elected a member of a Poor Law Board.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought it was easy to see why the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) objected to the proposal of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had told them of one or two matters which were grievances, especially with regard to the Guardians; but the greates

  1577
  evil in the matter was being under the management of one who knew less now about the subject than when he first went to Ireland, and who changed his mind three times in three days. On Tuesday morning, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) brought in an Amendment to this Bill couched in the very words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. On Wednesday morning, it was debated at length and passed, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland speaking for the right hon. Gentleman; but, on Thursday morning, they found the clause which was left out, at the instance of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, put in by the same right hon. Gentleman now in the same words. Was there ever a more extraordinary instance of absolute ignorance or unblushing tergiversation? Last year the right hon. Gentleman announced a principle which he had now abandoned; and the opinions he formed on Tuesday, he changed on Wednesday, and abandoned on Thursday. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had given very cogent reasons for bringing in Clause 5. He said that in England the ex officio Guardians were only one-third; but he (Colonel King-Harman) thought he might say he knew they were not limited in any way, and that every magistrate was an ex officio Guardian. He thought that the action of the right hon. Gentleman was a sufficient indication of the course he intended to pursue.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that one-third would be only one-fourth, because the one-third would have to be elected.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) that this expression was used in all the previous Acts, and it would be read in the same way. Elected Guardians meant all the Guardians, whether ex officio or not.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 30: Majority 30. — (Div. List, No. 167.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, that with regard to the number of votes each ratepayer should be entitled to, he would move that it should be "twelve" in order to make it the same as the English law.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment for
  1578
  the reasons he had stated the other day.
  MR. HEALY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, declare the law? Will he not say that no ratepayer shall be entitled to more than a certain number of votes—say 18? Will he not say that 18 votes shall be the most a man shall exercise? I will move the following Proviso at end of Clause 25:—
  "(4.) No ratepayer shall be entitled, at any Poor Law Guardian election, to more than eighteen votes for each of the number of candidates to be elected in any electoral division."
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, at end, add—
  "(4.) No ratepayer shall be entitled, at any Poor Law Guardian election, to more than eighteen votes for each of the number of candidates to be elected in any electoral division."—(Mr. Healy.)
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he should be content to accept that Amendment. No doubt, it would be well to accept such a provision to prevent the officers who had to deal with the matter from making mistakes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Words added accordingly.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would move to insert—
  "(7.) The words 'salary or emolument,' as employed in twenty-five and twenty-six Victoria, chapter eighty-three, section twenty-two, shall be held to include superannuation allowances."
  Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert—
  "(7.) The words 'salary or emolument,' as employed in twenty-five and twenty-six Victoria, chapter eighty-three, section twenty-two, shall be held to include superannuation allowances."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was afraid this Amendment was more than declaratory. The law allowed a pensioner to hold office as an elected Guardian, just as a Treasury pensioner could hold such office. It seemed to him that the principle of the proposed Amendment was one which they should not hastily adopt.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that if he might, with the indulgence of the House, make an observation, he would point out that he had accepted the suggestion of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.

  1579
  This Amendment was not retrospective, but prospective. Therefore, no one could be damnified by it. It would affect no one at the present moment.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, even under these circumstances, he should have an objection to it; because he thought that, as far as it would have an operation in the future, that operation would be unfortunate. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the Guardians of the services of gentlemen who might be peculiarity fitted to serve on the Board.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I would now, with the indulgence of the House, ask that this Bill be read a third time.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That this Bill be now read a third time." Any who are of that opinion will say "Aye;" contrary, "No."
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I say "No," in order that the third reading may not be described as having passed neminê contradicente.
  MR. SPEAKER: The "Ayes" have it.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [ADVANCES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or out of moneys in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners held on account of Savings Banks, of any sum of money, not exceeding £3,000,000 in the whole, to enable the Public Works Loans Commissioners, and, not exceeding £1,200,000 in the whole, to enable the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to make advances in promotion of Public Works.
  2. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise further advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of any sum or sums of money, not exceeding £500,000 in the whole, to enable the Land Commission in Ireland to make advances or for the purchase of estates, in pursuance of "The Land Law (Ireland,) Act, 1881," or in pursuance of "The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883."
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock in the morning.