Commons Sitting of 14 July 1885

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN — Lord Arthur Hill, for County of Down.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES — CLASS IV. —EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; Votes 1, 2, 11; CLASS III. —LAW AND JUSTICE; Votes 5 to 16, 18 to 20; CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; Vote 1
Resolutions [July 13] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended —Rathmines and Rathgar Township.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered —First Reading—Marriages (Saint John Cowley)*[234].
Second Reading —Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Public Health Act) (No. 2)* [2121; Ecclesiastical Commissioners* [227].
Committee—Summary Jurisdiction (Term of Imprisonment)*[180]—R.P.; Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) [99]—R.p.
Committee—Report—Public Health (Members and Officers) [114].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Pole-hampton Estates*[216]; Cholera Hospitals (Ireland)* [231], and passed.
Report—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2)*[207]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Public Health Act) (No. 1)*[162]; Metropolis (Hughes Fields, Deptford) Provisional Order Confirmation*[205]; Metropolis (Tabard Street, Newington) Provisional Order Confirmation*[204].
Considered as amended —Copyhold Enfranchisement [26].
Third Reading— Post Office Sites*[193], and passed.
Withdrawn — Law of Evidence (Criminal Cases)*[65].

RATHMINES AND RATHGAR TOWNSHIP BILL [Lords] {by Order)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 11 (Persons qualified to vote for Commissioners).
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the first Amendment which appeared on the Paper in his name. It was not the Amendment which stood on the Paper yesterday, but a further Amendment, which would precede the one he had intended to move. The original Amendment proposed to omit the words "to the yearly value of ten pounds," and the
  636
  clause would then provide that the electors should consist of all male persons of full age who were rated to the Rathmines and Rathgar Township rate. The Amendment which he now proposed to move, in the first instance, would, if accepted by the House, substitute the "poor" rate for the Rathmines and Rathgar Township rate. His object was to leave out the annual £10 ratal value which existed in Rathmines and Rathgar, and some other townships. The franchise of the Irish townships was not uniform; and in some of the townships immediately adjoining Rathmines and Rathgar it was only about one-half what it was in the township of Rathmines and Rathgar itself. Now, the £10 ratal franchise which existed in the Irish towns was about equivalent to a £20 franchise in this country, the difference between the ratal and the rental value in the Irish towns being very much greater than in England; and it was computed that a nominal £10 ratal in Ireland was about equivalent, in the majority of cases, to an £ 18 rental in the rest of the United Kingdom. The majority of Members in that House were now committed to a reduction both of the Municipal and Parliamentary franchise in Ireland; and he believed that more than one-half of the Members in the House had, at one time or other, voted in favour of that principle.X As one of the Members of the Royal Commission, over which, indeed, he had had the honour to preside, he had become acquainted, through the evidence adduced before it, with the pressing character of the evils which now existed in Ireland with regard to municipal representation, and of the necessity which existed for a reduction in the borough franchise. He was not able to refer in detail to the statements contained in the Report of the Commission, nor did he think that he would be justified in referring in detail to the evidence given before the Commission, inasmuch as the Report of the Commission and the evidence were not yet in the hands of the House. He hoped, however, that the Report would be issued in the course of a few days. Under those circumstances, he was only justified in stating to the House the impression which the evidence given before the Commission had produced upon his own mind. The evidence of witness

  637
  after witness given before the Commission—and he was bound to say that it was most uniform evidence—the evidence of witnesses belonging to every political Party from all parts of Ireland was of the strongest possible kind as to the effect of the very high franchise which at present existed in the Irish townships. The statement which was heard everywhere was that the franchise was limited to a certain class of people, by whom the representatives returned to the Irish municipalities wore only capable of being elected. The effect in regard to the Town Commissionerships was to place the entire power, so far as election and administration was concerned, in the hands of a small ring of persons, upon whom the general public opinion of the locality could have no bearing whatever. The result of that was seen in the extreme difficulty which there was of securing a proper administration of the Sanitary Laws in the Irish townships, and in the fact that the death rate in the Irish towns was three-fold that of the rural districts in Ireland.' With regard to this particular Bill, the Rathmines and Rathgar Town Commissioners had taken objection to it at the last moment. It was a subject to which he had paid attention for Some years; but this particular case had only been brought before him in a prominent way in the recent inquiry. He said that by way of explanation to the House for not having taken this action before. If the Bill related to an English town, or to an English Local Board District, there would have been a Report made upon it, going through the Bill clause by clause, by the Local Government Board. But in Ireland that was not the case. The Local Government Board in Ireland was not in the habit of reporting generally upon Irish Private Bills, but only upon specific points brought before them. The Irish Local Government Board did not report on Private Bills clause by clause in the way in which Private Bills were reported upon by the Local Government Board in England, or by the Board of Trade, where they related to improvements concerning trade, or by the Home Office under the system lately introduced by his hon. Friend the late Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler). A Report, however, was made to his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and
  638
  Means (Sir Arthur Otway) by the Local Government Board of Ireland to the effect that an application was made by the promoters for a Bill without the sanction or approval of the Board; but the Secretary of the Board intimated that the Board were not aware of any objection to the proposals contained in the Bill. That Report, he might say, had regard to the financial proposals contained in the Bill. The Local Government Board of Ireland did not consider the merits of the scheme contained in a Private Bill, nor did they express approval or disapproval in this particular case of the provision to re-enact the £10 ratal franchise. There was no Report from any Public Department in Ireland which could be referred to the Chairman of Ways and Means. The ordinary qualification — the qualification in the case of the majority of Irish towns—was a £5 rating franchise, which was about equal to a rental of £9 or £10. The qualification in one case was as low as £4; but he believed that the average qualification was £5. In Kingstown he fancied that it was £4; but, at all events, if an inquiry were made hon. Members would find that £5 was the qualification in a majority of cases for the election of Town Commissioners. The Royal Commission of which he was a Member took some evidence upon that point, and he had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the able and excellent Secretary of the Rathgar and Rathmines Town Commissioners. That gentleman said to the Commission, in the course of his examination, that there had been certain complaints in Rathmines and Rathgar in regard to the over-representation of property as compared with the representation of the inhabitants generally. The Town Commission, of course, was not prepared to admit the fact; but it was acknowledged that such a complaint had been made. Generally speaking, there could be no doubt that throughout Ireland it was the almost universal opinion that the effect of this very high franchise, which, in this case, answered to an £18 rental qualification, was such as to limit to a very great extent the number of electors and the persons who wore qualified to be elected upon the Town Commission, and therefore prevent them from being able to carry out sanitary improvements on a large scale, because,

  639
  as he had said, whenever improvements of that kind were to be carried out, it was necessary that they should have the general support of the mass of the people of the locality. He did not hesitate to say himself—he did not know what the effect might be which would be made on the House by the Report of the Royal Commission, and the evidence taken in connection with it—but his own opinion was very strong that sanitary improvements were altogether hindered in Ireland by the very high franchise which prevailed in regard to local affairs. He now came to the circumstances under which he thought the form of Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper would put this question in a more satisfactory position in future. As he had already explained, he had originally intended to move the Amendment which stood second on the Paper, and the reason why he had changed that intention was because he discovered that in the township of Rathmines and Rathgar it was the practice not to rate persons below £10. A somewhat similar system formerly existed in England; but it was altered by the Reform Act of 1868, and by the Act which was passed by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Groschen) in 1871. Under the present law a tenant, in a case where the landlord compounded for the rates, was entitled to have his name returned, and to appear as the ratepayer in the book. That system had been applied to Ireland with regard to the Parliamentary elections by the recent Registration Act, and it extended to Ireland the same principle which the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had introduced in regard to this country. The Amendment which he proposed to move would have the effect of creating a £4 rateable franchise, which was the poor rate franchise, instead of the existing qualification. He believed that the present poor rate franchise in Ireland was a £4 franchise—that was to say, that no persons below that amount were rated, and, therefore, had no power to take part in the Poor Law elections. In a statement which had been circulated on the part of the Rathgar and Rathmines Commissioners, they stated that this clause of the Bill followed the lines laid down in an Act passed in 1847; but the words "Rathmines and Rathgar township rate" had been substituted for
  640
  the words "poors rate." He proposed to return to the words "poors rate," and to take out the £10 limit, the effect of which would be to reduce the franchise to a £7 or £8 rental qualification. That would be a great improvement upon the £18 rental franchise which the Bill, as it stood at present, would continue without alteration. He did not know that it was necessary that he should refer the House to former Private Acts of this particular Body; and he would only deal, before he sat down, with an objection which might possibly be taken to the Motion he now made. The most likely objection he could foresee was this—"We admit that it is probable it may be desirable to reduce the borough franchise in Ireland, or the franchise for the election of Town Commissioners, and, indeed, all the local franchises in Ireland. But, although we admit that, we should not be prepared to reduce the franchise in the case of the first Private Bill which comes before the House this Session in which the question is raised. He had considered that objection, believing that it might probably be taken to his present action. Of course, it might have some weight with the House, and some hon. Members might be persuaded by that view to refuse to alter the franchise in an exceptional case. He, therefore, felt fully the responsibility of the course he was taking; but, in the face of all the facts which had come to his knowledge, he felt that he could not be a party to the continuance of the present high franchise He, therefore, felt bound to press this Amendment on the attention of the House, even although it might seem hard upon the promoters of one particular Private Bill. At the same time, he did not see in what way the promoters of this Private Bill would be damnified by the lowering of the franchise in this township. With regard to the Bill itself, he could not speak from personal knowledge of the prudence or wisdom of the provisions contained in it; but if the scheme which the promoters had in view was a good scheme it could harm them to reduce the franchise in the way proposed.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 15, by leaving out the words "Rathmines and Rathgar Township," and inserting the word"Poors."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Rathmines and Rathgar Township' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. ION HAMILTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was very candid in admitting that his Amendment would convert the Bill into a Franchise Bill; but he seemed to overlook the fact that it would become part of an Act under which the townships of the county of Dublin had been constituted, and that it would introduce a condition of things which had never yet been taken into consideration by the people of that county. By the Improvement Act of 1847 the qualification of voters for the election of Town Commissioners was fixed and adopted, and he would appeal to the right hon. Baronet not to press the Amendment for this reason. There had never been any objection raised, as far as he was aware, to the existing qualification; and at that late period of the Session, if the Amendment were adopted, the Bill would have to be returned and reconsidered in the House of Lords, where it would run a good chance of being rejected, and the consequence would be that this important township would lose all the valuable improvements which were proposed to be carried out under the Bill. He believed that the right hon. Baronet was earnest in his wish to lower the franchise; but it would be more desirable that he should introduce a special measure for that purpose, which should apply to all of the Irish townships, rather than press an Amendment which would only carry out his object partially, seeing that it would apply to one township in the county of Dublin only, and would have no effect upon the other townships returning Town Commissioners. He, therefore, trusted that the House would not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, but would agree to pass the Bill as it stood, its provisions having already been fully considered in "another place," and also because the question now raised was an entirely new subject.
  MR. JESSE CODLINGSsaid, that he was not surprised that his right hon. Friend should have felt his duty to bring this matter forward. He thought that any hon. Member, or any Englishman who had sat upon the Royal Commission and heard the evidence given in Ireland, must have been struck with the farce, if
  642
  he might so call it, of the municipal government which existed in that country, so far as municipal government was understood in England. The rating qualification in the Sister Country was so high, so complex, and so calculated to prevent anything like real representation, that he, for one, was not astonished to find how few people, oven in populous boroughs, had the command and management of the business of the locality. He ventured to say that, in comparison with England, one of the chief drawbacks to all sanitary reform, and to the carrying out of public works and improvements in boroughs and localities of Ireland, was that the representation was so limited, and limited by the franchise being so high. It was quite evident that the poorer classes were compelled to suffer from that state of things, because they had no voice in correcting any evils or abuses which might exist. In point of fact, English Members, who were acquainted with municipal government in this country, did not understand the state of things that existed in Ireland, and he thought his right hon. Friend would have been altogether ignoring and forgetting the experience he had acquired by serving on the Royal Commission if he had not brought this question forward. If hon. Members would look at the Bill they would see that comparatively few representatives would be returned under the restricted franchise, and if they would look at the powers which they would have to exercise he did not think, at any rate at this time of day, that Parliament would be disposed willingly to place such powers in the hands of a body elected under so restricted a franchise. The Commissioners of this township, under the provisions of the Bill, would have power to take lands compulsorily, to purchase property, to sell lands not required, to borrow money to create township stock, and, in fact, would enjoy all the powers which belonged to a thoroughly representative body in England. They knew the difficulty which was often experienced in the exercise of such powers by a really responsible and representative body in England, and yet they were asked to intrust such enormous powers as these to those who were rated at only £10 a-year, which, they were told, amounted in Ireland to a rental of £20. There

  643
  was another question which formed a puzzle to Englishmen—namely, the manner in which the valuation was carried out in Ireland. Hon. Members would see at a glance that by passing the Bill as it stood the affairs of a large borough with a considerable population would be placed in the hands of a few owners of property. He did not see how any English Member who had never been accustomed to that sort of thing could vote for such a measure, and he hoped that his right hon. Friend would persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet who had moved the Amendment would not be deterred by the remarks of the hon. Member for the county of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) from pressing it. The hon. Member said that if it were carried there might be a danger of the Bill not being passed. He (Mr. Gray) did not see why there should be any such danger. There was abundance of time for the passing of the Bill in the course of the present Session, even if it were necessary that the Bill with the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman should go back again to the House of Lords for consideration. It was perfectly possible, however, that valuable and important as the hon. Member described the Bill to be, the promoters would abandon it rather than consent to grant to the township a true representation. He would venture to say the House would find, in the event of these Amendments being carried, that that was really the meaning of the opposition to them of the hon. Member for the county of Dublin. No doubt, it was extremely difficult for an English Member to believe that such a condition of affairs could exist as had been described in this township, and which was proposed to be perpetuated by the provisions of the Bill under consideration. The franchise was very high—quite equal to a £15 or £20 rental franchise. Such a franchise was altogether unknown in any large municipality in England. The Town Commissioners, when elected, held their meetings in secret; they refused to admit any member of the public to their meetings; and it was therefore impossible to know how their business was conducted, or even if it were legally or constitutionally conducted. He was informed that the business was occasionally
  644
  transacted by one man. The meetings were summoned for an early hour in the morning; but the majority of the Commissioners left as soon as their names had been read over and a quorum formed, leaving to a single individual —the Chairman of the Township Board —the entire transaction of the business. The Board persistently refused to carry on any business in the presence of the public; and, more than that, the Commissioners themselves formed a close ring. When the annual vacancies occurred, and one-third or one-fourth of the members of the Board had to be elected, the Commissioners, as a body, issued to a restricted number of owners a list of the names of those whom they desired to see returned, and all the Commissioners who remained in office, together with the outgoing Commissioners, acted together and voted as one for the list submitted by the Commissioners themselves. The result was that, although attempts had been made over and over again to break this ring, it was found absolutely impossible owing to the way in which the Commissioners worked together. This was the body, carrying on its business in that way, which this Bill sought to perpetuate. More than that, whenever a casual vacancy occurred in this body, the Commissioners had power under their Local Acts to co-opt. It would thus be seen that the Town Commissioners of Rathmines and Rathgar were a body who carried on their business in secret, that they issued a house list to the electors, so as to insure the same individuals being elected over and over again, and that they co-opted the casual vacancies. On various occasions within the last five or six years a Municipal Franchise Bill had been introduced into the House of Commons. Sometimes it had only received a second reading, on other occasions it had been sent to the House of Lords and rejected there; but no one could doubt that within the next two years, and probably within the next 12 months, the whole of the municipal system of Ireland would be reformed and an extended system of municipal government passed into law. Probably, hon. Gentleman opposite would vote against it, or be induced themselves to propose a scheme. But the Commissioners knew very well what was coming, and they had brought in this Bill to enable them to

  645
  borrow an enormous sum of money in order that they might carry out a radical change in the administration prior to the reform which they knew to be coming. As one who was deeply interested in the prosperity of Dublin he would prefer, rather than that the intention of the hon. Member for the county of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) should be carried out, that the Bill should be withdrawn altogether. Such a course would be infinitely preferable than that these powers should be granted to an effete and immoral body like the Rathmines and Rathgar Town Commissioners, who would inevitably be swept off the face of the earth in the course of a few years. There was another matter which he ought to mention. On the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman now the Leader of the House, some time ago, a Special Committee was appointed to inquire into the local government of towns in Ireland. The result of the inquiry of that Committee was the recommendation of the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the boundaries of the towns in Ireland. That Commission sat in 1877 and reported at the end of that year, or the beginning of 1878, and recommended as essential and necessary the extension of the boundaries of the City of Dublin, so as to take in this township and certain other townships, and make the nominal boundary conterminous with the real boundary. That recommendation had not been acted upon; but the Commissioners of the township of Rathmines and Rathgar knew that the day was coming very soon when it must be acted upon, and therefore they were anxious to pile up debt in the township and obtain Parliamentary powers of all kinds to strengthen their case against amalgamation, and to prevent the reform of the franchise. Those were the real motives of the Bill now before the House. The right hon. Baronet proposed an Amendment which provided that if the objects contemplated by the Bill wore useful and salutary they should be carried out by an enlarged constituency. He believed that the experience gained in England would be repeated in Ireland, and it would be found that representatives elected by an extended franchise would be far more eager than those elected by a restricted franchise to carry out useful re-
  646
  forms. But if many of the objects suggested were, as he believed them to be, utterly unnecessary, and a mere waste of money, and proposed to be carried out for political, and not for sanitary, purposes, if the township obtained a real and genuine control over its own affairs, it was probable that the wishes of the ratepayers would be consulted. He, therefore, trusted that the right hon. Baronet would be successful in his attempt to secure for one of the townships in the neighbourhood of Dublin a real representation, and he trusted that the House would support him. He was satisfied that every Member from Ireland would, except, perhaps, the two Members for the county of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton and Colonel King-Harman).
  COLONEL KLNG-HARMANsaid, that until the close of the remarks of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) he had been unable to understand the meaning of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). It was quite clear now that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments had been put upon the Paper simply to gratify the spleen of the members of the Corporation of Dublin against the flourishing township of Rathmines and Rathgar. [A laugh from the Irish Members.] Hon. Members opposite might laugh, but for a long time the Corporation had sought to bring this township within the boundary of the city; but the inhabitants knew very well that the moment they became incorporated with the city they would be taxed much more heavily than they were at present, and in a manner that would seriously affect their interests. The right hon. Baronet, in introducing the Amendments, had found no fault with the Bill itself. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had, however, stigmatized it, without the slightest justification, as a job. He need hardly ask the hon. Gentleman to road the Bill through and see whether his statements were correct or not; but he would only say that the Bill had already passed through the House of Lords, and had received very careful consideration in that House. It had since been examined by a Committee of the House of Commons, and nothing wrong had been discovered in its provisions. The hon. Member for Carlow said that it was quite possible, if the

  647
  promoters desired to do so, to pass it through Parliament in the course of the present Session, and that there was plenty of time for doing so; but, as everybody knew, it was a serious matter to make a vital alteration in a Private Bill at this period of the Session. The hon. Member said that he knew nothing of the proceedings of the Commissioners of Rathmines and Rathgar township, and that the public generally knew nothing whatever about them. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to make it a sort of accusation that the business was conducted by one man, and so forth. If the hon. Member said that neither be nor the public knew how the business was transacted, how could he know-that? The fact was very well known that this township, knowing the exceptionally bad management of the Corporation of Dublin, had strenuously and most properly, at great expense, objected to be incorporated with the city. So far as the power was concerned of co-opting whenever a casual vacany occurred, he did not think there was a body of Commissioners in Ireland to whom the power had not been reserved. The power to co-opt when there was a, vacancy was nothing new, and there was nothing corrupt in its exercise. It was exactly the same in this township as it was elsewhere; and the fact of the matter was, that these Amendments were brought forward simply for the purpose of lowering the franchise in one borough in Ireland, and in one borough alone. He did not propose to go into the question whether it was desirable to lower the franchise in Ireland generally; but if the right hon. Baronet thought that such a reduction of the franchise ought to be made, let him bring in a Bill covering the whole of Ireland, and not attack in this insidious manner one township, and one alone. The right hon. Gentleman had informed the House, in an airy sort of way, that the death rate of the large towns in Ireland was very much higher than in England, owing to the want of sanitary improvements.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that what he had said was that the death rate in the Irish towns was higher than in the rural districts of that country. He found that in the South of Ireland the rural death rate was much lower than in the large towns of the country.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANbegged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon if he had misunderstood him. Certainly, so far as the township of Rathmines and Rathgar was concerned, its death rate was much lower than that of Dublin. There could be no doubt whatever that if the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had placed on the Table were accepted by the House, the Bill would be almost certainly lost. [Cheers from the Irish Memlers.] No doubt, that was the object of the hon. Members opposite who cheered. The time and money which had been spent in promoting the Bill would, so far, be lost, and the inhabitants of Rathmines and Rathgar would have to wait for some time longer for the sanitary provisions they were now asking for. He, therefore, trusted that the House would reject the Amendments, which, although proposed to be inserted in a Private Bill, wore, in reality, intended to attack the borough franchise in Ireland, although only in one borough alone.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there were one or two remarks which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) upon which he desired to comment. He thought the hon. and gallant Member had entirely misunderstood the motive of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in bringing forward these Amendments. His right hon. Friend had stated that it was in consequence of information which he had obtained in another capacity, in which, as they all knew, his right hon. Friend had rendered important public service both to England and Ireland, that he had been induced to bring forward this recommendation, and his right hon. Friend had also intimated that when the information obtained by the Royal Commission was brought to light views entirely contrary to those which had been expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be placed on record. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) could not see why the Bill should be abandoned if those Amendments were carried. There could be no difficulty with regard to them. It was just as easy to amend this Bill as it was to amend any other that came down from the House of Lords, unless the promoters were opposed to the Amendments themselves, and preferred

  649
  to take refuge behind the question of time. He could only say that if the statements of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) were correct, and he had no doubt that they were, it would not be an undesirable thing that the Bill should be thrown out, and that this body of Commissioners should be swept away altogether. He strongly objected to a public body being allowed to elect themselves to transact their business in private. Such a thing was utterly unknown in England, and no Member of that House who had taken any part in local administration could justify such a course. That, however, was not the question before the House. The question was simply the Amendment which his right hon. Friend had moved, and the point upon which the House was asked to vote was this—whether, in the same year in which they had passed an Act of Parliament to entitle every householder, no matter what rent he might pay, to vote for a Parliamentary Representative, and at a time when the household franchise existed in this country in reference to the election of the whole of our Municipal and Local Authorities, they were going to keep up in Ireland an £18 rental qualification, for he understood that a £10 ratal meant an £18 rental? [An hon. MEMBER: £15.] At all events, whether it was £18 or £15, there was very little difference, and he could not conceive that any English Member could support so antiquated, so restricted, and so objectionable a franchise.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)said, there was one observation which had fallen from his hon. Friend who had just sat down which he did not agree with. He should very much regret if anything were to occur to interfere with the passing of a Bill which contained provisions for carrying out a variety of useful purposes—not only of a local and domestic character, but also powers for the extension of waterworks and the erection of artizans' and labourers' dwellings. It was true that some of the provisions in the Bill conferred rather extensive powers upon the Commissioners, and it was those powers which seemed to alarm his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). The question might well he asked' whether the Commissioners on whom it was pro-
  650
  posed to confer those powers, and who already possessed similar powers, were exactly the persons who should exercise them, and if they were chosen and put in their present places by the proper constituencies? Now, he must say that, having given a great deal of consideration to this matter after the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the late President of the Local Government Board had been brought under his notice, he had come to the conclusion that it would not be proper to retain the franchise under which those Commissioners were elected. He was, therefore, prepared to advise the House to consent to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. He regretted that his right hon. Friend had altered his Amendment, because, in his opinion, the Amendment was much better as it originally stood on the Paper when his right hon. Friend only proposed to move the omission from the clause of the words "premises to the yearly value of £10."It was now proposed to insert the words" Poor's rate," and the objection was that, although it was made conditional upon the payment of the poor's rate, the poor's rate itself in some of the townships was fixed at a high figure; and he doubted whether the provision would be as valuable as the Amendment which his right hon. Friend had originally intended to propose. Some observations had fallen from hon. Members who had taken part in the debate in reference to the franchise in Ireland generally; and he thought it was right that in a sentence or two he should explain exactly how the question stood. It seemed curious that a franchise of this kind should still exist; but what practically occurred in regard to the Irish towns was this. There were three Acts under which the Local Government of Ireland was carried on—the Acts of 1818 1840, and 1854. By the first Act houses rated at £4 were included, and that was the lowest franchise. That Act governed 11 Irish towns; there were also 11 governed by the Act of 1840, which established a £5 rental; and the last Act gave a £10 rental qualification. Dublin alone had the qualification of household suffrage, accompanied by the payment of rates. It might be observed, in regard to the action of the House of Lords, that the present Bill came before him (Sir Arthur

  651
  Otway), in the first instance, as an unopposed Bill, and the presumption was that when a Bill was unopposed, there was no great objection to it. He was informed that the provisions of the Bill had been made known to the ratepayers of Rathmines and Rathgar at a public meeting, and that public notifications had been issued; that no Petition had been lodged against its provisions, and that ample opportunity had been afforded for notice of objections. Under these circumstances, he had viewed the Bill with some degree of confidence; but when he looked into the matter he came to the conclusion that under the circumstances in which they were living, with the changes that were constantly taking place, although this franchise had been in existence so far back as the year 1847, it was, nevertheless, of so restricted a character that it ought no longer to be retained for any township. He therefore supported the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, and advised the House to assent to it.
  MR. LABOUOHEBEsaid, he was one of those who, upon all questions, was anxious to be guided by the superior wisdom of Her Majesty's Government, and as he saw the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) in his place, and as he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Sir William Hart Dyke) was also in the House, he hoped, before the discussion came to an end, that the House would have the pleasure of hearing those right hon. Gentlemen upon the proposal of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W.Dilkc).
  MR. HEALYremarked that, looking at the statement which had been made by the right hen. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the facts which had been stated by the Members for the county of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton and Colonel King-Harman), as far as he (Mr. Healy) was concerned, and acting entirely upon his own motion, he felt deeply indebted to the right hon. Baronet for his action in the matter.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—-Ayes 92; Noes 141: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 225.)
  Question, "That the word 'Poors' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in moving his next Amendment, in page 11, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words "promises to the yearly value of ten pounds," he hoped he might be allowed to say a word in reply to the observations which had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway). He had copied the words of the 41st section of the Rathmines Act, and according to that Act the township rate was under £10. The effect, therefore, of the Amendment as it originally stood would have been nil, and no effect would have been produced by it, because no property was rated under £10.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved, in Clause 11, line 21, to leave out "and taxes."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved in Clause 11, line 21, to leave out from the words "under the provisions of the former Acts."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Voters qualified by occupying premises in immediate succession).
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved, in line 30, to leave out the words "and taxes."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Revising officer to revise list).
  MR. HEALYmoved, at end, to insert—
  "The eighth section of the Act of the forty-eighth Victoria, chapter seventeen, shall be deemed to be incorporated by this Act; but where the words 'the Registration Acts' occur in the said section, the words 'this Act' shall be substituted."
  The hon. and learned Member said, this Amendment was necessitated by the Amendments which had been adopted at the instance of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The clause proposed that a Revising Barrister of seven years' standing should revise the list of voters between the 20th and 31st of October in each year. He had taken the addition he proposed to insert from the Registration Act, and his object was to give to any person who was dis-

  653
  satisfied with the decision of the Revising Barrister the right of appeal to the High Court of Appeal, as was provided in the Registration Act.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid, he did not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had considered what the effect of this Amendment would be. He (Sir Arthur Otway) could not entirely approve of it, as it was calculated to encourage litigation. He had heard, however, from the promoters of the Bill that if the Amendments of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) were adopted, there would be no objection to insert the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan. They had no objection to it in principle, although they thought that its wording might be advantageously altered.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—ROYAL MARINES AND THE COMMISSARIAT STAFF.
  COLONEL NOLAN (for Colonel COLT-HUKST)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If there is any objection to officers of the Royal Marines volunteering for the Commissariat Staff as probationers?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. RITCHIE): Officers of Royal Marines are not eligible under existing Regulations for transfer as probationers to the Commissariat Staff; but a communication on the subject will be made to the War Office, and when a reply is received, the matter will receive the consideration of the Lords of the Admiralty.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— RECIPIENTS OF MEDICAL RELIEF ONLY.
  MR. SALTasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he can state the number of persons in England and Wales who are in receipt of medical relief charged upon the rates, without being recipients of relief under the Poor Laws in any other form?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A.L BALFOUR): I have no statistics giving the
  654
  information which my hon. Friend desires. I hope, however, on the second reading of the Medical Relief Bill to give some facts to the House which may partially meet his views.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the information he intended to give the House on Thursday on this subject would be based on that received from Inspectors of the Board?
  THE PRESIDENTreplied in the affirmative.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—UNDERGRADUATE OCCUPIERS.
  MR. MARUMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to advise Her Majesty to exercise Her Royal Visitorial Prerogative as appertaining to Colleges of the Universities of the United Kingdom, and especially those of Oxford and Cambridge, with the view of having the "occupation" tenures of any chambers or premises in any of the Colleges or Halls of the same modified, so as more fully to give effect to the repeal of the disfranchising section of the Reform Act of 1832, and so as to extend fully the benefit of the Representation of the People Act to the undergraduates and other occupiers of all those institutions, or whether Her Majesty's Government will adopt such other course, as in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown may effectually carry out the above object and the intention of Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he was advised that the Royal Prerogative was not properly applicable to the circumstances referred to in the Question, and he thought that the persons interested must be left to enforce their rights under the Statute, if advised to do so. The Government, meantime, could not propose any fresh legislation.

TURKEY—THE LIQUOR TRADE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
MR. WHITWORTHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times of July 6th, that the British Consul General at Constantinople has been thwarting the Turkish Government in its attempt to check the liquor trade

655
being carried on there by British subjects?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE), in reply, said, he had seen the report in The Times referred to in the Question, and it appeared to be very eulogistic upon the conduct of General Fawsitt; but no communication had been received at the Foreign Office in respect to it.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — COURT MARTIAL ON SERGEANT M'BRIDE.
MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Can any review be obtained of the sentence of the court martial which ordered Sergeant M'Bride, of the Monaghan Militia, to be dismissed the Service on a charge of intoxication, although seven witnesses deposed to his sobriety on the occasion; and, is it the fact that, when the case for the prosecution closed, another witness against him was called, in opposition to the military regulations, on the pretence of going into a rebutting case, and that M Bride will now lose the pension attached to his six years' service?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am advised that the proceedings of the court martial on Sergeant M' Bride, of the Monaghan Militia, on a charge of drunkenness were quite regular; and there is no reason to suppose that the conviction was improperly obtained. Under these circumstances, it is not intended to interfere with the sentence of reduction to the ranks. The prisoner will lose the increase to his Line pension which would have accrued for good and faithful service with the Militia.

FISHERIES (IRELAND)—DEEP SEA TRAWLING.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether fishermen trawling last July in the deep sea in Ballysodore Bay, on the coast of Sligo, were ordered off by the chief boatman of Portavade coastguard station, and compelled to desist from the pursuit of their avocation by threats of seizure of their boats and trawls; whether the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, on being applied to, stated that "Colonel Cooper, of Markree, possesses the exclusive right of fishing in Ballysodore Bay including Portavade," and that "trawling in Ballysodore Bay
656
or at Portavade without Colonel Cooper's permission is illegal;" what is the nature and extent of Colonel Cooper's right, and whether it entitles him to prevent working fishermen from pursuing their industry in the deep sea, fully three miles from the mouth of any river; and, whether the coastguards are directed to interfere in such a matter, and to make use of threats?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It is a fact that certain fishermen who were trawling last July in Ballysodore Bay were stopped by the Coastguard, who were under the impression that trawling in the place in question was illegal. I am advised that the Coastguard are not directed to interfere in such cases, except where bye-laws exist prohibiting trawling, and there are no such bye-laws in this instance. Colonel Cooper's rights in Ballysodore Bay are defined by a Private Act of Parliament. The Inspectors of Fisheries wrote the letter referred to in the second paragraph of the Question; but six days afterwards, having some doubts on further examination of the map as to whether there had been any infringement of Colonel Cooper's rights, they made a further communication to the fishermen, informing them of the exact bounds of those rights as stated in the Act of Parliament.
MR. SEXTON: Will the Coastguard be informed that they should not interfere again?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY: Directions will be given to that effect.

IRELAND-MR. C. H. JAMES, OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY—INVESTIGATION OF ACCOUNTS.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the inquiry into the accounts of Mr. Charles Henry James, of Dublin, official assignee in bankruptcy, has been abandoned or suspended, upon the plea that there is no fund out of which the cost of the inquiry could be provided; and, whether the Government will undertake that the funds set apart for the purposes of public justice shall, if needful, be applied to the prosecution and completion of this inquiry?
THE CHIEF SECRETAEY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It is quite true that an inquiry into the accounts of Mr.

657
James, which had been ordered by the Judges, had to be suspended in consequence of there being no fund to meet the cost of it, which is expected to be very heavy; but the matter having been brought to the notice of the Government, we think that the inquiry must go on and be completed without delay, and we are now considering how effect can best be given to this decision.

BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—SLIGO HARBOUR BOARD—REPAYMENT OF LOAN.
MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to recent correspondence between the Treasury, the Irish Board of Works, and the Sligo Harbour Commissioners, Whether the Treasury have agreed to grant the prayer of the memorial addressed to them by the Harbour Board in January last, desiring certain alterations in the terms and conditions of the Treasury Loan, so as to avoid the necessity of abandoning the improvement of the harbour?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The Memorial of January was answered more than two months ago. The Treasury are ready to make considerable concessions with regard to the repayment of principal if the Harbour Commissioners will improve the security by a proper re-adjustment of their tolls. A new Memorial from the Harbour Commissioners was received a few days ago, and is now under consideration.

LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)-SENTENCES AT THE SURREY SESSIONS.
MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Linsey Redman (a married woman), convicted at the recent Surrey Sessions, after previous convictions, of stealing a pewter pot, and sentenced by the Chairman, Mr. Hardman, to ten years' penal servitude; whether the Chairman stated that the court had no alternative, as she had been sentenced previously, and to ten years' penal servitude, than to send her again for ten years' penal servitude; whether the previous sentence of ten years was passed at the Surrey Sessions, and for what offence; and, whether he will feel it
658
right, by the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, to secure that sentences of such severity be more proportioned to the actual crime than to the cumulative effect of previous convictions?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir B. ASSHETON GROSS), in reply, said, he had not thought it right to interfere in the matter, because no such sentence had ever been passed. In the case of the prisoner mentioned, the sentence was 12 months imprisonment, and not 10 years. The hon. and learned Member, however, seemed to have been misled. A woman of another name was sentenced at the same Sessions to 10 years' penal servitude for stealing pewter pots, which it was believed were to be used in coining; but he did not think the hon. and learned Member would say much about the case, considering that the prisoner had been 11 times previously convicted, and had been three times sentenced to penal servitude.
MR. HOPWOOD: And she is now sent for 10 years' penal servitude for stealing a pewter pot? [Cries of" No, no!"]

TURKEY—THE BLACK SEA.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any record in the Foreign Office bearing out the statement of The Daily News of July 13th, to the effect that, during the late "strained relations" with Russia, "arrangements were made for the British Fleet to enter the Black Sea?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): In reply to the hon. Baronet, I have seen this report in The Daily News, and I have caused inquiries to be made at the Foreign Office whether any record exists on the subject; and I find that there is no record whatever bearing out the statement of The Daily News.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL-STORING OF GRAIN AND RICE.
MR. HICKSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will consider of the propriety of extending the provisions of Section 6 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, with its subsections, to the storing and removing of raw grain and rice?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUEE: The provisions in Section 6 are intended for a particular object—namely, to check frauds committed by dissolving sugar and syrup without entry or charge. To extend these provisions to the storing of raw grain and rice would be a very different matter.

PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SEA FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD ELCHOasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government can see their way to taking up and passing the Sea Fisheries Amendment Bill, which has been before the House of Lords, and to which there is no opposition of any kind?
THE CHANGELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER, in reply, said, this Bill had only just received a second reading in "another place." When it reached this House, he would consider the point suggested by the noble Lord.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)—COMPULSORY SLAUGHTER OF PIGS ATTACKED BY SWINE FEVER.
COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would introduce a short Bill, or make an Order, to provide compensation to the owners of pigs dying of contagious diseases or destroyed by the authorities; and, if he would place the owners of Irish pigs on the same footing in this respect as those of Great Britain?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I am advised that there is no legal objection to passing an Order in Council for Ireland similar to that in force in England, authorizing the Local Authorities to slaughter swine and to compensate the owners. A Bill is not necessary. I shall communicate with the Veterinary Department with the view of having the suggestion brought before the Privy Council.

ARMY (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION TO EGYPT)—MILITARY CHAPLAINS.
SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Secretary of State for War, What chaplains are appointed to the Military hospitals at Suez, Port Said, and to the other hospitals in Egypt; and, what
660
chaplains were in the transport which brought sick and dying soldiers from Egypt?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Returns have not been received of later date than the 1st of April, which would be useless for showing the present distribution of chaplains in Egypt. I may add that a body of chaplains equal, as is thought, to the exigencies of the case is despatched to a foreign command; but their distribution within the command rests entirely with the General Officer commanding. Chaplains are not, as a rule, appointed to hired transports; and the men in such vessels must be dependent on any chaplains who may happen to be sent home in thorn. The subject is one the importance of which I recognize, and it will have my attention.

EGYPT (THE NILE EXPEDITION)—SIR CHARLES WILSON.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the letter or telegram of Lord Wolseley to Sir Charles Wilson, asking for explanations concerning his delays, was not included among the Papers presented to Parliament; and, why Sir Charles Wilson's reasons, which Lord Wolseley said "must speak for themselves," were not included in those Papers?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Lord Wolseley has not forwarded to the War Office any letter or telegram on this subject addressed by him to Sir Charles Wilson.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE (No. 2) BILL—BREWING LICENCES.
MR. CLARE READ (for Mr. BIRK-BECK)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will rectify the omission in the Customs and Inland Revenue (No. 2) Bill of the Clause relating to half-yearly brewing licences?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, it was not to be understood that the omission of the clause would prevent the House from dealing with the subject, which he wished to consider before the Committee stage of the Bill was reached. He was not satisfied with the provisions of the clause, which had been framed by his Predecessor, and hoped to be enabled to submit another proposal.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—BELFAST PETTY SESSIONS—ATTENDANCE OF MAGISTRATES.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will move for a Return of the attendance of each magistrate for the borough of Belfast at the Courts of Petty Sessions held in and for the borough of Belfast during the past twelve months?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Sir, I am not aware of any useful object which would be gained by moving for such a Return as this.

LAW AND POLICE—THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE"—OBJECTIONABLE ARTICLES.
MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he proposes to take any action against the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette, in regard to its recent articles on prostitution?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): The matter alluded to in the Question is undoubtedly a grave one, and it has received the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. They have come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to take proceedings against the editor or publisher of the paper.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY—"THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 1793."
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House as to the presentation by the Emperor of Austria to the National Portrait Gallery of a picture representing the interior of the House of Commons in the time of Mr. Pitt; and, if he can lay any Papers upon the Table relating to the subject?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): The picture in question is one by Carl Anton Hickel, representing the House of Commons in 1793, with portraits of Mr. Pitt and other distinguished statesmen of the day. It belongs to the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, which is the private property
662
of the Imperial owner. His Majesty the Emperor of Austria has been graciously pleased to present the picture in question to Lady Paget, the wife of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna, and it has been placed by her at the disposal of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery. It is not proposed to lay any Papers on the subject, as the Trustees have expressed their intention to notice in their annual Report, which will shortly be laid before Parliament, the circumstances which have led to the acquisition of an Art treasure of such high historical interest. I am sure, Sir, I may take upon myself to say that the whole nation feels grateful to his Imperial Majesty for his gracious and generous gift; and that the country most thankfully accepts it as a valuable and interesting addition to the National Collection.

ENGLAND AND CHINA—IMPORTATION OF OPIUM—THE AGREEMENT.
MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House as to the terms of the agreement with the Government of China respecting the importation of opium into that Country; and, whether the agreement is yet completed?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): It is expected that the agreement with China respecting the importation of opium will be signed very shortly, and when the signature has taken place the Papers will be presented to Parliament.

CENTRAL ASIA—AFGHANISTAN— CANDAHAR.
MR. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government or the Government of India have entered into negotiations, or contemplate entering into negotiations, with the Ameer of Afghanistan, in order to form a military cantonment at or near Candahar; and, whether they intend to take steps towards a military occupation of that place with or without His Highness' consent?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The hon. Member asks me three Questions — first, whether Her Majesty's Government or

663
the Government of India have entered into negotiations with the Ameer of Afghanistan in order to form a military cantonment at or near Candahar? My answer to that Question is in the negative. I The second Question is, whether Her Majesty's Government or the Government of India contemplate entering into negotiations with the Ameer for that purpose? My answer to that Question is that I am not aware that any negotiations of that kind are contemplated; but, at the same time, I must be allowed to remind the hon. Member and the House that the terms of the hon. Member's Question are extremely wide. The House should bear in mind that this country is under certain pledges towards the Ameer of Afghanistan to the effect that under certain conditions, which are pretty clearly defined, military assistance would be rendered to him. If those conditions should by any chance come into active operation, and if the military assistance thereby rendered necessary should take the form of an application from the Ameer for aid towards the defence of Candahar, either in men, money, or material, then I imagine that—no matter what Government was in power —the course of the British Government would be very clear and well marked. The hon. Member also asks me whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take steps towards a military occupation of that place with or without the Ameer's consent? The hon. Member will, perhaps, excuse me if I suggest to him that this is a most extraordinary inquiry; because to take steps towards a military occupation of Candahar without the Ameer's consent would be an act of war against the Ameer, and the hon. Member must be aware that at the present moment the Ameer of Afghanistan is our friend and our ally.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, he was not quite sure that he understood the limitations in the answer, and he would ask if he was right in assuming that the limitation put upon the two first Questions was in the event only of threatened hostility of any Foreign Power?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: I do not think, Sir, I can well add to what I have already said. I think the hon. Member will find that my answer covers almost every imaginable eventuality.

PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
MR. HOPWOODasked, If it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill that night?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): No, we cannot proceed with that tonight. It had been our intention to take the Medical Relief Bill immediately after Supply, and to report Progress early for the purpose; but, as the House is no doubt aware, we have been disappointed in that intention by what passed during the early hours of this morning, and it cannot be taken till Thursday. I stated yesterday that it was not our intention to take the Criminal Law Amendment Bill tonight.
MR. JAMES STUARTasked what day the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was likely to come on; and on what day the Government Amendments were likely to be placed on the Paper?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot answer the first Question. The Amendments will be placed on the Paper in ample time to allow them to be considered by the House.
MR. HOPWOOD: And the country?

MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.
MR. HENEAGEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he would give orders to the overseers to place on the Parliamentary Register all who were entitled to vote, marking, for the assistance of the Revising Barrister, those who had received medical relief?
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that he had it under consideration to include in the Bill some provision by which those who under the present law would be disqualified by the receipt of medical relief should be relieved, as far as possible, from disqualification in the event of the Bill passing.
MR. HENEAGEasked if the 20th of this month was not the last day on which the overseers could send in their Returns?
THE PEESIDENTsaid, he did not think so. The date was much later— somewhere about the end of the month.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked after what hour the Government would not bring on the Bill?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Not after half-past 10 o'clock.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  (1.) £2,102,772, to complete the sum for Public Education.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Sir, I rise to move the Education Estimates. It is customary, on these occasions, for the Minister in charge of these Estimates to submit to the Committee some account of the Educational Budget and the educational progress of the year. To that duty I shall almost entirely confine myself to-day. The Estimates I have to submit are those of my Predecessor, and the Committee will not, I am sure, expect from me any general statement of policy. The sum voted for Education in England and Wales during the last financial year was £3,181,875. If hon. Members will look at the Estimates, they will find this somewhat in excess of the figures given there, because it includes a Supplementary Estimate, which was not voted until too late to be taken into account in the comparison. With this sum of £3,181,875 we have to compare the amount which I now ask the Committee to vote — namely, £3,302,772, showing an increase, as nearly as possible, for England and Wales of £121,000. Now, this increase is almost entirely due to the growth in the rate of grant for day scholars, and upon the increase in the average number of children in attendance at school. When the Estimates for 1884–5 were prepared, the effect of the New Code, during the few months it had been in operation, appeared to be somewhat to check the rate of increase in the average attendances. But a recovery soon took place, and the ultimate result during
  666
  the inspection year ending August 31, 1884, was that the rate of increase in the average attendance rose to 4·67 per cent, and there was an increase of 1d. in the rate of grant for a day scholar. Hon. Members will observe that the comparison is made, not with the original Estimate for last year, but with the actual results. Taken in this way, the increase I have to describe to the Committee may be said to show only about the normal rate of increase; but, judging from the results of the last four months of the financial year, the Department is now inclined to think that the rate of increase may be somewhat higher than the Estimate. The cost of maintenance per scholar in average attendance is also increasing. In all the board schools of England and Wales the cost per scholar in average attendance last year was £2 1s. 8½., showing an increase of 5d. over the preceding year. In the voluntary schools in England and Wales it was £1 5s. 2d., or 3½d per scholar more than in 1883. It will be seen that the average cost per scholar in the board schools of England and Wales exceeded that in the voluntary schools by 6s. 6½d. This disproportion is greatest in the towns, and if the comparison had been limited to the country districts, the excess would have been somewhat less than half that amount. It is still specially great in London, although the cost of maintaining each child in a board school in London has decreased, and is at the present time less by 1s. 11½ d. than it was two years ago. But even now the cost of education in the board schools of London exceeds that of educating a child in a voluntary school by a far greater proportion than in the rest of the country. If we take London alone, the cost per child in board schools exceeds that in voluntary schools by no less than 12s. 4d. but if we take the whole of the country outside London, hon. Members will find the difference between the cost per child in board and voluntary schools is only 3s. 1¼d. It may be interesting to the Committee to hear what is the total annual expenditure we are now making, from all sources, for the support of elementary schools in England and Wales. I give the figures for lastyear. We have, first of all, the Government grant, which I have stated at £2,846,000; volun-

  667
  tary contributions provide £734,000; school pence—including the amount paid by the Guardians in aid of poor children—£1,734,000; the rates contribute £915,000; endowments and all other sources of school income, £222,000— making a grand total of annual expenditure for Elementary Education in England and Wales of £6,451,000, or, roughly, £6,500,000. But, besides this annual expenditure for purposes of Elementary Education, the Committee will, of course, remember that there have been very considerable sums laid out in building, enlarging, and improving schools buildings and teachers' residences. I have had an estimate made of this amount since the passing of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, and the figures are very remarkable. Voluntary schools since that period have received from the Government in building grants, £312,000; but the voluntary contributions, partly to meet these grants and partly to erect school buildings independent of Parliamentary grants, have reached the very large amount of £6,348,000. During the same period— I am giving the figures up to Michaelmas last—board schools had borrowed for these purposes rather over £16,000,000 on security of the rates; so that the total capital expenditure since the Education Act passed, in building new schools and improving existing ones in England and Wales, has not been far short of £23,000,000. I have troubled the Committee with these figures only to show how great the efforts are which have been made in this country to overtake the great problem of providing all our children with good elementary education, and that they cannot be measured only by the amount of the Vote I am now submitting. It becomes now my duty to point out to the Committee, in some little detail, what are the chief results which our expenditure has obtained for us. First of all, I would like to ask, what is the present supply of school accommodation, and how far is it sufficient to meet the wants of that portion of the population of the country which ought to be at school? After making allowance for various reasonable causes of absence, the usual and well-known calculation is that school accommodation ought to be provided for one-sixth of the total population of the country. Taking the esti-
  668
  mated population of England and Wales in 1884 at 27,132,449, the Returns of school places ought to show provision for 4,522,075 scholars. As a matter of fact, the total supply of school places is in excess of this, and is 4,826,738. In other words, if only the school places could be properly distributed throughout the country, we should have at the present time, in existing schools, about 300,000 more school places than we have children to send to them. But, of course, this is not so, as they are not properly distributed; and while some counties appear to have a considerable excess of school accommodation, others, especially in the South of England, are deficient. The increase in the school accommodation during the past year has been at the rate of 3·34 per cent; but if we were to look back over the last 15 years, and see what the results of our capital expenditure have been since the Education Act has been in operation, we should find that the amount of school accommodation in efficient elementary schools has increased from 1,765,000 to 4,826,000 school places; or, in other words, there has been an increase of 170 per cent. But when we come to the use which is made of this school accommodation, the picture is not so satisfactory, although showing, year by year, signs of great improvement. The number of children on the books last year was 4,337,000, and the number in average attendance 3,273,000. In other words, out of 100 children who ought to be at school, 96 were on the register, but only 72 were in average attendance. At the same time, however, the improvement in the number on the register has been since, in the year just passed, 1·5 per cent, and in the number in average attendance 4·67 per cent. The Estimate I have now to present to the Committee is, as I have said, not based upon a correspondingly high rate of increase in the average attendance, because it is perfectly clear that, as we more nearly approach the full number of children which should be enrolled on the registers of the elementary schools, we cannot expect that the average attendance should continue to increase in so rapid a proportion as it did when compulsory attendance first took effect. In the results of the examinations, the comparative improvement during the year has been greater in England and Wales

  669
  than in Scotland; but the Scotch are still vastly ahead of us. The percentage of passes increased during the year by 2·36 per cent, while the number of scholars examined in Standard IV. and upwards rose by no less than 10·87 per cent. This is a remarkable rate of increase, and is all the more satisfactory if we look a little further back and see how steady and continuous this improvement has been. Whereas, in 1874, only 18 per cent of the children in average attendance were examined in Standard IV. and upwards, last year the proportion was 31¼ per cent. This review of our educational progress naturally leads to the inquiry whether it has been accompanied by any drawbacks, and obliges me to say a few words upon a matter which has attracted a great deal of attention during the past two years—I mean that of over-pressure. Its importance can hardly be exaggerated. It would be bad enough, in my opinion, if it turned out to be true that the result of the efforts we have been making to improve and advance elementary education, and to got the best possible return for the money we expend, is to make these poor little children miserable. But if it could be proved that it had a further result of rendering them weak in body and feeble in mind, and unable to bring to the real work of life the full vigour of which they would otherwise be capable, then I say a remedy must be applied promptly and effectively. But is it true? Well, I venture to express the opinion, after the best consideration I have been able to give to the evidence upon the subject, that it is sufficiently proved that such cases do exist. It may be perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman my Predecessor the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) suggested last year, that this result is much more generally due to the insufficient feeding that the children receive at home than to the amount of strain to which their minds are subjected. It is satisfactory to think that there are other means by which this evil can be approached and grappled with besides that of diminishing the amount of school work; and I heartily rejoice that attention has been so prominently called to this matter of deficient food in a large degree owing to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, because it has led in many parts of the country to efforts being made
  670
  to meet the difficulty, and get rid of this part of the evil. But there are, in addition to that, at least two other causes which fall more directly within my province, which appear likely to contribute to over-pressure, and which, undoubtedly, require most careful watching. They are home lessons and overtime. Now, there can be no manner of doubt that home lessons, however useful, have sometimes been a source of danger. Pushed by the eagerness of an energetic teacher beyond their legitimate and acknowledged function, they may, in conceivable circumstances, do more harm than good. So, again, with overtime, which if injudiciously imposed, in order to push a dull child beyond his physical strength up to a certain Standard, or to make up, in the last few days of the inspection, for previous omission or neglect, may well produce great evils. I recognize fully the responsibility which rests upon the Education Department, not only to exercise constant watchfulness over these possible causes of over-pressure, but also to lose no suitable opportunity of informing itself of the extent to which they prevail and may be remedied. The Committee will find, both in the Code and in the Instructions issued to School Inspectors, the precautions which, up to this time, the Department has thought it necessary to enforce in this matter for the purpose of preventing the evil. But, after all, the Committee will admit that the only real and efficient way by which these irregularities can be effectually prevented, and the health of the children adequately protected, is by constantly enforcing upon school managers that the real responsibility lies with them. It is they who can, and it is they who ought, to take care that the necessary precautions are rigorously observed, and who, by making use of the powers given to them for the exemption of weakly children, can arrest the evil at the outset. Hon. Members will forgive me if I mention the special provisions which deal with the subject. Under the Code the managers are held responsible for the health of children who may need to be relieved from part of the school work. But the Inspectors also are specially enjoined to satisfy themselves that the children are not unduly pressed. In the time-table of infant schools a due proportion of the time

  671
  must be assigned to manual exorcises and to recreative employment. Where overtime is improperly made use of, the managers should forbid it, or report the matter to the Inspector. And, lastly, the Instructions to the Inspectors themselves distinctly lay down the limits within which home lessons are justified, pointing out that for delicate or very young children they are plainly unsuitable, and that, in all cases, they should be used only as a means of keeping up and illustrating lessons which have been explained and mastered at school. I hope, Sir, for my part, that those precautions laid down by the Education Department, if continually enforced by the managers, may do much to prevent the recurrence of the evil. But, certainly, the action of these provisions ought to be very carefully watched, and be supplemented, if a necessity is proved. I cannot depart altogether from this subject without adding that the result of our investigation has been to bring to light the fact that whatever may have been the case among little children, the new requirements of the Code have caused a severe strain among female teachers; and it is due to them, and, indeed, to teachers of both sexes, to express how largely the satisfactory progress which I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee has been due to the efforts made by them to grapple with the difficulties presented to them. I come now to two or three special questions as to which I ought to say a word. The first is that of cookery, as to which so much interest was manifested the other day by the House that I am tempted to say that it is now taught in 121 more schools than in 1883. Grants were made to 7,597 girls; and there can be no doubt that the success attained has been sufficient to cause school boards and voluntary associations in many parts of the country to take every means in their power for including cookery in the ordinary course of school instruction. I hope to see a very large development of the scheme, especially in the agricultural districts, where it is, perhaps, more wanted than in the towns. Formerly, this teaching of cookery in schools was in many oases of a merely theoretical character. Now, the Code has been so amended as to assist in making this instruction not only demonstrative, but of a practical character, and it is
  672
  hoped that the change will be most advantageous. Then there is drawing, which has been added to the list of class or optional subjects. The Royal Commission on Technical Education called attention in its Report to the prominence given to instruction in drawing in the Continental schools visited by them, and they contrasted it with the infinitesimal attention paid to it in the English schools. They pointed out that the study of drawing was the most essential step, if not the foundation, for technical education of any kind. So again the matter has been pressed upon the Department by the authorities of South Kensington, who have undertaken to conduct the examinations for the next two years, the results being forwarded to them by local Superintendents. The managers have full liberty to classify children in the Standards suitable to their drawing capacity, and as only a certain proportion need pass to earn the test grant, there will be no question of putting undue pressure upon children who are hopelessly incapable, or indisposed to learn drawing. It is hoped that the change now made in the Code will stimulate the teaching of drawing throughout the schools of the country. One other change ought to be recorded. Efforts have been made to make inspection more uniform, and at the same time to give a more complete account of the state of education in the country. Reports will no longer be required from all the Inspectors in rotation, but half of the Chief Inspectors will each year present a Report upon their division, with the assistance of the other Inspectors working in it. There are other burning questions on which I might be expected to touch; but the Committee will probably think that I only exercise a wise discretion if I ask to be allowed to defer any opinion upon them until I have had more time for examining them in detail. Certainly, anyone who enters upon the work of administering the Education Department must do so with a humbling sense of the magnitude of the great problem before him. Much, indeed, has been done. Our great educational system, founded on the legacy of 1870, is a compromise which solved many difficulties, and is still full of life and vigour. We have enlisted in our work a body of school

  673
  managers full of zeal and devotion. We have created an army of school teachers of great and exceptional ability; but how much yet remains to be done? Think of the hundreds of little children who, in spite of all your machinery, and all your fine speeches, you do not get into your schools. Think of the hundreds who go away from them with a smattering of knowledge which will not stand the test of a life solely devoted to manual labour. Personally, I am very hopeful of the future, because it has fallen to my lot to have special opportunities of observing the change that has already taken place, and the progress which has been made. It was my duty, during two years before the passing of the Education Act of 1870, to study in the agricultural districts the conditions under which village schools were then carrying on their work, and the enormous difficulties under which school managers wore then struggling to bring home education to the people. And in the towns the difficulties were even greater—far greater. But anyone who makes that survey now will see with rejoicing the growing success of those struggles, and the daily-increasing results that are obtained. But how has this progress been attained? Well, in my judgment, mainly because, in spite of many mistakes, you have, on the whole, succeeded in carrying the opinion of the people with your work. Take care not to lose that advantage. The zeal of educational progress must be tempered with discretion. It is a time when educational theories of the wildest and most subversive character are afloat, when the true measure of parental obligation and the limits of the duties of the State are subjected to fierce discussion. There are some inclined to place hardly any limit to the amount of the education, or to the variety of the subjects which you are to pour into a little child's head. There are others who would indefinitely extend the amount of public money devoted to education. But if we want really to carry public opinion with us, we must have a little patience, and some regard to the feelings, the prejudices, and the purses of others. We cannot yet solve, we do not yet half understand, the new and great educational problems which the complexity of our social life will present to us. All we can do at present is to go steadily on
  674
  with the work, without faltering, upon the lines already laid down, and not to rest content until we are giving to all the children of the country an education in all respects calculated to increase their usefulness as citizens of the country. I will now, with the permission of the Committee, pass from those general considerations to a few questions specially affecting Scotland; and there are several questions of great importance in the various grades of Scotch education, which, I think, ought not to be passed over on the present occasion without comment. And, first, it is impossible to omit mention of the energetic work now being done by the Educational Endowments Commission. My noble Friend (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) and their Colleagues certainly afford an example to similar bodies of the way in which work can be got through. I believe that more than 100 schemes have already been submitted, of which the most important— the Heriot's Hospital scheme—now lies on the Table. I may also refer for a moment to the recent Circular issued by the Education Department as to the inspection of higher class schools. Under the Act of 1872 that inspection was to have been carried out by Inspectors named by the school boards. But this was not found to be satisfactory, and it certainly was incomplete. Now, by the Act of 1882, all endowed schools are to be inspected as the Scotch Education Department may direct, and the cost is to be paid out of the funds of the endowment. In order to carry out this inspection in the best manner, full representations have been invited from all those who are interested in the matter. Some have been received; and if I now venture to sketch out a proposal which satisfies some, at least, of the necessary conditions, it is not because it has been adopted, or that our minds are made up upon it, but in order to put it forward solely for consideration and criticism in Scotland. It seems obvious that in order to combine efficiency with economy and uniformity there should be a body of examiners appointed to undertake the examination of all the higher schools, whether subject by statute or by choice. These examiners might be selected by a Cen-

  675
  tral Board in Scotland, consisting of Representatives—first, of the Universities; secondly, of the Scotch Education Department; thirdly, of the teachers of the higher schools; and perhaps, also, of the governors of those schools. It might be appointed triennially, and in addition to selecting the examiners it might issue instructions as to their duty in detail. Then there is the question of paying the examiners. The Treasury is ready to contribute £300 a-year. This might be thrown into a common examination fund, to which the various Governing Bodies might be called upon to contribute according to a scheme to be arranged by the Board, and which might be varied when necessary. As I have said, I throw out the scheme for the consideration of all those who are specially interested in the subject. I come now to the case of the ordinary State-aided schools in Scotland. The Vote which is now asked for shows an increase over the sum voted last year of £24,761. It is, as in the case of the English Vote, almost entirely caused by the increase of the average attendance in schools. The Estimate provides for the additional number of 11,000 children, or an increased average of 2.V per cent. The rate of grant has similarly risen from 17s. 11½d. to an estimated rate of 18s. 1d. The scholars on the register have increased by 3·3 per cent, and those in average attendance by 3·49 per cent. In the results attained the schools of Scotland still have a very great advantage over those of England and Wales. The proportion of scholars examined in Standard IV. and upwards last year was, in England and Wales, 31¼ per cent; while, in Scotland, the proportion examined in those Standards was 37 per cent. During the past year the Department has had under careful consideration that portion of the Report of the Crofters' Commission which relates to education in Highland schools. The Committee will probably recollect that that Committee pointed out that the benefits of the Education Act of 1872 did not fairly come into operation in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for some years after it had begun to operate in the Lowlands. And it indicated certain special difficulties, such as the extreme costliness of education in some of the poorest districts, owing especially to the large number of school
  676
  buildings necessary to meet the requirements of a very scattered population, and the loss of income caused by great irregularity of attendance. Since then, one of the examiners in the Scotch Department, Mr. Henry Craik, was sent by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella) to make special inquiry into this subject; and his Report has been laid upon the Table of the House, together with a Minute setting forth the special conditions which will in future regulate the grants to schools in the Highlands and. Islands. It must be admitted that there is much excuse for irregularity of attendance, especially among infants. My hon. Friends from Scotland will, I am sure, forgive me if I mention the climate first. But the absence of good roads, and the great distances often to be traversed, are also serious obstacles And yet, in spite of all these drawbacks, I find in the Report of Mr. Craik, to which I have alluded, this passage—
  "After seeing the parts of the country where the conditions are most unfavourable, I do not think, on the whole, that the difficulties are greater than are to be found in several mainland districts where a good attendance is obtained."
  But I am sorry to say that the result is that, out of 298,000 children between four and seven years of age, only 121,000 are on the school registers, and only 86,000, or less than one-third of the total number, are in average attendance. Even of these, only 28,700 are in proper infant schools. Many others are under the male teachers of mixed schools, who are not altogether the best fitted for the task of teaching them. In other other parts of the Highlands the defective attendance is often duo to the fact that the compulsory clauses of the Acts are not sufficiently put into operation. But although I am still obliged to speak in these terms of the attendance, it is only fair to admit that of late years the improvement has been very rapid. The cost of maintaining a Scotch school is rather larger in Scotland than in England, owing in part to the wider range of subjects taught in them, and partly owing to the higher salaries commanded by Scotch teachers. I notice that in all the Scotch schools the cost of maintenance per child in average attendance was £2 1s. 6d. But in the special

  677
  counties to which I have just alluded it was far higher. In Argyllshire it was £2 13s.; in Buteshire, £2 14s. 5d.; and in Inverness-shire, £2 6s. 2d. Therefore, I think it cannot he denied that the burden laid upon many of these localities, in respect of keeping up schools, is certainly very heavy. The Committee will remember that it was proposed by the 67th section of the Act of 1872 — commonly known as the Lochiel Clause—to empower the Department to supplement the rates in the Highland and Island districts by a grant making up the 3d. rate to 7s. 6d. per child. The Crofters' Commission, recognizing the extreme poverty of some of these districts, recommended that the grant should be increased to 10s. This proposal contained manifest advantages. It would have been a direct encouragement to increased attendance, and would apply only to cases where a large population is found along with a small rateable value. This could only, however, have been effected by legislation, and the scheme adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella) was to hold out encouragement to improved attendance by a gradually increasing payment, as the attendance approaches the number on the register. This will also have the effect of stimulating the exertions of the teachers, which is a matter of great importance. Another financial point was also brought before the Department—namely, the loans raised by school boards upon the security of the rates. The Crofters' Commission recommended that these should be cancelled. But as it was obvious that those boards which have been extravagant would have benefited unduly, while those which have been economical, or had done all they could to discharge their liabilities, would have obtained little advantage, this proposal was on this and other grounds, not accepted by the Department. There are two other points in the recent Minutes which ought not to be omitted. The first is the teaching of Gaelic, which has long been under consideration; and is now to be paid for as a specific subject. Payment will also be made to encourage the employment of Gaelic pupil teachers, in the hope of eventually providing a body of certified teachers specially fitted for employment in the Highlands. The second point is the special grant offered
  678
  for the encouragement of higher instruction. One reads with satisfaction, in Mr. Craik's Report, of the keen interest which this subject excites even in the Hebrides; and it may be noted that while in England only 67 children passed in Latin and none in Greek, in the State-aided Scotch schools no less than 6,253 were qualified in Latin, and 330 in Greek. I have thought it right to put before the Committee, as concisely as I can, the object of the recent Minute. But I wish completely to reserve my own opinion upon the sufficiency of the changes which have been made. If I should continue responsible for education in Scotland, there is no part of the subject which I should wish to investigate with more care and with more hopefulness, because of the keen desire for education which exists in Scotland, than the best means of overcoming the difficulties with which those poor Highland schools have to contend. There is only one other subject which I need mention to the Committee, and it is that the Scotch Code in general undoubtedly requires careful reexamination in light of the changes recently made in the English Code; but this has been naturally postponed until the future of Scotch education has been decided. I have now to thank the Committee most cordially for the attention with which they have listened to me on this somewhat dry subject, and I will only add that I shall be happy to answer any questions that may be put to me.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he thought the Committee was to be congratulated on the clear and satisfactory statement which they had just heard, and the right hon. Gentleman was to be congratulated upon the ability with which he had addressed himself to the subject. If they were to have a Conservative Government in Office, and to suffer the loss of the services of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who had certainly placed his mark on the national education of the country, it was an advantage to have a right hon. Gentleman occupying the position of Vice President of the Council who was untrammelled by pledges, and who would be found, as was evident from the statement to which they had just listened, ready and anxious to carry out the education of the country in the progressive way in which it had been

  679
  conducted by his Predecessors, both Conservative and Liberal. It seemed to be thought by some that, because they had an ardent friend of the voluntary system in Office, there -would be a feeling of antagonism on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and on the part of his supporters to the board system. For his part, he (Mr. Buxton) could not see why there should be any such feeling of antagonism at all. There was, and ought to be, plenty of room for both systems; and they could, if properly dealt with, be worked side by side. Each had advantages which were not possessed by the other; and he believed himself that the existence of the two systems side by side conduced to efficiency and gave variety to education, instead of producing a dull uniformity. By the competition and friendly rivalry which existed, both systems would be kept up to the mark. He differed entirely from some of his hon. Friends who sat on the Benches near him, who thought that the voluntary system ought to be smitten hip and thigh from Dan to Beersheba. But, on the other hand, it ought to be clearly understood that the voluntary system must not be unduly bolstered up. The reason for the existence of the voluntary system was that its supporters considered that, in combining education with dogma, they were carrying out the proper system, and they were willing to make sacrifices in order to promote that object. If they were not willing to make sacrifices for their zeal by putting their hands in their pockets, he, for one, thought the voluntary system ought to come to an end. It would not be right, he thought, for the State to increase the grant now made to voluntary schools. It would be altogether improper to hand over a sufficient income from the public money to irresponsible persons, so that it would require no further effort on their part to keep up the system in which they were specially interested. They were told that the voluntary system at present was suffering under heavy and grievous burdens. No doubt, since 1870, not only the supporters of voluntary schools, but all persons in the country, had had to make sacrifices and bear heavy burdens in consequence of the passing of the Education Act of that year; but he thought the supporters of the voluntary system had been benefited
  680
  almost more largely than any other portion of the community; and the fact that the supporters of voluntary schools had been able from year to year to increase the number of their schools showed that the system was not, at all events, at death's door. He would make an attempt to analyze the complaint that of late years, and especially last year, had been made on the part of the supporters of the voluntary system—namely, that the burden had become so heavy that it was almost impossible to carry on the voluntary schools. Taking the Church of England as one of the loudest in making that complaint, and as one which, after all, was only typical of the others, he would compare the state of their case in the last four years, during the time the Education Department had been under the auspices of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), from 1880 to 1884. He had not got later figures. He thought he could show that, instead of suffering as heavily as had been supposed, on the whole the voluntary system was in a very satisfactory and flourishing condition. During the four years of which he had spoken, he found that the attendance in the Church of England voluntary schools in England and Wales had increased from 1,492,300 to 1,617,300. That was an increase of 125,000 children. He wished to endorse the satisfaction felt by the right hon. Gentleman at the great efforts which the supporters of the voluntary system, and especially the members of the Church of England, had made by moans of their expenditure on buildings, and the valuable result of their labours towards increasing the amount of national education. On the other hand, while they had increased the average attendance by 125,000 children, the income of voluntary schools, from sources other than voluntary subscriptions, had increased from £1,994,000 to £2,253,000, or an increase of £260,000; and the right hon. Gentleman anticipated that that increase would be still further enlarged this year. But it had been said that the expenditure for education had largely increased also, and therefore the burden upon the voluntary system was much greater than it had been. No doubt the expense had increased, and he believed the Committee generally would congratulate themselves on that fact. But what was

  681
  the amount that the voluntary subscribers of the Church of England were called upon to pay in order to meet the balance of the annual cost left over, after taking this amount of income into account? Would the Committee believe that, after four years, the schools were costing no more at all, but that there had been an actual saving of £2,000 a-year? While in 1880 the subscribers paid £587,270, they were now paying £585,072, or a diminution of £2,200 a-year. Therefore, instead of being pitied, they ought to be envied and congratulated, because, with an increase of 125,000 children, they were receiving £260,000 more in subscriptions, and the entire cost of the schools was £2,200 less than it was four years ago. Of course, it would be said that, in addition to their voluntary contributions, the subscribers had had to pay largely in the shape of rates. He found that the rate had increased from 1880 to 1884 by £189,000; but as the number of subscribers to the Church of England voluntary system was 221,000—that was, not one in 100 of the whole population—the total amount that they had to pay towards this increased rate could not be very large. The complaints were made by those who did not inquire into the facts, and there was a certain amount of apathy on the part of some, so far as the general advancement of national education was concerned, because they were subscribers to the voluntary system. He had laid these figures before the Committee in order to show that the cry was greatly exaggerated, and that the ground for complaint on the part of the voluntary schools was nothing like so great as they tried to make out. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Stanhope) had said something upon the question of over-pressure. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was sufficiently proved that such cases did exist. He (Mr. Buxton) had no desire to enter into that question again. They had already debated the whole question of over-pressure; but the more the matter was inquired into the more it would be found that the over-pressure supposed to exist had been vastly exaggerated. Those who cried out loudest ignored the fact, which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would allow, that under any system of education curried
  682
  out under any plan—even a plan they would most approve of—it must lead to a certain amount of discomfort and over-straining in the case of a certain number of children, who were in reality suffering from other causes which affected their health and happiness. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the outcry which had been raised had done much good. It had directed public attention to the question, and had—if it were not heresy to say so—woke up the Department; it had certainly woke up the managers, teachers, and Inspectors, and it had resulted in an attempt being made to secure the relaxation of the stringency of the Code, and to give a greater latitude to local bodies and individuals. This, together with the steps contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman, would have the effect of reducing the pressure upon children to a minimum. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as he was concerned, he intended to see that the new system of withdrawal should be fully carried out; that he was impressed with the necessity of diminishing the homo lessons, and that he intended to prohibit the keeping in of the children as a punishment. He (Mr. Buxton) thought the new Code was intended to meet the cry of over-pressure; but, as it had not yet had a fair time for working, it was too early to judge how far the relaxations given by it would operate. The principle of decentralization established by the Code had only been established within the last two years; but as soon as a sufficient time had been given to allow of the results being worked out he believed they would be found to be satisfactory. He had been glad to hoar the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with this subject, mention the question of under-feeding, and the attempts which had been made by some of the managers to provide self-supporting penny dinners for the children. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman was giving attention to the subject, and that he had taken sufficient interest in it to induce him to join the Council which had been formed for providing these self-supporting penny dinners. It was certainly most discouraging, at present, at all events, to find that while the system had been successful in other parts of the country it had been by no

  683
  means successful in London. Perhaps it was owing to the fact that the system had not been sufficiently long in working order; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give encouragement to those who were engaged in the work to continue their efforts. (Such encouragement might give renewed stimulus and prevent future failure. There was much in the system itself which ought to insure its ultimate success. The reasons of the hitherto partial failure were many and manifold; but he need not trouble the Committee with entering into them. A reason often put forward by some was the lack of funds on the part of the parents; but he confessed that he did not see how that could be urged as a reason for the apparent failure. The fact that the number of children who attended these dinners varied so largely from day to day and from week to week was due rather to the caprice of the parents than to any variation in the wages which they earned. The philanthropists who distributed free tickets broadcast were, perhaps, in a measure, largely responsible for the partial failure of the system. If the right hon. Gentleman would not officially—for the Department could only exercise a benevolent neutrality in the matter—but if he would unofficially encourage the efforts of those who were promoting the movement, he might do a great deal to improve the cause of national education.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERremarked that as the right hon. Gentleman who presided over this Department had promised to issue a Commission to inquire into the condition of the blind, he should like to say a few words upon that subject, and also as to the condition of the deaf and dumb, and to bring it formally under the notice of the House. He believed that every hon. Member of that House would admit that the education of deaf, dumb, and blind children was a question of the greatest national importance; and he did not think that it was to the credit of the country that they should be alone among nearly all the civilized nations of the world in doing next to nothing towards the discharge of this important duty. In these days of civilization it was hardly less cruel to neglect the education of these unfortunate children than it was in. the old days of superstition to expose children
  684
  on the mountains as was done by the Greeks, or to throw them into the Tiber, as was done by the Romans. He would road to the Committee the opinion of two very eminent men who were much more qualified to speak on the subject than he was himself. Dr. Buxton, in his Notes of Progress, said—
  "It is certainly not to our credit to know that in every country but our own, wherever the deaf are educated at all, they are educated with State aid. Even our fellow-subjects, when they live under a Colonial Government, freely tax themselves for the education of their deaf children. The British taxpayer alone, among all civilized Christian men, enjoys immunity from taxation for the instruction of those who under the name of the abnormal classes—those"without hearing, without sight, without mental power—are the special care of even such a poor nation as Norway, that country having, as recently as 1881, consolidated and developed all its previous beneficent legislation for the compulsory education of the classes named."
  Monsignor de Haerne said—
  "It is a great honour for England to have abolished the Slave Trade. But there are thousands of slaves in the British Empire— namely, the deaf mutes, who are the true slaves of the ignorance or carelessness either of their parents or the Government. If England is justly proud of having, to a great extent, extirpated slavery in the world, ought she to fail in finding the necessary means for the deliverance of her national slaves at home?"
  He would not detain the Committee by going into too many details upon the question, important as it was; but he hoped that it might be his privilege on some future day to enter more fully into it. He had taken great pains to ascertain the opinion of men who were well qualified to speak upon the subject, and he had received most valuable assistance from Mr. Buckle, of the Blind School, York, from Captain de Bisson, author of Our Schools and Colleges, and others. It was a fact that in America, Germany, Belgium, Holland, France, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and other countries, direct aid was given by the State towards the persons suffering from these maladies, and our Colonies— Canada, Australia, and New Zealand— were following the good example so set. He purposely avoided going into the methods adopted by these different countries in granting aid, because he did not wish unnecessarily to take up the time of the Committee; but, in opposition to the example set by foreign nations and our own Colonies, it was well known that we continued to go on

  685
  neglecting this most important work, and practically giving little or no help to the education of these unfortunate children. It was true that in England Boards of Guardians might send a child afflicted with dumbness or blindness to school, and pay, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, £20 for his maintenance; but it was entirely a question for the discretion of the Guardians whether the child should be sent or not. No provision existed for the supply by the State of special schools; and the education of the deaf, dumb, and blind was not recognized as part of our general educational system. In the inquiries he had made into the matter he had only heard two arguments against the giving of State aid. One was that the deaf, dumb, and blind never became capable citizens, and the other that they wore fit objects of public charity, and ought to be supported by the charity of the country. With the first of these objections he entirely joined issue. It was a mistake to suppose that deaf and blind children could not be made capable citizens. Science had conclusively proved that the deaf, dumb, and blind were as capable of being taught and of attaining to as high a pitch of culture as hearing and seeing persons; but, of course, they must be taught by special methods and appliances. No one could go round a blind school without being struck by the marvellous skill displayed by the pupils there in basket making, brush making, mat making, and other employments; and they were capable of studying and practising music, needlework, and in some cases drawing. In the schools for the deaf and dumb, also, the most marvellous results were obtained. To such a pitch of perfection were these unfortunate children brought by skilled methods of education, that it might almost, be thought that they could see with their eyes, and they literally could speak with their months. He only mentioned these facts in order to refute the statement that these children were not as capable as other children; and if any hon. Member who took an interest in the question would only visit the institutions set apart for the education of the deaf, dumb, and blind, he would be unable to deny that if properly taught they could be made just as capable citizens as any other person in the country;
  686
  and few would deny that it was the bounden duty of the State to do its utmost to make them capable citizens. As to the other argument—that of charity—no doubt it must be admitted that these unfortunate sufferers were fit objects of charity; and as their education was more than usually expensive, it might be right that a certain portion of the cost should be provided by charity and the rest by the State. He certainly thought that substantial aid ought to be given by the State to these institutions, and that would free a great deal of the money now given in charity for a work hardly less important than that of the education of the children—namely, establishing institutions for helping those who had the misfortune to lose their sight, and in a few cases their hearing and speech, after they had attained an age beyond that at which they could be educated. There was no doubt that a vast amount of terrible suffering existed among such persons who lost their sight after the age of education was passed. They were certainly fitting objects of charity, and some of the money now given in the shape of charity for the support of schools might be applied to their relief and assistance. It might be asked how it was that so important a work had been so long neglected in this country. It was understood that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had remained in Office he had some scheme which he had intended at an early date to propound. But, like a great many other Government schemes which were notoriously slow in seeing the daylight, the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, although it had been some years in his head, had never been presented, probably because the Government had been frightened at the propect of the expense which might be incurred in carrying it out. Personally, he thought it would have been better to have expended less in the education of those who were in the full possession of their senses than utterly to neglect the education of these unfortunate children. He maintained that every child in the country, whether in full possession of his faculties or afflicted with these terrible misfortunes, ought, at any rate, to receive a minimum amount of education. He had himself prepared a scheme which he intended to submit to the

  687
  House, and which had been suggested to him by persons who were thoroughly competent to give advice; but he would defer it for the present, as he did not think it would servo any good purpose to place it before the House at this moment. He understood that a Royal Commission was shortly to be appointed to inquire into the education of the blind; and although it might be right that a separate Commission should be appointed to inquire into the education of the deaf and dumb, still he thought that the one question was just as important as the other. There ought to be no further delay in investigating these questions; and he earnestly hoped that hon. Members would consider it the duty of the State as well as of the individual to do the very utmost, and not to shrink from expense in relieving the sufferings of those afflicted with these terrible misfortunes. He was sorry that he had been compelled to detain the Committee at such great length; but he trusted that the remarks he had made would succeed, to some extent, in awakening the interest of hon. Members in a question which he and many others had deeply at heart. It was impossible to exaggerate the extent of the calamity which befell those who were smitten with blindness or deprived of the senses of hearing and speaking. Those who were even partially deprived of those precious senses knew only too well how it took away half the brightness; and they could, perhaps, realize more fully the extent of the calamity to those who were totally blind, or entirely deprived of the sense of hearing.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I think it may save time if I answer my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Frederick Milner) at once. I can only say, after hearing his interesting speech, that Her Majesty's Government are fully impressed with the importance of the questions he has brought before the Committee. As regards the blind, it is the intention of the Government to cause a Commission to be issued immediately to inquire into their condition, and the means by which they may be educated and made self-supporting. I believe it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) shortly to issue a Commission. As regards the deaf and dumb, I do not think the same
  688
  Commission could investigate their case; but I am of opinion that the time has come when some inquiry should also be made with regard to them. I, therefore, propose to instruct the Inspectors, in certain districts, to report to me how far the Education Acts have failed to meet the case of the deaf and dumb. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that statement.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, there were one or two points in the Code to which he would like to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and also that of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education (Mr. Stanhope). The first provision of the Code to which he asked their attention was that which required that if only one class subject be taken it must be English; if two, one must be English; and if three, one must be English and one drawing. The other class subjects, as the Committee knew, were history, geography, and elementary science. Now, as three class subjects only could be taken, it followed that if history were selected neither geography nor elementary science could be taken. If geography were chosen, history and elementary science must be omitted, while, if elementary science were taken, history and geography were excluded. He did not deny that English grammar was an important subject; on the other hand, many of those who had obtained the greatest mastery over our language never studied it, and it was certainly a subject by no means popular with children. He would not, however, exclude it from the list of class subjects, and all that he objected to with regard to it was its being made obligatory. It seemed to him, for several reasons, undesirable to lay down stringent regulations; and as between the six class subjects they might surely leave the selection to the schoolmaster and the School Board. In the first place, schoolmasters were not all alike; and one man would make a subject interesting and instructive which in the hands of another would be dull and unprofitable. He was far from saying that history, geography, and elementary science should be obligatory; but, at the same time, he did say that their aim should be that children who had passed through school

  689
  should learn something of the laws of nature, something of the history of their country, and something of the geography of the world in which they lived. That question had been pressed on the Education Department by the National Society; and so strongly was it felt by many, that some of the geography text books, including those used by the Liverpool board, contained as much elementary science as geography, strictly so called, and they were thus enabled practically to teach the two subjects, to a certain extent, simultaneously. The lessons in elementary science were so delightful to the children, did so much to quicken their intelligence, and in that way to help, rather than to hinder, the other subjects, that he had no doubt this subject would slowly force its way into the schools whatever the Department might do; but the action of the Department tended greatly to obstruct this desirable result; and although he did not ask Her Majesty's Government to force it on the managers of schools, he did ask them to allow it to have a fair chance. In the interesting debate, so ably initiated last Friday by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Samuel Smith), several hon. Members expressed the opinion—which, indeed, seemed to command general assent—that their system of education was too bookish. It was that drawback which lessons in elementary science would tend to obviate. Elementary science cultivated the powers of observation, while the other subjects strained, and he might say even overstrained, the memory. Moreover, if they were to maintain their rapidly increasing population in anything approaching to comfort, it could only be by carefully utilizing the gifts and resources of science. They had heard many eloquent speeches in favour of local self-government, and were promised a wide and generous measure of that character in the next Parliament. But side by side with those vague professions they found in practice more and more centralization, an ever-increasing army of Inspectors, the control of local affairs, the management of prisons, the very conduct of business more and more absorbed by Government Departments and Government officials. The very Government which brought in a Bill to give London increased powers of self-
  690
  government dictated to the. London School Board, and would not allow them to say whether a given school should teach geography or English grammar. He did not ask the Committee to pronounce an opinion as between the subjects; but let them not proclaim themselves in favour of a large and generous measure of local self-government on the one hand, and then lay down stringent rules of this character on the other. It might be said that a class subject might possibly be taken as a special subject; but that was surrounded by so many difficulties that it was really no answer to his contention. He was grateful for the concession made in allowing the school boards to determine for themselves whether the Fourth Standard should be placed in the first or second category; and he would earnestly bog that school boards and committees should be allowed to determine for themselves in which and how many of the five class subjects they would present their children for examination. If this question were to be determined by the children themselves there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of elementary science, and they would do well to consider the wishes and instincts of the children themselves. Education was better than instruction; it did not so much matter what they knew when they loft school as what they wished to know. The love of knowledge was even more important than knowledge itself. However much children might have learnt they would soon forget what they did not care for, and however little they might know they would soon teach themselves if they had the wish to learn.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that the Committee were asked to agree in voting a considerable sum of money for educational purposes; but it was to be remembered that this sum did not include the whole of the cost of education in the country. Independently of the large sum voted by that House, a sum of no less than £1,800,000 was collected by rates for the support mainly of board schools. But there was another class of schools; the State was not the sole educator of the country. It was true that there were about 1,000,000 children in average attendance in the board schools; but there were more than 2,000,000 children in the voluntary schools of the

  691
  country. He was obliged at the beginning of his remarks to refer to the analysis of the position of the voluntary schools made by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Sydney Buxton). His hon. Friend had said they had prospered under the circumstances of which they complained. He (Mr. Hubbard) would not argue this question on the part of the Church of England alone; he treated it as a religious question, affecting equally Church of England Schools, Roman Catholic Schools, Wesleyan or Jewish Schools, and in that light he claimed Her Majesty's Government's attention to the subject. The State said—"We require every child to be educated, and we require that education be tested as to efficiency." The voluntary schools complied with those stipulations, and they received a certain capitation grant for the education of the children; that grant, on the part of the State, amounted to about 16.s. per head. What was the cost to the country of the children in the board schools? It was £2 14s. per head; and, therefore, his conclusion was that the hon. Member for Peterborough need not be afraid of destroying the voluntary character of voluntary schools by slightly enlarging the grant. It was true that a religious feeling supported voluntary schools. Those who supported them believed that religion ought to be the basis of all education: and they believed that religious teaching, unless it was given by teachers who were thoroughly in earnest, would be ineffective. They asked that there should be liberty of teaching in religious matters, and that the managers of religious schools should not be placed at a disadvantage. As he had pointed out, the voluntary schools cost the country, in the Government grant, l6s. per head; whereas the country had to pay £2 14s. for every school board pupil. He was not going to ask assistance for those schools which did not want it; where voluntary schools could keep up their establishments with their present means he was quite satisfied that they should be loft alone. Seeing the large number of schools where the foes must be low, and where the contributors must be few and poor also, he said it was cruel to deprive them of any portion of any portion of the grant earned upon examination and proof of excellence,
  692
  because they could not comply with the condition of raising 17s. 6d. by fees and voluntary contributions, defining voluntary contributions as annual money subscriptions. Schools that were excellent in every respect had been shorn of their right by that rule. Bearing in mind that the 17s. 6d. limit operated most unfairly, though unintentionally, as so construed, he suggested that, where needful to protect a school against the curtailment of the grant it had earned, the managers might count rent to the extent of 4s. per child as a portion of the stipulated voluntary contributions of their school. That was a definite proposal, which he was sure would not interfere with the economical rule of the late Vice President of the Education Board.
  MR. PICTONsaid, it should be borne in mind that the schools referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken were far more voluntary in their management then they were with respect to their maintenance. The theory generally adopted was, he believed, that if people wished to have the management within their own hands, and were not in a representative position, they ought to pay for it. So long, therefore, as the managers raised a reasonable proportion of the expense of the schools, it had been held that they had a right to exercise their powers with regard to them. That had been the general opinion, although he did not entirely subscribe to it himself. But it was not held that managers had a right to unburden themselves of all expense whatever in the management of schools, and still have the right to manage public funds, for that was, in fact, what their arguments came to. He did not think that that argument would be generally entertained by the country; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) would not take the advice that had been given him, notwithstanding the respect which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman and all in that House had for the source from which it came. He ventured to assure him that if he did go in that direction at all he would encounter a very considerable amount of opposition. But it was not his intention to allude to any disputable topics on that occasion. He wished to ask the attention of the Vice President of the Council

  693
  to a particular point in the Code; the instructions to Inspectors on a subject that he had not alluded to in his comprehensive and interesting speech—that was to say, the application of the Kindergarten system of instruction in infant schools. It had been repeated over and over again by many Members of that House that in all educational systems physical development ought to form part of the curriculum of mental training. That principle had been urged to-day by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), who had inveighed against making education too bookish. But if that was a fair argument with regard to the education of the elder children, much more so was it applicable to the education of little children, who, in a fair sense, might be regarded as having more body than mind, and the greater part of whose education must be conveyed through the medium of their senses rather than through their mind. A great German educational reformer, Friederich Froebel, had laid it down that children should be educated by means of play —that play was intended by the Almighty Creator as an instrument of education. But he did not think that the time devoted to play should be lost; he thought that it might be so managed as to prepare the faculties for higher instruction. The Kindergarten had been adopted in many private schools in the country. It was sufficient to say, without entering into minute description, that by means of variously coloured balls, boxes of objects of various forms, and other similar things the children were exercised in useful ways, such as moulding in clay, while, at the same time, they were taught to calculate. It would be seen that in this way the youngest children might be interested, and even delighted, while their bodily strength and mental faculties were exercised. Now, his point was that the Code did not give the full scope which might be given for the exercise and application of these sound principles. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (Mr. Mundella) during his term of Office had done very much to facilitate the system which he (Mr. Picton) was desirous of pressing on the right hon. Gentleman his Successor (Mr. E. Stanhope). Of course they all knew that the present Vice Pre-
  694
  sident had no part in framing the Code; and, much as his Predecessor had done when in Office, he had left much still to be done by his Successor, who he hoped would give his serious attention to this subject. He wished especially to call attention to the instructions given to Inspectors in regard to the Code of 1885, paragraph 6, which had reference to infant schools. There was a good deal of intelligent advice given to Her Majesty's Inspectors; but, still, what was laid down tended to prevent the application of the Kindergarten system to those schools. For instance—
  "Your attention is specially directed to the results of instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic."
  It should be remembered that these were not supposed to be subjects of individual examination, and that the adherents of the Kindergarten system followed a different plan in teaching children to read, write, and calculate, to that which had been adopted by the Government in previous years. Inspectors would ask children of three and four years of age to read very short syllables, and even to write a few letters of the alphabet; but the children in the Kindergarten were not taught in that way. They were taught the sounds and powers of letters, but not the names; and they would often read syllables without knowing the names of the letters at all. It was found that in this way they could associate sound and sense better than when, for instance, they were told, under the old system, that C, A, and I, as usually pronounced, made the sound "cat." If Her Majesty's Inspectors would allow the fullest liberty to the managers of schools who used this system, he prophesied that it would be found, when the children had reached the age of seven years, to have worked a very great improvement. He must again make his acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) for the facilities he had offered, and for what he had done in this direction; but until the paragraphs in the Code to which he had referred were somewhat altered, he did not think that the desired result would be obtained. For instance, the Kindergarten system in paragraph 10 was only mentioned by way of limitation. He there-fore hoped that the proper facilities

  695
  would be given to the managers of schools who desired to take up the Kindergarten system in its entirety.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, there was one subject referred to in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down on which he entirely concurred with him. He was not sure that the hon. Gentleman was in the House on the occasion of his calling attention to the evils resulting from the system of payment by results; but he thought he might call upon him to support the doctrine which he had then endeavoured to advance. When the hon. Gentleman asked the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President to give as much liberty as possible to managers to conduct their schools in the way that seemed best to them, although the hon. Gentleman referred to infant schools in particular, he (Mr. Talbot) went a little higher, and said that this was a principle on which he thought they ought to act with regard to education in general. If his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (Mr E. Stanhope) would go into this question in the same spirit as he had gone into the other matters relating to education, he believed he would find that the system of payment by results was one which, at no distant date, must engage the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that there was to be a Commission appointed to inquire into the condition, from an educational point of view, of the blind; and they wore also told that special instructions were to be given to Inspectors to look into the condition of the deaf and dumb. But he (Mr. Talbot) thought that, at the present time, a little more courage was necessary. He wanted to see the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Education Acts generally, because he was certain that a great deal of information was required on that subject. They were constantly hearing complaints from hon. Members on both sides of the House— certainly on that side—with regard to the unfairness with which the voluntary schools were treated. Then, again, they heard complaints about over- pressure in elementary schools; and on that point his right hon. Friend had made an important admission in saying that there was some ground for believing in the existence of
  696
  over-pressure, not only of children, but of teachers, which he thought was the greater evil of the two. Now, these were amongst the matters which he thought well deserved the attention of a Royal Commission; but he thought he might go on broader ground than that, and say that when a system of this kind had operated for 15 years it was not going too far to ask that inquiry should be made as to how it was working. He did not ask that any special modification should be introduced because his own political Friends were now in power; he asked for the appointment of a Royal Commission to go into all these subjects, so that they might have solid ground to go upon for what had so often been urged—that was to say, if the evidence given before the Commission showed that reform was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if managers would look into the conduct of their schools there would not be so much over-pressure as was stated to exist. But it must be borne in mind that managers were, to a great extent, under compulsion. They wore under the pressure of Her Majesty's Inspectors, and they were, of course, under the pressure of the Education Office. It might be the duty of managers to see, as far as they could, that neither the children nor the teachers were over-pressed; but they knew that the very existence of their schools depended on the result of the Inspector's visit. If, then, the whole pecuniary fortune of the school depended on the result of one single visit by the Inspector in the course of a year, it was not to be wondered at that a certain amount of over-pressure should take place which would not otherwise exist. Therefore, he said that Her Majesty's Inspectors ought to be instructed not to press the managers to over-press, but to discourage the practice as much as possible; and then the Department of the Government which had to deal with the subject of education should impress on the Inspectors themselves the desirability of refraining from anything of the kind. He was glad to hear from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Lubbock) the admission—which coming from him was very valuable—that education in their schools ought not to be too bookish. Had he (Mr. Talbot) said that he might have been regarded as an Obstructionist to education; but

  697
  as coming from the hon. Baronet he trusted the remark would he received in a different light. No one, he thought, could doubt that it was quite as honourable for a man or woman to learn at the outset of life the manual work which they would have to do in their after career as it was for those intended for the position of clerk or lawyer to learn something of the work they would afterwards be called upon to perform. There was only one other subject to which he desired to call attention, and that was to the enormous burdens which wore now being laid, not merely on those who contributed to the' support of the voluntary schools, a subject on which something had been said by previous speakers, but also on the municipal bodies. He believed he was correct in quoting his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council as having stated that the School Board loans had amounted to £16,000,000. If hon. Members knew anything, as he had had occasion to know, of the expenditure incurred by the municipal bodies throughout the country in other directions, they would be somewhat startled at the enormous total of the figures that might be given. It should be remembered that these School Board loans were only one part of the municipal burdens borne by the people of this country; and he could not but think that something ought to be done to put some kind of check on their municipal expenditure. He did not say that he considered his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Mundella) chargeable with extravagance in connection with School Board expenditure; but still, in regard to municipal expenditure generally, they were all aware of the great temptation there was to expend freely the money of other people, and he regarded it as one of the functions of Parliament to put a check on the extravagant expenditure of municipal bodies. Until Parliament 'had grappled with this question, which had now become a national one, of the enormous local expenditure incurred by municipal bodies, it never would be able to impose that restriction on the extravagance of those bodies, without which the evil would never he stopped. One point that ought to be borne in mind was that, however extravagant i municipal bodies were, the expenditure they incurred never seemed to make the slightest difference to their constituents.
  698
  The members who sanctioned the expenditure were re-elected all the same; and although hon. Gentlemen opposite might say—"If the ratepayers do not object, you ought not to do so," he felt bound to urge that it was the duty of Parliament to object, and that if it were the case that Parliament had a little more wisdom than other people—and he supposed it was generally conceded that it had, otherwise they would not be there at all—it must cither check these enormous local expenditures, or be prepared to see the day when it would be found that the burden they created had become almost unknowingly so great an incubus on the population that a strong reaction would set in and produce results which, whatever they might be, would be duo to the simple fact that Parliament had not opened its eyes to the extravagance of the municipal bodies, and had, consequently, failed to impose any wholesome restraint. He congratulated his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council on the very able and, on the whole, satisfactory Budget he had put before the Committee that night. He was sure they could all rely on his right hon. Friend's holding the balance fairly between the board schools and the voluntary schools, which had already accomplished, and were still doing, a vast work for the education of the whole community; and he would conclude by repeating that with which he had begun —namely, that he thought he had made out a strong case for the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Elementary Education Acts.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Although I did not rise at an earlier period of the debate, I think the Committee is now desirous of getting through the discussion as rapidly as possible; and as I am anxious to correct what I deem to be one or two mistakes into which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot) has fallen, I take the present opportunity of offering what remarks I have to make to the Committee. I trust I may be allowed, in the first instance, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman my Successor in the Office of Vice President of the Council on the clear and interesting statement he has this evening placed before the Committee. I feel with the last speaker the utmost confidence that the

  699
  right hon. Gentleman will do as all his Predecessors have done, hold the balance fairly between all Parties, and administer the Education Acts in the spirit in which they were enacted by this House. The year that has just passed has undoubtedly been a year of the greatest progress we have ever had in regard to the Education Acts. It is really marvellous to note the strides education has made in this country, As the right hon. Gentleman himself has pointed out, the supply of school accommodation—that is to say, the seats provided for the children of this country—if properly distributed would meet all the wants of the country at the present moment. But, unhappily, this accommodation is not properly distributed. An excess of seats in the City of London, for example, will not meet the demand at Greenwich; and the same remark applies to Scotland and the rural districts, for it will be found that while there is an excess which tells up very largely in the tale of the whole supply of places, yet when you want to meet the demands of the increasing populations of the large towns throughout the country that excess is of no service whatever. There is, I believe, still the greatest deficiency to be found within the Metropolitan area—I allude especially to the growing suburbs of London; and on this point I may state that Mr. Hughes, a member of the London School Board, when he accompanied a deputation last year, stated that in the Metropolitan suburbs we can hardly build too many schools. In the great and increasing district of Lambeth, for instance, the population is extending so rapidly that something like four or five new board schools a-year are required to supply the demands of the increased growth of that part of the Metropolis alone. If, therefore, we are to keep pace with the actual wants of London we must erect a new board school for the accommodation of 1,000 children every month. This sounds like a prodigious demand as being merely what is necessary to meet the wants of a single population. My right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council has made a very interesting statement as to the cost of the scholars in the board schools and voluntary schools. I should be the last man to deny that there may be extravagance in the management both of the voluntary and of
  700
  the board schools; but, at the same time, I think it must be admitted that there has been an interested and a very unfair outcry against the expenditure of the school boards, not only in London, but throughout the country. I believe that the School Board of the Metropolis has done a work the importance of which the public hardly appreciate, and that the influence which that work is having and will continue to have in the solution of those social problems to which the right hon. Gentleman made reference at the close of his speech is likely to be greater almost than it is possible for the Committee to conceive. I have watched this work for the last five years—I might almost say for the last 25 years—and it is impossible for me to convey to the Committee my conviction of the excellence of the work that is now being done in raising up a population that will strengthen the national character and tend to check the evils of intemperance, pauperism, and vice, and in bringing the influence of education to bear in the solution of the most difficult problems of the day. And in saying this I am not speaking without actual knowledge. I hear a great deal said against board schools and the way in which they fulfil their purpose; but it is far from my intention to say anything against voluntary schools. I trust, therefore, that if I say anything in favour of board schools, it is not to be supposed that I am thereby depreciating the voluntary schools. It is a common error to suppose that when we speak well of the one we necessarily speak ill of the other. On the contrary, as has been well said by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Sydney Buxton), there is ample work for both of them to do —aye, and even more than they can do; and I can bear testimony, from what I have seen during the five years I have been in Office, to the excellent influence which the managers of the voluntary schools exert upon the condition of the schools, and the teachers and the children who come under their care. There is nothing more valuable to the cause of education than the influence of good managers, while there can be nothing more pernicious than the influence of voluntary managers who neglect the duties of management in connection with the schools over which they have control.

  701
  Before I turn to the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has laid before the Committee, and in which there is a great deal that must have been of much interest to us all, I should like to tell the Committee something of the work that has been done, not only during the last five years, but during the period that has elapsed since the Education Acts were passed. There were two or three subjects touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman, and by other speakers who have followed him, to which, in the first instance, I wish to allude. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the educational progress made last year in England and Wales as having been greater than that attained by Scotland. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman did not intend it to be supposed that education in England had overtaken Scotch education. The progress made in England and Wales has been great because the scope for it has been great. The deficiency has been so large, and we have been and are so much in arrear of Scotland, that there has been more ground to make up here. We have not yet, as has truly been said, overtaken Scotland either, in the matter of average attendance at school or in the attainments of the scholars; and I am afraid it will be some time before we do so, especially as Scotland is continually making splendid progress, and may be expected in the future to make even greater advances than she has achieved during the past few years. Look at what was the case last year. I believe the progress then made by that country was greater than it had been for several previous years, and that the 18s. 1d. per head to which the grant has risen from 17s. ll½d., and for which the right hon. Gentleman has provided in his Estimate for next year, will be found too small, and that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself at the end of the financial year out of his calculation, owing to the progress Scotland is making being greater than he anticipates. This was the case last year; and we had to come down to this House and ask for a large Supplementary Estimate both for England and Scotland. And here I must say, with regard to all these Educational Estimates, it is impossible to forecast precisely what will be the expenditure for a particular year, because
  702
  it depends very much, not only on the zeal of the Local Bodies, on the action of the school boards, managers, and magistrates, but very much even on what may be the state of the weather. In a wet season the attendance is lower than it is in a dry season; and it is found that when there is a fine open winter in Scotland there is a considerable increase in the average attendance, and consequently in the amount of the grant for that country. The right hon. Gentleman has stated, as we ail admit, that there have probably been some cases of overpressure. I have never denied that there might be some cases; but my belief is that the physical advantages of attending school are all on the side of the good of the population; that the school attendance improves the health of the poor children, although not, perhaps, in the same degree as it improves their morals. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Algernon Percy), who knows something of the London board schools, can testify how splendidly the children go through their exercises; how those exorcises strengthens them and smartens them up, giving them habits of accuracy and discipline which are of the greatest possible advantage to them. I hope we shall do all we can to encourage the school boards in the development of this physical training. But it must be remembered that all these things cost money. I say, however, that we ought to have drilling places and drill masters, and we ought also to introduce, as I hope we shall do, gymnasiums and gymnastic exercises, providing the necessary apparatus, which, of course, will be the source of further outlay, for which, also, we must be prepared. I join with those who deprecate extravagance; but, at the same time, I think that parsimony in education is the worst economy in the world. It is an old story, but it was said by one of the Presidents of the American Republic—I believe by President Garfield—that all to be saved which depreciates the character of the education is lost twice over if it be saved at the sacrifice of advantage to the children. I say, therefore, that we ought to encourage these physical exercises; and I say further that not only are they beneficial to the children generally, but if we take the ease of the poor children who are sent from the one room in which the whole family reside—and in some of

  703
  the London board schools from 60 to 80 per cent of the children are those of families living in a single room—we find that those children are brought from the wretched streets and alleys, and the miserable staircases on which they are in the habit of playing, and placed in large rooms and good play grounds, where they can breathe a pure atmosphere, and where their lives are brightened, as indeed the children show themselves; for those poor little things, after all, love the school a great deal more than the children of the well-to-do working class. But the right hon. Gentleman has said that there are two things which we ought to beware of—home lessons and overtime. I admit that excessive home lessons must be a great disadvantage; but I should be very sorry to see the Education Department prohibit home lessons. If you attempt this, either in England or Scotland, but especially in Scotland, you will have an outcry on the part of the parents such as would very soon have the effect of reversing any decision you may come to in that direction. With respect to the question of overtime I am entirely in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I think the teachers have no right to keep the children for a month, or even two or three months, before the examination in order to give them a long training for the purpose of covering the results of past neglect. I shall be very glad to support the Inspectors in preventing this, for I know that they are all instructed to take care that overtime is not excessively resorted to; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will support them in the endeavour to put an end to it. There is one point in connection with the subject to which I wish to allude. I refer to the over-pressure imposed on the teachers, and especially on the female teachers. If there is one thing more than another of which I have been thoroughly convinced for years past, it is that the whole method of training and working female teachers is unreasonable almost to the point of being absolutely cruel. Take the life of a female teacher. She begins, perhaps, as a monitor at the age of 13 and becomes a pupil teacher at 14, when she is made not only to teach all day long, but to do a great deal of drudgery both be-fore and after school hours. She has to be up early in the morning, and late in
  704
  the evening; she has to get up her lessons, so that she may be able to pass her annual examination, all this being in addition to her school work. At the age of 18 or 19, if she does not succeed at the Training College, she has again to go into school and work the whole of her time as an assistant, while she has also to work hard at her own education, in order that she may pass the examination at the end of the year and obtain a certificate, after which she ultimately becomes a schoolmistress. I cannot conceive anything more laborious than the life of such a teacher, who has to work hard in the school five days a-week, not only in the school itself, but before the school opens in the morning and after it is closed in the evening, cramming up to obtain her own education. This comes from the bad side of our pupil teacher system, which is the real outcome of the parsimony of the English people in regard to education. It came, in the first instance, from a desire to conduct education very cheaply. Still, it has its advantages; for the English pupil teacher who spends part of her day in school and the other part of the day in acquiring the education necessary for her future career becomes a better teacher and better able to manage a school than does the young woman who, after a training such as can be got in France or Germany, does not enter an English school until she is 20 or 21 years of age. There is, however, another thing I should like to point out to hon. Members. I have recently been visiting some rural schools, and I have been quite shocked to see the amount of work imposed upon the female teachers. In one case I saw a female teacher with 68 children under her.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Was that a board school?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No; it was a voluntary school. That teacher had to go through the whole of the six Standards, and had also to look after a pupil teacher with her infant class. Her work, as she told me, was not done when she closed the school doors at the end of the week. She had to train her pupil teacher, of course; but she had to do more than that. She had been engaged on the condition that she was to teach in the Sunday school twice a-day, take the children to church, and play the

  705
  harmonium. The result of all this was that, week in and week out, that poor girl never had a day's rest. Now, there is no one in this House who has a higher opinion of the value of Sunday school work than I have; but, at the same time, I do wish school managers would arrange that this Sunday school work should be done rather by non-professional teachers, so that the ordinary teacher should have a day of leisure on the Sunday, in order that she might obtain a little needed rest. To keep the teacher at work every day in the week, Sunday included, is really cruel and unjust; and if any hon. Member will only take up the educational newspapers and look through them—say, The Schoolmaster or The Guardian —he will find advertisements for teachers who, in addition to the ordinary work of teaching in school and training the pupil teacher, are also required to do a great deal of quasi-parochial work. I think the time has now arrived when a considerable demand will be made by these persons for, at any rate, the Sunday's rest. With respect to this over-pressure on the teachers, there is no doubt that very much of it arises from the insufficiency of the staff; and wherever there is insufficiency of staff the teachers are overworked, the children are worried, and the school is not conducted with that system and order and regularity which ought to exist. The result is that there must be a push given first to one class and then to another, in order to bring the children up to a condition in which they may be able to pass the examination. What is really wanted is more staff; and when hon. Gentlemen opposite and those on this side of the House also contrast, as they frequently do, the cheapness of the voluntary schools with the cost of the board schools, I would beg them to bear in mind that by far too many of the voluntary schools have been and are being conducted with an altogether insufficient staff, and that that is one of the chief reasons why they are carried on at a cheaper rate than the board schools. When we come to look at the cost of many of the voluntary schools of London, we find that they expend as much, if not more, than the board schools in the country by 1s. or 2s. per head, and I know some of these that are spending even more than the board schools in London, and are at
  706
  the same time conducting their education with great success. 'There are several of these voluntary schools which I could name that are doing their work quite as well, or even better, than any other schools in the country; but then they are doing it with an adequate staff. The hon. Member for York (Sir Frederick Milner) has spoken about the education of the blind and the deaf and. dumb. I have listened with great sympathy to his remarks, and I am glad to be able to say that the late Government decided on asking for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition and education of the blind; and I may add that I urged upon my Colleagues that they should add to that investigation an inquiry into the condition of the deaf and dumb, because I considered that both these classes have been greatly neglected, and that a great deal of misery and pauperism are the result of their slighted education. I believe that the result would well repay a fair outlay on the part of the Government, if they would take care to have the blind and deaf and dumb properly trained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) has put forward a plea for an increased grant of 4s. per head all round. That demand, if assented to, would really mean an increase in the annual grant to the extent of £1,000,000, because it could not be supposed that the grant should be increased to the extent of 4s. per head in England without a similar addition being made to the grant for Scotland. If it is given in the one case, we cannot withhold it in the other. It must be remembered that there are at the present moment more than 5,000,000 children on the rolls of the English and Scotch schools, and that, consequently, if 4s. per head be added to the present grant, there is another £1,000,000 gone at once. Having regard to the fact that the voluntary schools are costing less and less for their management every year, and that there is a steady decline in the cost of education in those voluntary schools, while at the same time the grant is increasing, the fees are increasing, and the voluntary subscriptions are diminishing, I think it is unreasonable to make such a demand, and I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman who made it is likely to find the Treasury

  707
  giving encouragement to any such claim. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot) has urged the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the general question of what has been done under the Education Acts. What I have to say upon that proposal is, that a great deal must depend, in the first place, on what are the objects of that Royal Commission, and, in the next place, on how the Commission is to be constituted. All I can say is, that if we are to have a Royal Commission to inquire into the character and quality of English education, and into our existing methods, and if the Educationalists are to be as fairly represented upon it as was the case in the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, I should be very glad to see it appointed. I am quite sure that the result will be an increased demand for a better class of education. An inquiry will certainly not result in cheapening the education of the country, or in lowering the quality of its tone. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Talbot) complained also of the system of inspection. It has become rather the fashion of late to complain of the Inspectors. I am sure that, so far as I was concerned, I did my utmost to re-organize the staff of Inspectors, and put all the machinery in such a condition that with proper supervision it would work smoothly. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Talbot) complains of the Inspector going but once a-year. I should have liked to ask him, if he had been in his place, how it is that the National Society, of which he is a member, adopt the very system of inspection for religious education which is adopted for secular education? Diocesan inspection is urged upon every school in the country, and the Diocesan Inspector goes round to every school once a-year. The results are found, I was going to say as important, but I think they are found more important, to the teachers of the schools than the results in the case of secular instruction. The National Society adopted just the same means of inspection; they classed the schools as fair, good, and excellent; and the teachers tell me that if they do not succeed in attaining a high standard in religious instruction they are more severely reproved by the Diocesan Inspectors than they are under similar circumstances by the Secular Inspectors. So if you are to abolish inspection for
  708
  secular subjects you must do very much the same thing in the case of religious subjects. Well, now, the hon. Gentleman also spoke of the enormous burdens placed on the ratepayers, and said the time had come to check the extravagances of the school boards. We are constantly hearing of the extravagances of the school boards. I should like to bring under the notice of the Committee a few figures, which will illustrate what is the cost of education in this country as compared with other countries. Let us take our own Colonies. I have here a Return which has just been issued relating to the year 1883. It contains a Report from the Government Statist of Victoria, and a most interesting Report it is. Now, what is the cost of education in our Australian Colonies? The population was 3,000,000 and some thousands. The total expenditure of the Australian Colonies in 1883 for education was £2,104,599; in round figures there was £2,000,000 of expenditure for 3,000,000 of population. If you were to apply that rule to the English population the cost of education in this country would be £20,000,000 a-year. Now, the whole cost of education in this country, including the Science and Art instruction, is under £12,000,000 a-year—I put it roughly at £12,000,000. £2,000,000 must be taken off that sum as the amount paid by children in fees, so the cost of education—Science and Art, Board Schools, Voluntary Schools, &c. — is £10,000,000. There are 35,000,000 of population, so that gives you about 6s. per head per annum for the whole population. Now, what is the cost per head per annum in Australia? It is 14s. And the cost in Massachusetts is 19s. per head per annum; and in the City of Paris it is 12s. 6d. per head per annum. We spend on education about one-third what is spent in Massachusetts; we spend considerably less than one-half what is spent by our Australian Colonies; and we spend less than one-half of what is spent in the City of Paris. Now, there are two or three figures with respect to the remarkable progress of the last few years which I think will interest the Committee. I have taken the results for 1869, 1879, and 1884 as to the number on the school registers and as to the average attendance. Well, in 1869 the number of

  709
  children on the school registers in England and Wales was 1,569,000, in 1879 3,711,000, and in 1884 4,337,000. The average attendance in 1869 was 1,063,000, in 1879 2,595,000,and in 1884 3,273,000; or, to put it another way, the average percentage of attendance was 67·78 in 1869, 69·93 in 1879, and 75·46 in 1884. If we take into consideration the number of half-timers, the average attendance in England and Wales was last year brought up for the first time to something over 80 per cent. Now, the most remarkable of all statements was the one that affects the educational progress. In 1869 the number of children in Standards V. to VII. was 91,400, in 1879 it had risen to 163,300, and in 1884—a lapse of five years—it had risen to 325,200. It will thus be seen that the numbers in the upper Standards have nearly doubled in the last five years. These results I am quite sure are satisfactory. I am also quite sure of another thing, and that is that the outlay on education is the best outlay the Government has ever made or is likely to make. There is in existence a very remarkable Paper which I hope will shortly be published. It has not yet come to the notice of the House; but I am enabled by the favour of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) to make a quotation from it. The Paper relates to the administration of the Criminal Law, and contains a correspondence between the late Home Secretary and the late Lord Chancellor (Earl Selborne) upon the subject. Now, the facts set forth are most remarkable. They show that the decline in the criminal population is exceedinglyrapid—that, indeed, it becomes more and more rapid every year.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Has the Paper been laid before Parliament?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is a confidential document I am quoting from; but I have no doubt my right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) will lay it on the Table if he were asked to do so. I can give some quotations, at any rate, from official Correspondence. The Prison Commissioners in their Report for 1883 say that the decrease in the number of persons in the prisons in 1881·2 and in 1883 occurred chiefly amongst the younger criminals, the decrease amongst those under 30 years of age forming
  710
  55·1 per cent of the whole, and amongst those over 30 forming 449 per cent. The number in prison under 16 years of age in March, 1880, was 429; it fell in 1883 to 268, and since then it ha3 fallen much lower. The total number of prisoners under sentence of penal servitude fell from 11,660 in 1869 to under 9,500 in 1884. But the great reduction is in the number of prisoners under 30 years of age, it having fallen nearly one-half. The Paper I have here attributes the decrease mainly to two things — the Education Act, and the working of our Reformatory and Industrial Schools. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) is in Office next year, he will see his way to extend the industrial school system. There is nothing more important than that we should have a thoroughly good system of day industrial and truant schools. There is no Royal road for solving the great social question which affects our large towns; but I believe that, by patiently persevering in this line, we shall do much to get rid of the misery and the depravity which is too common amongst our population. In conclusion, I must again congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his statement, which he made with so much ability and clearness.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee many minutes; but as allusion had been made to the expenditure of the London School Board, he desired to say that, in his opinion, the question did require the closest attention on the part of the Education Department. He was rather surprised at one figure that was quoted by his right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope). If he was not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman said that the expenditure or maintenance per head in the London School Board had somewhat decreased. That certainly did not appear to agree with the figures in the Estimate of Expenditure issued by the School Board, for the year 1885–6, commencing the 25th of March, 1885. There he saw that, for the current year, the maintenance of day schools provided by the Board amounted to 32s. 8d. per child; for the year ending the 25th of March, 1886, it was estimated that the net cost of maintenance would be 35s. 11d. per child, or an increase of 3s. 3d. per child,

  711
  Again, if they took the total expenditure of the London School Board, they found it had gone up in the year from £950,804 to £1,045,365. He did not wish to use the word extravagance in reference to the London School Board, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot) did, because he thought it was a great mistake to prejudge the case. If the present expenditure was absolutely necessary, nothing more was to be said; but there was a very general feeling amongst the inhabitants of the Metropolis that the expenditure was not necessary, and that feeling was likely to increase unless some good explanation was given. He therefore thought it was most desirable, in the interest of education, that an inquiry into the matter should be instituted, and a clear explanation of all the facts of the case given. The more one examined the accounts and compared the expenditure of the London School Board with the expenditure on education in the large towns of the country, the more it appeared necessary that some further light should be thrown upon the subject. The total expenditure of the London School Board for the next year was estimated at £1,090,000, and of that sum no less than 75 per cent was defrayed by the rates, 15 per cent was defrayed by the Government grant, and the remaining 10 per cent was defrayed by the school pence. The Committee would see, therefore, that the expenditure of the School Board was a matter which did affect very vitally the interests of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. Were hon. Gentlemen acquainted with the amount of income derived from the rates by the school boards in London and in the following large towns:—Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Hull, Leeds, and Liverpool? In the Provinces, the highest income ever reached, from 1880 to 1883–4, was in Bradford in 1881, and that was a little over 18s. per child; whereas, in London, the income had never been lower than in 1883–4, when it was £1 10.9. 7¼d, while in the Estimate just issued it would amount to £1 15s. 1d. Again, the average total expenditure per scholar had always been much lower in the Provinces than in London. The highest was in Bradford in 1883–4, when it was £2 7s. 7d., whereas it had always been
  712
  over £2 15 s. in London, and it was now, he believed, a little over £2 17s. Therefore, it could not be said that the expenditure had decreased. He was far from saying that the work of the London School Board had not been exceedingly valuable; but that was not quite the point. The question was whether the work done could have been done as well with a less expenditure. It was also a question whether the work done was really of an elementary description, for which the London School Board was originally instituted. Now, if it could be proved that large towns in the country, having school boards, did good work and better work than the London School Board at less expenditure, then he thought the question arose, what were the different conditions which caused such an enormous discrepancy? It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) to talk about building a school every month to accommodate 1,000 scholars, gymnasiums, and the like. These were all very excellent institutions; but the question was, where were they going to stop? Was all this to be defrayed from the rates? The rates had gone up steadily every year, and now for school board purposes they were. 9d. in the pound. It must be remembered, too, that this increase had taken place at a time when the average attendance had increased, and the amount gained by Government grant had very largely increased, which would have led one to expect a decrease rather than an increase on the rates. The chief item of increase was under the head of "Salaries." The salaries for the year ending 29th September, 1873, amounted to £1 4s. 3d. per scholar; but in the School Board Estimates for 1885 they amounted to no less than £2 6s. 1d. per scholar. The number provided for was 312,671, so that the increase of the rate under this head alone amounted to £342,332, or to more than 2¾d. in the pound. In the Report of the Committee of Council on Education, the board schools in England and Wales, who did their work exceedingly well, obtained their salaried teachers at the rate of £1 12s. 0½d. per scholar. Some explanation was certainly required why such extraordinary high salaries should be necessary in London. It appeared also that the London School

  713
  Board found it necessary to give a salary of about £100 a-year more than was given by voluntary schools in London for masters and mistresses respectively. It might be said that the voluntary schools were, to a certain extent, starved; but he did not think that could be said truly of voluntary schools as a rule. The Return which had been granted on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget) showed how many voluntary schools suffered under Article 114. At any rate, if it could be said of certain voluntary schools, it could not be said of the board schools of Manchester, because in 1883–4 the grants earned by the board schools of Manchester amounted to 11¼d. per head more than those earned by the board schools of London, whereas the salaries paid in the board schools of London were 12,s 11 d. per head higher than those paid in the board schools in Manchester. It therefore appeared that in the Manchester board schools better work could be done for 13s. per head loss cost than could be done by the London board schools, He had hitherto carefully avoided saying anything about the cost of building or of sites; but he could not help thinking that a certain amount of extravagance, or, he should say, undue expenditure, took place under those heads because of the undue competition which was created between board schools and voluntary schools. This competition took place in two ways. In the first place, by the board schools lowering the fees to such an extent that the voluntary schools suffered in consequence; and, in the second place, by putting up board schools in immediate proximity to voluntary schools, where they were not required, and where the result was to destroy the voluntary schools. A remarkable instance of this occurred in St. James', Westminter. The Pulteney Street Board School was built to accommodate 1,000 scholars at a cost of £33 per head. The result was that two national schools instantly lost 611 scholars.
  MR. LYULPU STANLEY: Can the noble Lord give the names of the schools?
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee on this point; but he could give the names of the schools if the hon. Gentleman really desired them.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEY: I may want to say something about them.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYsaid, the two schools were the National School, in Marshall Street, and St. Peter's National School, in Great Windmill Street. There were also three schools under Government grant and one school under Trustees, which were closed. The total number of places now vacant amounted to 1,711. All of those places could have been occupied by children receiving education free of any expense to the rates. But the most curious fact was, that in the parish at the present moment there were fewer children receiving elementary education than there were at the time the Pulteney Street School was built. He thought he had adduced figures to justify the very strong suspicion entertained by many that the expenditure of the London School Board was scarcely warranted, He considered that on all grounds it was most important that some inquiry should be made, with the view of securing some check, if there really was need for it, upon the present expenditure of the Board.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he did not think it was right he should detain the Committee long by going into the allegations against the London School Board, because they were now engaged in considering the general Education Estimates for the country, He would like, however, to refer to the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Westminster (Lord Algernon Percy). It appeared to him that the noble Lord had been misled by a document circulated by the St. James' Vestry, and from which he had quoted some of his figures. The noble Lord, who, he was sure, would not intentionally make a mistake, said that when the Pulteney Street School was built the schools in Great Windmill Street and Marshall Street were emptied.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYsaid, he never used the word emptied. What he did say was, that those schools lost 611 scholars.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he had not the figures with him; but his impression was that both the school in Marshall Street and that in Great Windmill Street had substantially as many children now, or until six months ago, as they had before the Pulteney Street

  715
  School was built. The noble Lord must know that for some time past Westminster had been greatly disturbed by street improvements, and that might possibly have recently diminished the number of scholars in those two schools. The noble Lord had been misled very much, because he gave the Committee to understand that three schools had been closed in consequence of the erection of the Pulteney Street School. That statement was made in the document from which the noble Lord had quoted. It was a curious fact, that the schools mentioned were schools transferred to the London School Board. The premises were quite unsuitable for schools, and it was to replace them that the Pulteney Street School was built. One of them was the Craven School, very near to Marshall Street; one was attached to St. Luke's, and was transferred to the Board because the manager was unable to carry it on, as the lease was expiring; and the third was a school under a chapel in an adjoining street, and was hired by the Board while the Pulteney Street School was being built, and while the old school, on the site, was pulled down. He was satisfied the noble Lord would not again allude to Pulteney Street School as a school built so as to close three voluntary schools and to partially destroy two others. There were one or two matters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) in regard to which he wished to make a few observations. He admitted that the cost in London was very high, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and he did not think he could hold out any great hope to hon. Members that, so far as London was concerned, it would be diminished. It had been mentioned that the cost of education in the schools was 12s. 4d. per head higher than in the voluntary schools. No doubt that was substantially correct; but he thought that one or two items would show that that was not very surprising. In the first place, the Vestries were not very friendly to the London School Board, and they had always taken the opportunity of putting the rating of the London board schools at as high a figure as possible; and the result was that the London School Board payments for rates amounted to about 3s. for each child. Again, whenever a voluntary school was transferred to the Board,
  716
  the Vestries always took the opportunity of raising the rating. Voluntary schools, as a rule, were rated at a very low and nominal value; but they had had cases of schools which, although rated at £50 a-year as voluntary schools, were, on transfer to the School Board, rated at £500 a-year. That, he said, was very unjust, and, as he had pointed out, it had contributed to bringing up the rate to about 3s. per scholar. It should be remembered also that the teachers in the voluntary schools were largely paid by items which did not appear in the accounts of the cost of those schools. It was no uncommon thing for the head teachers to have residences given to them as part of their pay, and that could not be put at less than £25 a-year; but it was an item which did not appear in the balance sheet, and a larger salary must, of course, be given where the teacher did not have a house given to him. He found that in one school the master was allowed to sell books to the children at the ordinary retail price, which gave him a profit of £10 or £15 a-year. That was regarded as a private transaction between the master and the child. It might, as an hon. Gentleman opposite said, be an exceptional case; but he (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) was stating the fact as it came within his knowledge, and he said that such a practice was clearly mischievous, because it was the interest of the master to force more books on the children than they required in order that he might make a profit. He admitted that the rate was very high, and it had been properly pointed out that the chief item of expense was that of salaries. It was there that heavy expenses were incurred. He did not wish to trouble the Committee more than he could help with regard to the London School Board; but he thought he had a right to ask the Committee whether they did not think that the salaries of teachers ought to be such as to attract the educated men and women in the profession of teachers? As they could get a jerry builder to run up a house at almost any figure, so, in the matter of education, they could get some wretched starveling to teach children somehow or other, and if they liked to pay the bottom price instead of the top price in the market, no doubt it was possible to cut down the expenses of the Board by many thousands of pounds in the

  717
  year. But he asked, whether it would have been a wise policy to try to grapple with the mass of ignorance in the country with the cheapest teachers that could be got? He said that, under no circumstances, would it be a wise economy to try to cheapen their teachers, even if teachers were to be had at low salaries. If they had to go into the highways and byeways for the children they had to instruct, he held that teachers of the highest morals, character, and ability, were not too good for their purpose. Those children were not to be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic only; they had to be civilized and humanized as well, and for that purpose the high moral qualities of patience, forbearance, and kindness were necessary. He said, considering the work that had to be done in London and in the great towns of the country, the best policy was to pay the best price in order to get teachers who could properly perform the difficult work that had to be done. He admitted that the cost of tuition was high; but it was the duty of the Education Department and of every liberal man and woman in the country to see that this work was done well. With regard to over-pressure, he believed that the over-pressure which did exist had been greatly over-estimated. There was a certain amount of overpressure, and he was certain there would be more of it, if stupid teachers were employed. But he agreed that there was great danger of over-pressure in respect of teachers, especially woman teachers and pupil teachers, and a great part of the responsibility for that rested with the Education Department, which had allowed for years a miserably inadequate staff to supply the requirements of the Department. The Education Department year after year had said that a certificated teacher should reckon on the staff for 80 children in average attendance. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for (Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) laid that down as a minimum, did he not know that he was holding up a standard which many poor managers both of voluntary and of school boards would treat as a maximum? He said that the result of that was a scandal and a reproach to their system; and that when it was known that managers were working on that minimum, which the Regulations of the Department allowed,
  718
  it was for those on the Front Bench so to alter the Code that over-pressure as the result of an insufficient staff could not possibly arise. They must make up their minds, that if they were to have education worthy of the county, it would cost a great deal more than it had cost up to the present time. He would like to draw the attention of the Vice President (Mr. E. Stanhope) to the danger of over-centralization. He remembered having mentioned before in that House a remarkable speech of the late Earl of Beaconsfield, which he made in the memorable debate of 1839, when the first proposal was made for forming the Committee of Council. The Earl of Beaconsfield, then Mr. Disraeli, even at the beginning of the creation of the Education Department, raised the voice of warning against creating a Central Department which should interfere with the individual character of self-government in localities. He (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) acknowledged that where a Government grant was made there must be supervision, and that when efficiency was the basis of payment there must be a test of efficiency; but he objected to obstacles being placed in the way of people who wanted to teach something sensible and intelligible that did not happen to appear in the Code. He wished at this point to say a few words with regard to the growing interference with the managers of elementary schools. It was true that the Code itself lay on the Table of the House, but the Instructions to Inspectors were more in the nature of a Departmental document. It was, of course, very proper that Instructions should be issued to Inspectors; but his contention was that those Instructions contained many things which were practically additions to the Code, and that some of them were very material additions. There was one innovation with regard to the registers. It was necessary that registers should be kept, and the Department must make reasonable regulations as to the mode of keeping them; but he said it was a usurpation for the Department to proceed to extend by their authority to an enormous extent the time for which names should be kept on the registers. Those were matters which ought to be very much in the discretion of managers and teachers. He did not complain that names were kept on the register a clear fortnight; but

  719
  the Department had ordered that names should be kept on it for six weeks; and this year they had gone further, and said that names were not to be removed from the register unless it could be proved that the children had left the neighbourhood, or something of that kind. He always regretted very much to hear the Code discussed in the House of Commons, because the House was not competent to discuss these technical details; but the more they were obliged to refrain from discussing it, the more they must appeal to the forbearance of the Department not to make year by year fresh encroachments on the independence of schools. He was sorry there had been so little said in the course of that discussion of the efficiency, and so much about the cost of education— so little about the progress of education, and so much about the poor ratepayers, who, however, he believed, were quite satisfied with the results which their money was producing.
  MR. ACKERSsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) would be astonished when he spoke on behalf of the dumb of this country, and said that he could not be satisfied with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman that night. A Royal Commission had been promised for the blind, but not for the deaf. It was, he regretted to say, another instance of the indifference to the subject of the education of the deaf, that during the remarks of his hon. Friend (Sir Frederick Milner) there was a general buzz of conversation in the House. The Act of 1870 declared that the whole of the children of the country should be educated. But hitherto the Education Department had neglected to undertake the education of the deaf and blind. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) was Vice President of the Council he had the honour of waiting on him on two separate occasions—one in the year 1877, and the other in March last—with deputations on the subject, who were told that the State took no cognizance of the deaf and blind in this matter; that there was no desire on the part of the Department to deny that they wore included within the Act of 1870, but the Department were not going to enforce that compulsory power of education with regard to the deaf and blind which applied to other children.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I was not Vice President of the Council in 1877. The hon. Member only came to me this year.
  MR. ACKERSsaid, he found that, although wrong in his dates, he was correct in his facts, and that he was with the deputation which waited on the right hon. Gentleman in 1882—not 1877—when he was Vice President, and which was introduced by General Cotton. He believed they had had the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter all along; but, notwithstanding that, and in spite of the fact that the State required that every child should be educated, nothing whatever had been done. He rejoiced that universal education was now the law of the land; but that law was not really carried out, and he maintained that it should apply to all children, and not be confined merely to those who could see and hear. The blind and deaf should have the same advantages in respect of education as their more fortunate fellow-creatures. He said that they ought to be made as capable citizens as education could make them; and that was a proposition which he believed could in no way be controverted. Still there was this general want of interest in the subject. He reminded the Committee that he had asked on a former occasion for a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, and he had urged that, not because he had any doubt as to what ought to be done in the matter, but because he desired to bring before the House and the country sufficient evidence by means of that Commission. But the Commission was not granted, and the reply was that the Department had under consideration an inquiry with reference to the blind and deaf and dumb. Now, it had been very well said by his hon. Friend (Sir Frederick Milner) that the circumstances of the blind and the deaf and dumb were very different. Those who understood one of those did not necessarily understand the other; and at a conference of teachers and others connected with the education of the deaf in the United Kingdom, held in this City a few days ago, a Resolution had been unanimously passed that it would not suffice to have a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the blind, deaf, and dumb, but that a separate Commission should be granted to inquire into the education

  721
  and condition of the deaf and dumb. But he was afraid that the never failing recurrence of the argument about the ratepayer and the rates, would prevent the subject from receiving the attention which it deserved. He, for one, hoped that the present Government would grapple with this wretched system of rates. He hoped the Government would give effect to this, and that they would make a public announcement in this House, that one of the first things that should engage their attention, if returned to power, would be a fair re-arrangement of local burdens, so that every class of property might bear its fair share, and then he ventured to say there would not be found a single Member to come forward and say that this or that useful measure could not be carried into effect, and that this or that class of property did not bear a fair share of taxation. There was no one thing, supported partly by rates, in this country to which so large an amount of Imperial assistance was given as education, and if hon. Members would take the figures given by the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education that evening, they would see that the amount given in aid of rates was larger in proportion than was the case in any other matter partly supported by local rates. In his opinion, hon. Members made a great mistake in not taking the trouble to see how much was given from Imperial sources towards the relief of elementary education. There was no civilized country that did not take care of its deaf by giving them State aid and elementary education. The position in India with regard to the deaf and dumb was this. There was only one school for them, in which there were 10 children, and that was started last year by a foreign ecclesiastic. There were in their Indian Empire more deaf and dumb, all wholly uneducated, than the educated deaf of all ages in the whole world beside, and if it were not for the female infanticide practised there the number would be very much larger still. He would not detain the Committee longer on a subject that, as a rule, was not of much interest. He regretted that the debate had come on at so late an hour, when the attendance of hon. Members interested in educational matters was very small, and he apologized for having taken up so much time in advocating the claims of a class who, un-
  722
  fortunately, did not receive the attention which they deserved.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, it had been suggested by Members on the Government side of the House that a considerable amount of dissatisfaction existed in this country on the subject of the education of the people. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had suggested that a Royal Commission should be appointed for the purpose of examining into the whole question of elementary education in the country. And the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), when he rose to speak on his own Estimate which had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's Successor, remarked that so far as he was concerned he would be willing to support the nomination of such Royal Commission. Now, a very large amount of dissatisfaction did undoubtedly exist at the present time on the subject of elementary education. The Committee has listened that evening to the speeches of three or four hon. Members, all of whom represented one single idea which ruled m the country with regard to education. They were a body of Gentlemen joined together in that House, having the same sympathies and the same ideas with regard to education; but outside them there was a very large proportion of the people of the country, who were thoroughly dissatisfied with the present system. In regard to the number of children attending the elementary schools, he pointed out that the voluntary schools educated two-thirds of the whole number, and that the board schools educated only one-third. As between the voluntary schools and the board schools the whole question was one of religious teaching. He and his hon. Friends maintained that there was no system of religious education in the board schools, and also that all education should be based on religious instruction. Their plan was a simple one. There were two sources from which money flowed for the purpose of education in this country—one was the Consolidated Fund, and the other the rates. Both the voluntary schools and the board schools had their share out of the Consolidated Fund; but the proportion of the grant which the voluntary schools received was not sufficient for the purpose of education; it did not pay more than one-third of their

  723
  maintenance. On the other hand, the board schools had not only their share of the grant, but they had also the rate which they collected under the powers vested in them by Act of Parliament; so that they had the managers of voluntary schools handicapped to this extent—that, with the exception of the small portion which they got from the Consolidated Fund, they wore bound to find two-thirds of the whole amount necessary for the purpose of maintaining them. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Sir William Hart Dyke) had said in his remarks—"Whatever you do, use this Act in accordance with the intentions of the promoters of the Act." The promoters of the Act never intended it to be used in the way in which it had been used, and was now being used. It was intended as a supplement to the voluntary system, and it was intended that a proportion of the money collected under the powers of the Act of 1870 should go to the support of the voluntary schools; but they knew that the money had not gone in that direction, and that practically it had been absorbed for the purposes of the board schools. The point he was putting to the Committee was, in his opinion, sufficient to show that the complaint made by the supporters of the voluntary schools of the country was legitimate, and at least deserved consideration. It was for that reason that he was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) say that he was willing to support the appointment of a Royal Commission for the purpose of examining into the whole question of elementary education. There were other reasons which he could name why such a Commission would be of advantage, both from the point of view of the board schools and that of the voluntary system. He might refer to a Motion introduced and almost carried, in reference to the board schools, by Mr. Taylor, under which it was proposed that the board schools should be opened free to all children—that was to say, that the school fees now paid should be remitted, and that the children should attend the schools without any payment on their part at all. He looked upon that as nothing more or less than the pauperizing of education with regard to
  724
  the class who would avail themselves of the advantages of the schools, and who were well able to pay for education under the old system. He thought there was more in this point than might appear at first sight. A large number of those who attended the schools would be children of tradesmen, and if they were to offer them education without any effort being made on the part of their parents, he repeated that it would be pauperizing them and a class of persons who could pay. He was not, however, going to discuss the point on that occasion; he simply put it forward as a subject which might properly engage the attention of the Royal Commission which had been suggested. Then there was the question of the rate, which went on increasing year by year, and the gross amount of which, according to those competent to form a judgment, was 2s. 6d. in the pound. That was certainly a subject worthy of examination at the hands of the Royal Commission. The fact was, that the whole of their system of elementary education had been built up piecemeal, and not on any consistent plan—it had not been a single consolidated idea brought forward at once. The Education Act of 1870 was introduced by its authors avowedly as a supplement to the voluntary schools; and the Prime Minister of the day, when the Bill was introduced, had stated in the clearest terms that it was not intended in any sense to interfere with or lessen the power, or lessen the revenues of the voluntary schools, and he said also that the rates raised under the powers vested in the schools should also be devoted to purposes necessary to the voluntary schools. But that had not been done. He had intended to make a strong complaint as to the treatment of voluntary schools, to show how great was the injustice under which they suffered, and how great the difficulties they had to contend against. Notwithstanding that injustice, and notwithstanding those difficulties, the voluntary schools had held their own with the board schools; and except as regarded decimal points—the difference being as between 88·10 and 88·17— there was no difference between the efficiency of the board schools and the voluntary schools. To be frank about it, he thought there was a slight increase in favour of the board schools; but,

  725
  practically, the voluntary schools had held their own ground, and that under conditions that were somewhat startling, for if they took the cost per head in the voluntary schools and in the board schools last year for education—which it could not be denied, in fact, which it was admitted, was equal in efficiency in the one as in the other—they found the difference was as follows:—In the Church of England schools the cost per head was £1 15.s. 2d.; in the Catholic schools, £1 12s. 6d.; and in the board schools, £2 14s. 6d. Well, on the face of it, there was something wrong. There must be some extravagance and unnecessary expense somewhere to make the difference between the board schools and the voluntary schools so great as that. With regard to efficiency, he had said that this year it was rather in favour of the board schools; but that could be easily accounted for by the fact that the board schools were lighter, healthier, pleasanter, and altogether more comfortable schools than the voluntary schools. Their maps and books were much better; the teachers were much better paid, the difference being £100 a-year, he believed—£250 in the board schools, and £150 in the voluntary schools. There was a growing discontent in the country with regard to the elementary schools. Hon. Gentlemen around him who belonged to the Radical Party would maintain that that discontent was all in one direction; whilst he and his Friends were prepared, on behalf of the parents of two-thirds of the children educated in the country at the present time, to maintain that it was in exactly the opposite direction. What was the dispute and difference between them—between the two schools? Why, it was this—the difference between Christianity and no Christianity. This point was a very important one, and one that would command greater attention before long. Whatever the opinion of this country was, he and his Friends maintained —and in these matters it was always best to state what they meant—that the board schools were really being used for the extinction of Christianity. He did not allege that that was done purposely, but such was certainly the fact. ["No, no!"] That was the statement he and his Friends made in all seriousness. Their allegation was this—there was no religious education in the board schools.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Quite a mistake.
  MR. MOLLOY: Allow me to finish my sentence. I say you have no religious education in the board schools, as we understand it.
  MR. MUNDELLA.: Hear, hear!
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to finish. What he maintained was that in the board schools they had no religious education such as they — if the right hon. Gentleman liked to call them so—Religionists—believed religious education ought to be. The school boards had no formulas; they had no catechisms; no explanation was given even of the Bible. There was no explanation of the Scriptures except such as the teacher chose to give; and who were the teachers in the board schools? They might be anything. A man was not excluded on account of any particular creed. The School Board Authorities could not exclude even Mr. Bradlaugh if he obtained a school. Take the two extremes—take himself, for instance, and Mr. Bradlaugh, holding views as diametrically opposite as it was possible to conceive. If they were both appointed teachers in board schools they would both be expounders of the Bible, and that was called "religious education." Could any man in his senses call it "religious education?" A teacher might be a believer in the Bible; he might, on the other hand, be no believer in it, and a denier of its truth—a man might be a strong Religionist or an Atheist, and yet it was called "religious education" when a teacher, whatever his qualification, was made an expounder of the Bible. He was only stating the fact. Children of from five to 13 were instructed in religion in this way by teachers appointed for their experience and knowledge in teaching, and without reference to creed —by teachers appointed no matter what religion they belonged to, and no matter whether or not they had any religion at all. They who did profess creeds— and he was not speaking of his own coreligionists, the Roman Catholics, in particular, but of all creeds, Catholic, Church of England, Wesleyan, Presbyterian—did not believe that this expounding of the Bible by secular teachers was religious education. It certainly was not Christian education. Well, on the other hand, in their own voluntary

  727
  schools they had Christian education, a fact which nobody would deny. If the schools were Church of England they had Church of England teaching; if Catholic, Catholic teaching. There was, then, an enormous difference between the two systems. [A laugh.] His hon. Friend might laugh—he might laugh because they differed, but he could not deny the facts. No one could deny these facts. They were true and were not to be denied, although, of course, a different interpretation might be put upon them. Hon. Members might hold a different opinion to him, but he had put the two different opinions before the Committee, one of which would have to prevail either now or before long. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) and those who thought with him were in favour of the present school board system, whereas he (Mr. Molloy) and his Friends were opposed to it. He was no opponent of the board schools, nor, that he was aware of, were any of his Friends who took the same view as himself on this question. They demanded the fulfilment of the Act as it was brought into the House and passed into law. They also demanded justice for the voluntary schools, which, up to the year 1870, were all that existed for the education of the people. He would impress that fact upon those who were now so keen about education and the extension of the board system. He did not, however, wish to enter upon a lengthened discussion on these points with hon. Gentlemen. All he desired to do was to place before the Committee the reasons why he advocated the concession which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) said he had no objection to, and which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Sydney Buxton) was also in favour of. Another thing he wished to press upon the consideration of the Committee was this—that they had chaos now existing in their different systems of education in the country. He and his Friends were not satisfied; others were not satisfied. It was a piecemeal system—a system which had been pieced. It was a disjointed system altogether. Whatever the result of such a Royal Commission as that asked for might be, it would have this satisfaction —that it would be the decision of the country; and he maintained that the de-
  728
  cision of the country had never been taken on this grave question of voluntary education in the country. In 1870 the Act was not understood by the people outside, and from that time to the present it had been changing from its original intention to its present form in such a manner that he held that the people of the country did not now understand it. The Act had never had the sanction of the great body of the people of the country. It might be that the result of such an inquiry might be entirely against the voluntary schools. If inquiry were held, and proper examination were made into the subject, he admitted that they would have to abide by the result; but there was one thing they were not prepared to abide by—they were not prepared to abide by the present system without some examination of it being made to see what changes were necessary. It would be all the better for those who were so strongly in favour of the present system under the school boards—which he (Mr. Molloy), whether rightly or wrongly, called the non-examination system—that such an examination should take place, as it would strengthen their hands in the future. The Religionists were willing to abide by the examination. All sides, he believed, were willing that this Royal Commission should be appointed, and he made this appeal to the Government strengthened by high authority, for even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had assented to the proposal.
  MR. MUNDELLAbegged the hon. Member's pardon. He had certainly not assented to the proposal; but, on the contrary, had looked upon the proposal with disfavour, and had expressed his objection.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, that he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to assent to the proposal in his opening observations, and he must confess it had astonished him very much. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would oppose such inquiry; he was afraid of it.
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, no.
  MR. MOLLOY: Yes; the right hon. Gentleman was afraid of the subject being examined by a Royal Commission, because he knew that two -thirds of the people of the country were against the gradual extinction of the Voluntary system—they were not opposed to the

  729
  School Board system, but were opposed to the extinction of their own system, which, at great cost and under great difficulty, they were still keeping up in the country. Notwithstanding anything the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) might say, he (Mr. Molloy) would earnestly urge on the Government to adopt the course he proposed. What was the system the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of? Did the Committee wish to understand it? The mere statement of it would be sufficient to give the Committee to understand the surprise he had felt when he had thought the right hon. Gentleman had been willing to assent to the appointment of a Royal Commission. Let hon. Members read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), delivered at Birmingham on the 15th of January, 1883—at a meeting at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield was present. They would find in that speech a clear indication of the tone of mind of the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice President of the Council and of the late President of the Board of Trade—their tone of mind with regard to the system of education which had grown up under their thumbs in the country. The system was a copy of that which existed in France —he would quote two or three words from the speech to which he referred as an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade had said—
  "It is interesting to observe what direction public opinion is taking. Mr. Mundella has spoken of the gigantic efforts which are being made in France in order to further national education in that country. The present position of this question owes much to that great Republican who is just dead, the premature termination of whose illustrious career is a loss, not to France only, but to the Liberal cause throughout the world. But, in France, M. Gambetta made it a chief point in his policy to draw a sharp line of distinction between the Church and all matters of education, and it is in that direction, I do not hesitate to say, that the thoughts of men and the acts of legislators are constantly tending."
  Here they had, then, a tendency on the question of copying what had happened in Prance. Let them consider for a moment what this system was which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) and his Colleague so much admired and so much desired to introduce
  730
  into this country. Well, it might be summed up in the words of one thoroughly well acquainted with the matter, and which they could all indorse, for they were equally well acquainted with it. This was the policy of the French statesmen, whose policy some of our own leading politicians were so anxious to copy—
  "The abolition of chaplains in the Army; the abolition of the judicial oath"—
  and they had heard something about the Oath here in the House of Commons only the other day—
  "the abolition of the annals of religion from schools; attacks on grants for public worship;"
  and so on. That was the French system under M. Gambetta, and which, as he (Mr. Molloy) had said, was to be introduced under the direction of those who, like the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), said they would not consent to any examination into this matter by a Royal Commission. M. Jules Simon, speaking on this very system he (Mr. Molloy) had described, and which was to be copied in this country, had said—
  "The Atheists make the law; this is pushing the respect for minorities a little too far."
  Well, he did not want to go into a discussion of those matters, although they were of vast importance, and were well worth consideration. All he had wished to do had been to give just the headings of their objections. He admitted that people who took an opposite view to them—that was to say, to himself and his Friends—had as much right to their opinions as he had to his; but he desired to show the divergence of opinion between them. He spoke of the divergence of opinion amongst the public, for they each spoke for their own section of the public. He had pointed out that the whole elementary system of education in the country had been made piecemeal—that it was disjointed from beginning to end. He had pointed out the increase in the rates, an increase which many said was undue, unfair, and extravagant to the last degree; and he had pointed out that the calls were going on increasing, and that no one would say whether this time two years the rate would not be 2s. 6d. in the pound. That, if it occurred, might be the best thing that could happen to the

  731
  country, or it might be the worst—he would not pretend to say which; hut great dissatisfaction was growing up, on the ground of the increase of this rate, amongst the people who had to pay it— not amongst those who had the management of it, but amongst those out of whose pockets it was taken. He had pointed out, also, that this new question of the opening free of the board schools, under the Motion of Miss Helen Taylor, which was so nearly carried by the London School Board the other day, and which was to come before hon. Members in the form of a Petition to the House, was opening up a new channel, not only of discontent, but also of danger of the pauperization of education amongst a class that were quite able to pay for it—he meant the small tradesmen. He had pointed out, also, the great injustice which this gratuitous education would inflict upon the voluntary schools. In point of fact, he might take every point of the educational system of the country, and show how much discontent existed on the one side or the other; and he contended that in order to put an end to this discontent, and to obtain a settlement of the question—which it was admitted was the most important question which could occupy the attention of the House, not only from his point of view, as he had already stated, but from the point of view in which many would agree with him, that in the board schools, as at present conducted, religious teaching was a sham, and meant nothing more nor less than the extinction of Christianity in England—in order to obtain a settlement of the question, an inquiry should be instituted. The phrase he used in regard to the result of the Board system of education was a strong one, no doubt, and he would not adopt it unless he felt bound in duty and conscience to do so. If they took the children who had been educated in the board schools, he freely admitted that their proficiency in secular subjects was very high; but in regard to religious instruction, if hon. Gentlemen followed them, as they had been followed by those whose duty it was to examine into this question, they would find that the state of mind of nine-tenths of them was a state of mind represented by an absence of religious feeling. He did not mean that their state of mind was
  732
  an absence of morality or an absence of honesty, but an utter absence of religious feeling and liberality of thought on questions of morality that would astound the House if it were to go into the subject and study it as it ought to study it. That was a broad statement, but it was one he was prepared to stand by. Given 10 years longer of the present board system in this country, and the voluntary schools would loose every chance of continuance. It would mean the extinction of the voluntary schools by the board schools of the country. But the country would not have that. The late Government might say—"You have power over the rates; we will have no examination." But, whether they wanted an examination or not, that examination should take place. The discontent was so great, and was increasing so much from day to day, that those in authority would not be able to withstand it. He saw the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) back in his place, so he would discontinue. He had made his remarks in good faith; but he did beseech the Government to use the power they now had in their hands to have a thorough examination made into the whole system of elementary education in the country—not for the purpose of carrying out the views of himself, or any other individual or section, but in order that they might understand what the state of things was, which was a thing they did not clearly know at present. He asked the Government to do that in all sincerity; and he declared that if they did not now use the power which had been placed in their hands somewhat unexpectedly, and use it in the direction he had pointed out, honestly and fairly, they would, he thought, be guilty of a great dereliction of duty, and of something far worse— that was to say, of an act of cowardice in connection with a matter of the greatest and most vital importance.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the permission of the Committee to make a short explanation. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had imputed to him that he was in favour of the French system under M. Gambetta. Now, he begged to say that he had never expressed the least sympathy with such a system, and that he had always expressed himself thoroughly hostile to it —that was, so far as it affected the ex-

  733
  elusion of all religious teaching from the country. He had always been opposed to that system, and he hoped he always should be.
  MR. RANKINsaid, he did not rise to continue the discussion on the relative merits of board and voluntay schools, although he might be allowed to give his opinion, in passing, that as far as rural districts were concerned, the more board schools were kept out, and voluntary schools encouraged, the better it was for all classes. But he merely rose to throw out two suggestions—one, with regard to industrial or technical education. His suggestion was that a great many more subjects might be introduced into the category of extra subjects, and that it should be within the power of managers of schools to take any of those subjects which they thought fit as extra subjects. For instance, gardening, basket-making, and shoe-making might be very advantageously included in the list of extra subjects as suitable for boys. Amongst the subjects suitable for girls, cooking might with advantage be included. If those subjects were taken as extra subjects in lieu very often of grammar and geometry— not that he undervalued grammar or geometry—he thought the alteration would prove very valuable to the ordinary children of their rural elementary schools. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) would consider whether that might not be done, to some little extent, at all events. No new agency need be brought into play; it would be left to the managers themselves to devise means for the introduction of the extra subjects; and all the Government would have to do would be to cause an inspection to ascertain whether the school was, in respect of the subject, worthy of a grant. Cooking, he looked upon as one of the most important subjects which could be taught the rural poor, who, for the most part, were lamentably deficient in that useful art. He thought that a better knowledge of gardening combined with a better knowledge on the wife's part of how to cook the products of a garden, would go a long way towards the amelioration of the condition of their people. The other point he wished to urge on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was the method of stimulating what was some times called higher
  734
  education. He had been an Examiner under the Diocesan Board for a great many years, and his experience had convinced him that, upon the whole, the education of their rural poor was about as high as was necessary for their ordinary walk in life. Occasionally, however, one came across clever children who were able to attain a much higher standard of efficiency than their brethren, and if for those children a system of Scholarships for some of the higher schools could be established, the difficulties of the case might be met. He did not think it was possible to screw up the education of the masses of the people to a higher point than it had at present attained, nor did he think it would be altogether wise to have the people educated in a higher degree, having regard to their walk of life. When a clever boy or girl came to the front, it would be a matter of great kindness to them if they could obtain some Scholarship which would enable them to go to a school of higher education, and, if clever enough, to pass on to the highest rank of Scholarship in the country. What he had stated had been carried out to a large extent in Liverpool by voluntary agency, and he thought it might with advantage be drafted on to their system of elementary training. He agreed with a good deal that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) with regard to the autocratic powers which Inspectors very often took upon themselves. More should be left to the genius of their school managers. He would not detain the Committee further than to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to the two suggestions he had made.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £311,573, to complete the sum for the Science and Art Department.
  (3.) £280,174, to complete the sum for Public Education (Scotland).
  MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, he might, perhaps, be permitted to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) on the very clear and able statement he had made to the Committee with regard to the progress of education in Scotland, and he might also

  735
  congratulate the Committee and Scotland on the very satisfactory statement it had been in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to make. They had been told that the progress made in Scotland for many years had not ceased. This year, in spite of very great depression in agriculture, in trade, in commerce, and in manufactures, they wore able to record a very sensible increase both in numbers and in the quality of the education imparted to the children of Scotland. There were, however, one or two points which he would like to deal with very briefly. In the first place, they had again in Scotland to contend with an evil which had existed almost from the very first—an evil which paralyzed, to a great extent, all the the best-intentioned efforts of the school boards in that country—he meant the evil of irregular attendance. He understood that of late there had been an improvement in the attendance; but the improvement was very slight, and the necessity for dealing with the evil still continued to be as urgent as it was before. He impressed on the Department very strongly the necessity of urging school boards to use every effort in their power to deal with the matter. He was not one of those who thought it would be possible to do away altogether with irregular attendance. There were always causes—illness, epidemics, and the like—which would make a sort of normal irregular attendance; but, apart from those causes, there was in Scotland an amount of irregular attendance which might and ought to be prevented. There was another point to which he wished to ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, though he was aware that, in regard to it, he held opinions adverse to those of the Department—it was the question of the attendance of infants at the board schools. He was quite prepared to admit that in large towns, where the schools were situated at no great distance from the homes of the parents, and where those homes were on sanitary grounds very imperfect, it might be of the greatest possible advantage to the children, both physically, morally, and intellectually, to be put to school at a very early period; but when they had to deal, as they had to deal in Scotland, with very many rural parishes in which children resided considerable distances
  736
  from school, it would be a great pity if too strict a line of compulsory attendance, or of attendance at all, were to be drawn in the case of mere infants. He was inclined to believe that one of the chief reasons why in Scotland they had been free from the evils of over-pressure was that hitherto they had not insisted upon very young children being brought under the operation of the Education Acts. He would not do much more than mention the question of over-pressure, because it had been so often before the Committee. He had been Chairman of several school boards in Scotland, and he had looked into the question with care both from a theoretical and a practical point of view. He was satisfied from the evidence before him that while in England cases of over-pressure did exist, in Scotland they existed only to the number that would be found in every country where they had to deal with 500,000 children of various stages of intellectual capacity. He thought one other reason of the absence of overpressure in Scotland besides that he had already alleged—namely, that they had not insisted so much upon infants being unduly pressed at a very early age— was that they taught a much greater variety of subjects than was taught in the board schools in England. But he entirely agreed with what had been said by several hon. Members who had addressed the Committee as to the necessity for guarding very carefully against over-pressure in the case of the teachers in the board schools. He was aware of cases of that kind. He believed that the real remedy for over-pressure in the teaching staff was for the School Boards to see that they had a sufficiently large staff, and that they had teachers who were thoroughly trained to their work. He could not help alluding to one matter which had attracted and was attracting very growing attention in Scotland in connection with education. There was a feeling, and he thought there were good grounds for it, that it was absolutely necessary to separate the two Departments in London. He was sure it was not beyond the scope of the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) that some such demand had been made, and the ground on which the demand had been made was that in Scotland the conditions of education differed not only in degree, but in

  737
  kind from the conditions which prevailed in England, and that it was difficult to manage satisfactorily the education of two countries, the conditions of which differed in essential particulars. Now, in the first place, they had in Scotland a system of education which was not purely elementary—the State-aided system was not purely elementary as it was in England; and, in the second place, they had not to contend with what in England was called the voluntary system. They had no parish or educational unit in Scotland in which there was not a school board, and in consequence of that some of the adverse conditions which affected education in England were fortunately absent in Scotland. And, in the third place, they had in Scotland in educational matters a freedom from sectarian questions which he ventured to think was greatly to the advantage of education, and it was very necessary that in whatever changes might take place in the Department this important feature should not be lost sight of. He would not dwell on the point, because he understood from what had occurred in "another place" the House would before long have an opportunity of discussing it; he only mentioned it here for the purpose of directing attention to its importance. Now, he thought one result of the mingling of the two educational systems in one Department was practical inconvenience, and that practical inconvenience had been shown in a very marked manner of late. The Education Department issued a Minute in June last dealing with the important subjects of drawing and cookery. With the teaching of those subjects he was entirely in sympathy, and he believed it was intended that the provision made in the Minute should apply to Scotland. In consequence of the mingling of the two Departments he understood it was quite impossible that the Minute could apply to Scotland. If that was so—he hoped it was not—it would show more than anything else the necessity he had been urging upon the Committee of having the Departments separated. Now, there was one other suggestion he wished to make to the Department in consequence of what took place principally at the last triennial election of school boards in Scotland. It would be within the knowledge of the Committee that Questions
  738
  had been asked in reference to the proceedings at those elections. Without going into the details of any particular cases, he thought it would be very desirable if Parliament could see its way to extend to school board elections in Scotland all or at least some of the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act. There was only one other matter to which he should like to draw attention. He heard with the greatest satisfaction what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) with regard to the inspection of higher class schools in Scotland. Last month the Scotch Education Department issued a very important Circular on the subject. What the Department expected to obtain was a trustworthy estimate of the position and resources of higher education in Scotland, in order to enable them to form an opinion as to how far the functions of each educational institution, whether elementary schools, higher schools, or Universities, could be dealt with. The Minute was a most important one, one from which he expected the most satisfactory results. He was not going to give any opinion on the method proposed by the right hon. Gentleman for the promotion of higher education, because he had not had the time to consider fully how it would work. He might say, however, that the aid proposed to be given appeared to him to be very inadequate. He hoped that, before the scheme was brought into operation, the Department would take an opportunity of fully considering what its results were likely to be. He was sure the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view was one in the highest degree laudable. What the right hon. Gentleman intended to do would have an important bearing on the education of the people of Scotland; but he (Mr. Cochran - Patrick) was not altogether satisfied with the method by which it was proposed to attain tie end in view. He did not wish to take up the time of the Committee by referring at any length to the question of education in the Highlands, because there were other Members more intimately acquainted with the Highlands than he, who were better able to deal with the subject. As far as he had been able to learn from the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, the proposals there made,

  739
  or something akin to them, were absolutely necessary if the people of the Highlands were to derive the advantages from education which were derived in other parts of the country.
  DR. CAMERONcalled the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) to the puzzling nature of some of the questions put in examinations to young children. He understood that, in the examination of Scotch schools, questions of compound proportion were put to the children, while such questions wore omitted in the examination of English schools. He had had occasion to ask in the House Questions regarding the difficult nature of a sum of compound proportion which had been set children of 12 years of age. He was answered by the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor (Mr. Mundella) that the sum had actually been put to children of the 6th Standard; and he was subsequently informed that it was put to the students in the Training College, and that only five out of 40 succeeded in solving it. Frequent complaints had been made that Inspectors indulged in very extraordinary and puzzling questions; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) stated that Instructions had been issued to the effect that that style of questions was to be avoided. In his reply, however, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the very question to which he (Dr. Cameron) referred had been put to children months after the Instructions on the subject were issued. There was another point to which he should like to call attention, although it did not exclusively relate to Scotland—he meant the system of physical training. In every country in the world except this a certain amount of physical training was recommended and encouraged by the State in the case of children educated in public schools. To find exactly what he referred to, they had only to go out of the Department presided over by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope). One would hardly expect that the most perfect example of schools in which physical training was encouraged was to be found under the Local Government Board and Poor Law Guardians; but such was the case. The other day he visited the Surrey District School, near Sydenham. The school
  740
  was presided over by a very able gentleman, a Mr. Marston, who had adopted the system of physical education, and who had succeeded in imbuing with his views the Guardians who constituted the District Board. In that school some of the most wretched children of the Metropolis were received. There were some 800 of the pauper children of a population of 500,000, and they were placed in the school from the age of three. In the ordinary population of that age the mortality would be, he supposed, about 10 per 1.000 per annum; but in this school the mortality was only four per 1,000 per annum. The children were kept occupied; their tendency to vice was kept in check by the constancy with which they were exercised. Boys and girls alike were trained in physical exercises. The boys devoted a certain time each day to the gymnasium; they were trained to swim, and the result was that out of these wretched materials fine stalwart youngsters were turned out. They were trained industrially, and when between 14 and 15 they were sent forth into the world able to earn from 10s. to 15s. a-week. He thought that was a very satisfactory result. Of course, industrial training was altogether outside the scope of the right hon. Gentleman's functions. But in connection with the primary schools, in many countries—in France, in many parts of Germany, and notably in Sweden—a system of physical training, by means of what were known as free extension exercises, was given with the most beneficial result. The system of physical training was applied not only to muscular development, but to the improvement of the eye-sight. In Germany a very great deal of damage had been done to the eye-sight to the children by their being obliged to study under improper conditions; and he was afraid that in this country a similar result was being brought about in the spread of popular education. He was perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) would pay a visit to a few of the schools under the Local Government Board, he would see that even from their pauper system were to be derived lessons which he might with great advantage apply to the public schools of the country.
  MR. WEBSTERsaid, that when the Estimates for Scotch Education were

  741
  before the House last year the present system of providing for the training of teachers by denominational schools or colleges was considered, and he then urged that the present system should be abandoned. Since then this subject had come up more seriously, and had attracted the attention of influential bodies in Scotland. The Educational Institute, in several of its branches, had shown dislike of the present system, and there was a general opinion that denominational institutions were ineffective, as well as otherwise objectionable. The Educational Institute memorialized the Universities, which were really national institutions, that they should undertake the duty of educating the teachers, and prevent education being denationalized by sectarian schools, which were under the influence of one or other of the Churches of Scotland. He did not know what view the other Universities had taken; but the University of Aberdeen looked upon the proposal favourably. In Edinburgh and St. Andrew's there were already Professors of Education, who, he had no doubt, were ready to discharge the duties of the Normal Colleges. With regard to Aberdeen and Glasgow the case was different. He had placed in the hands of the Minister of Education copies of Memorials which the University of Aberdeen, who had taken up the subject, had presented to the Scotch Committee of Privy Council on Education last year and this year. The University had expressed their wish that the charge of training teachers should be transferred from the present Training Colleges to the Universities. The University authorities would, upon the transfer to them of a proportion of the grant of £26,000 now paid to the Denominational Colleges, provide for the appointment of a Professor of Education, so as to be enabled to pass students through a special curriculum equal to that of the Normal Colleges, as well as maintain practical model schools and other appliances which might be necessary fur that important purpose. He wished to bring this matter before the right hon. Gentle-man (Mr. E. Stanhope). He wished to know whether this question had engaged the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, or whether it would do so now? It was a most important movement, and the feeling in Scotland
  742
  was increasing in strength against the denominational system, and more especially against the training of teachers under denominational influences. He could answer for the feeling, both of laymen and Churchmen, being increasingly roused against it; and since a proposal had been made by one of the Universities that this duty should be performed by national institutions, free from sectarianism, he could hardly doubt that it ought to engage the consideration of the Government.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, that if the Committee would allow him he should like to express his thanks generally to hon. Gentlemen for their exceedingly kind references to himself, and for their various suggestions for the improvement of the Code, and in other respects for the improvement of education in England and Scotland. Hon. Gentlemen had coupled with their suggestions the very kind proposal that he should not answer the questions raised, but should take the opportunity which would be afforded him during the Recess of devoting attention to them. That proposal he should accept, and it was not, therefore, his intention to-day to answer the questions which had been addressed to him. There were only one or two points as to which he thought he ought to give an answer. First of all, there was the point raised by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick). The hon. Gentleman had mentioned some Minutes which had been recently issued. Well, those Minutes were issued before he (Mr. E. Stanhope) had anything to do with the Education Department. His attention had been drawn to them, however, and he had examined the matter. He had found that the Minutes were issued with the best possible intention —namely, with the intention of explaining that no difference would be made between the treatment of England and Scotland. Those Minutes were now on the Table, and would soon come into force; but he had come to the conclusion that for the future separate Minutes ought to be issued for the two countries. Then the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster), had asked him about the position of Aberdeen University, and had called his attention to certain Memorials that the Universities

  743
  had presented to the Education Department in regard to the difficulty. That subject would engage his attention. He believed the difficulty had arisen from the fact that at Aberdeen there was no male Training College. There was a female Training College, but no College for males, though the University was especially connected with males. Certain suggestions had been brought be-fore the Education Department; and he might say, speaking generally, that the Education Department was favourable to the proposal of the Aberdeen University. Communications were going on, and the Department was waiting at the present moment for financial proposals, which would have to be considered as to details. As soon as those details were obtained, the Department would be able to consider the suggestions of the Aberdeen University and the hon. Gentleman, and to come to a conclusion which, he hoped, would be satisfactory to the University of Aberdeen. He did not know that there was any point on which it was necessary for him to further detain the Committee.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the Committee was in a peculiar position in passing a Vote of £500,000 without knowing who the Minister would be who was to administer it. If they knew who was to be the responsible Minister to administer the £500,000 he should be exceedingly glad, and so would the people of Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) were to be the responsible Minister he should be satisfied, and would have confidence that the Education Code would be administered wisely and well. He was not allowed to discuss debates which had taken place "elsewhere;" but he might observe that in "another place" it had been decided to cut the right hon. Gentleman in two—to cut Scotch education off from his official care—and that some Minister, they did not know who, was to replace him in regard to the charge of these Votes. It was a really unsatisfactory thing that they were asked to pass this Vote without knowing in the least degree who was to administer it—whether it was to be administered by a man of large experience in such matters, or whether it was to be relegated to a new Minister, a man of no experience in educational matters. He did not intend to propose the ad-
  744
  journment of this Vote, and should reserve any further observations he had to make either to the Report stage, or until the proposal was made to them to do away with the present Minister now responsible for Scotch Education in that House and have the Vote administered by someone else. That proposal was one which, when it came before them, must receive great attention. He only mentioned the matter now in order to protest against this large Vote being asked for without their knowing who was to administer it.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (4.) £9,530, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commission.
  (5.) £366,087, to complete the sum for County Courts.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,442, 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 1886, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that in various Sessions of Parliament he had troubled the House to go to a division on this Vote—as he intended to do that evening. The sense of the Committee in favour of economy was shown to be increasing year after year, because the majority against his Motion for the reduction of the Vote had been steadily decreasing, until last year he was only beaten by nine votes; and, inasmuch as last Session he had the pleasure of receiving the support of the hon. Baronet who was now Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland), he felt confident that this evening he should accomplish the distinction of really saving £2,000 of public expenditure, because, though the hon. Baronet himself might be in a position that would not enable him to give his support to the Motion, yet he (Mr. Arnold) felt quite confident that every other Conservative Member present would remember that the hon. Baronet was no more responsible for the Estimate presented to the Committee than he was himself, and would be able to follow the good example of the hon. Baronet last year when he joined him

  745
  (Mr. Arnold) in protesting against the Vote. It was not necessary to go into the history of this unhappy Office. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that the Office of Land Registry was established to carry out the Land Transfer Act of Lord Westbury and the Act of Lord Cairns, so that it had the full sanction of both sides of the House, and hon. Gentlemen could look on the failure which had been experienced with impartial eyes. Many hon. Members were aware that the business of this Office had now dwindled down to a degree at which it had almost vanished. Within the past two half-years the number of new estates registered in this Office had been six— two in one half and four in the other; so that this fact came out—that the taxpayers of this country had to pay £1,000 for each new estate registered in this Office. Hon. Members would see at once what a scandalous, extravagant, and wasteful expenditure of money there was in this Department. What, then, should be done? Here was a Registrar receiving £2.500 a-year; an Assistant receiving £1,500; a Chief Clerk receiving £400; and other clerks getting £350, and so on; while it was a matter of notoriety that those gentlemen had nothing whatever to do. Then came the question why had not the Treasury —not this year, but years ago—dealt with this scandal? He (Mr. Arnold) did not think it passed the ability of the Government to find occupation for those gentlemen in some other quarter; but if that were not done he would say in the words of the hon. Baronet last year, when he was supporting the Motion so eloquently—"Deal with one or two of these gentlemen by superannuation at once." Let them do that, and terminate some of the expense against which he was complaining that night. He could not do better than make a further quotation from the words the hon. Baronet used last Session; and he trusted they would have an effect, not, perhaps, on the hon. Baronet's own mind, but, at all events, on the mind of every other Member of the Conservative Party now present. Last Session the hon. Baronet used these words—
  "He hoped that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) was going to remain faithful to the opposition to this Vote,"
  that was to say, last Session he hoped the hon. Member for Cambridge would
  746
  give him (Mr. Arnold) his support, "because" he went on to explain—
  "When hon. Members crossed the floor of the House they often gave up the views they had maintained so stoutly in Opposition."
  And then the hon. Baronet, after warning hon. Gentlemen not to forget their economic ideas when they crossed the floor of the House, concluded with these words—and he (Mr. Arnold) could not do better than conclude his observations with them that evening—
  "And now the Committee were asked again to vote in support of this Office, which had been proved to be practically useless. It could hardly be contended," said the hon. Baronet, "that, at all events, some considerable reduction might not be made in it, and he should support the proposed reduction" moved by the hon. Member for Salford "as a protest against this continued waste of money."— (3 Hansard, [291] 387–8.)
  With those words he would conclude his observations, and he begged to move the reduction which stood in his name on the Paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,442,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 18S6, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, it was not always satisfactory to have a former speech quoted, and words spoken on one side of the House, when one had crossed over to the other side; but he might frankly state at once to the Committee that he had in no way changed his view with respect to this Office. With regard to his (Sir Henry Holland's) action that night, the hon. Member had admitted that these were not the Estimates of the present Government, and that he could not expect to receive support from that Government for his Motion at this time. It was not quite the case, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that no work at all was done by this Office, although he confessed he was of opinion, with the hon. Member, that not enough was done to justify the largo expenditure upon the Office. He found, however, from a Table he had been furnished with, that six now estates had been placed on the Register for the year; 244 had been placed on it on transfer or will;

  747
  195 had been planed on it by way of mortgage or charge; there had been 155 dealings with estates on the Register, and there had been 15 removals of estates, or parts of estates, from the Register. Now, although that was not a large amount of work done in the year, still it showed that the statement of the hon. Gentleman that no work was done was hardly justified. There were three questions which could be put as to the course to be adopted with this Office — first, whether the work of it could be developed; secondly, whether the staff could be reduced; and, thirdly, whether it should be abolished. Opinions differed in regard to which course it would be best to follow; but there could be no doubt that legislation would be necessary whatever plan were adopted. It had been contended that the Office could be developed, and different modes of doing that had been suggested. It had been proposed that an Act should be passed based upon Sir Robert Torrents Act, which had worked well in the Colonies, to make the registration compulsory. At present it was only permissive. He was not sure, however, whether that proposal would meet with the approval of the House. Last year the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had been inclined to think that the House would be in favour of such a view, if proper safeguards were adopted so as to make it fair to all parties. He saw nothing in the working of the Act in the Colonies which should prevent it from being made compulsory. Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had said that the Office should be made an Office for registering deeds, and not titles. Measures had been introduced more than once for the purpose of effecting that object, but they had failed; and it would, in any case, be impossible to propose legislation of that kind this Session. There had been an attempt made to develop the work of the Office by putting under it the Middlesex registration, and a Bill had been introduced for that purpose, but had also failed. He must admit that he was not sanguine about the development of the work of the Office. Turning, then, to the second point— namely, the reduction of the Office, he had said that legislation would be necessary to effect a reduction, and he was afraid little would be saved unless the
  748
  Act was of a very sweeping character. Under any circumstances, some kind of office would have to be kept up, because there would be dealings with estates which had already come under the Office. He would cite a passage from a Memorandum he had received from the head of the Office on this subject. The writer said that—
  "Parliamentary provision would have to be made for titles already registered, now amounting to nearly 3,000, comprising land of very considerable value; and provision would also have to be made in such a case for properly compensating the officers."
  The reduction which would be effected in the National Expenditure by the abolition of the Office of Registrar would be very small, as that gentleman was entitled to his Office for life, and, on the abolition of his Office or his retirement, was entitled to two-thirds of his salary. That would only leave £833 per annum to deal with, and, as he had said before, they must keep up the Office for some time at all events; and they could hardly put any gentleman at the head of the Office to deal with so large an amount of property as was there involved at a less salary than that. He was afraid that the reduction in the Office which it would be possible to effect would be very small indeed. Then, the third question was whether the Office could be abolished. No doubt the compensations which would have to be paid—and he had ventured to make some remarks on that head last year—would necessarily be very heavy. The gentleman at the head of the Office had been taken from the Legal Profession. He was a barrister who had to abandon good professional prospects on accepting the office; and if, therefore, his Office was abolished, he would have to receive large compensation. And the same observation, though to a less extent, applied to those working under the Registrar. He had ventured to state these points, because, fully believing that some change should be made in the Office, and admitting that the subject would receive full consideration, still, though he was able last year to vote with the hon. Member (Mr. Arnold) as a kind of protest against the continuance of the Office, it was necessary for him to point out to the Committee that it would be impossible for him to vote for the Motion that night, not because he had

  749
  changed his views as he had changed side of the House, but because his position was necessarily affected by the fact of his having to bring forward the Estimate. Every Member must vote according to his view of this Office; but, for his own part, he was bound to say he felt a difficulty in dealing with the subject, and it should receive every consideration. He trusted that by those observations he had justified himself in the eyes of the Committee for what might be called a change of position.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the hon. Baronet was still of the same opinion with regard to this Vote, although he had been constrained by the change which had taken place in his position to alter his intention on the matter. In that he (Mr. Gregory) sympathized with the hon. Member. It was a matter of regret to him that they had any debate this Session on the subject; but he considered it very much due to the neglect of the late Government to deal with it. He had been struggling with this subject for years and years, and had watched the course of legislation upon it. They had had, amongst other measures, from the Conservative Party, three most important measures on the subject of the transfer of land—namely, the Limitation of Actions Act, the Conveyancing Act, and the Settled and Landed Estates Act, and he only wished the late Government had followed those up by some Act which would have regulated the registration of deeds. He had sat with his right hon. and learned Friend the late Judge Advocate (Mr. Osborne Morgan) on the Committee which had investigated the matter very fully, and which had suggested a scheme analogous to the Scotch system for the purpose of registering deeds. He believed that if that scheme had been carried out—and he still hoped it might be—in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, this Office could be utilized, and would be found of great value. He thought, therefore, with this object, that the Office should still be kept alive. He hoped that another Session of Parliament would not be allowed to pass without this matter being dealt with. It was well before the country, and people had now their minds set on the great question of simplifying the titles to land. He was. advised that the best course to pursue would be to follow the
  750
  precedent of last Session. He had had the pleasure of taking part in the consideration of the Yorkshire Registries Act, which had been dealt with with great care and consideration, he hoped that something very useful to the county of Yorkshire would come from it. They had adopted this legislation for the county of York, with a view of its forming a precedent for general legislation on the subject, and he had great hopes that it would work successfully. He trusted that with this legislation before them they might look forward to something in the same direction in the next Session of Parliament.
  MR. CROPPERsaid, he should be glad to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) for the abolition of this Office, but that he thought it would only lead to the multiplication of the number of officers, and that in the course of six months they would be called upon by the hon. Member, or someone else, to create a new-Registry Office to carry out some fresh idea, and to give them a number of new officials who, in course of time, would require to be paid pensions. There was great difficulty in the matter of the registration of land, as the following incident would show. Ten years ago he remembered asking a solicitor whether it would not be a good thing to put an estate he was buying through the Office now under discussion, in order to obtain a more perfect title. The solicitor laughed at him, and asked him what was the use of doing that at great expenditure of money, when, in the course of 20 years or so, time and Parliament would have done it for him. What was wanted was a compulsory system much less expensive than the present, which would not frighten buyers and deter solicitors from carrying out what he believed to be the will of the nation. At the present time he considered it a matter of little concern how hon. Members voted, because they, of course, knew that there would be no change made in the Office. It would be better for the hon. Member (Mr. Arnold), instead of urging the abolition of the Office, to endeavour to make it useful.
  MR. SALTsaid, there was another course which might be pursued, and it had the advantage of being a practical one. If his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland)

  751
  would assure the Committee that in case of any vacancies they should not be filled up unless it was absolutely necessary, that would be a practicable way of meeting the case. Probably the Department would allow these vacancies to lapse, and some arrangement made to limit the number of officials in that way until more could be done.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had one short practical suggestion to make. Work might be found for the clerks in the Office for many years to come in connection with the alterations to be introduced into the Law of Copyhold.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) could only be used by transferring the clerks from Lincoln's Inn to St.James's Square. He (Mr. Arnold) had not referred to the question of the registration of land, because that was not connected with the proposition he now made to the Committee. The Motion was purely one of economy, and he was dealing with the saving of public money, and not with the registration of landed property. The Secretary to the Treasury knew as well as he did that the development of this Office by the officer now at the head of it was an impossibility and an absurdity. Everyone who knew that gentleman knew that that was out of the question altogether; and, therefore, the development of the Office in its present condition was not to be entertained. The Secretary to the Treasury had spoken of reduction. The reduction of the expenses of the Office was one of the simplest and most practicable things in the world. There was no reason why the Government should not superannuate the Head of the Office, and transfer some of the subordinate officials receiving high salaries to serve Her Majesty in some other capacity. He hoped hon. Members would vote, not as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) for the abolition of the Office, for that was out of the question, but for the reduction of the Vote. That would show that they had some regard for the interests of the taxpayers.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was one of those who had always been opposed to this Vote from the very first, for, so far as he knew, all those gentlemen had had nothing to do. What
  752
  he compained of was that the late Home Secretary, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland), had always invariably opposed this Vote, and yet nothing was done. What he wanted to have was some distinct declaration from the Government. He wished to learn from the Treasury Bench that something would really be done with regard to this Office. It was an absurdity to say that it should go on from year to year with all these complaints against it, and that nothing should be attempted to be done. Surely those gentlemen might be employed in some other way to do work for the country. The Office ought to be abolished. What would be the modus operandi to pursue for its abolition he could not say; but it was absurd to have an Office of this kind, which was every year brought under notice and objected to. Yet neither side made any real attempt to remedy such a state of things. He should like to hear from the Homo Secretary or from the Attorney General that something would be done, for it was a matter that wanted seeing to. It was not for him to say how it should be dealt with, but dealt with it ought to be in the interests of the general public.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had admitted that he last year divided against this Vote as a protest against it altogether, and with a view to bring about its reduction. He (Mr. Fowler) would that night follow that admirable example, and would vote against it as a protest which he hoped would be of some avail. He would quote a precedent. It was in regard to the Office of Public Prosecutor. There was a feeling of dissatisfaction with that Office, and a Departmental Committee was appointed and a great reform effected, whereby the expense was materially reduced, and the public dissatisfaction was, as he hoped, being removed. As to the Office now under discussion, he did not hesitate to say that in all the Estimates, from the first page to the last, there was not a more perfect case of a sinecure than the case of the Office for Land Registration, which had £5,000 a-year spent upon it, while the fees received. did not amount to more than £800 for work done. The

  753
  suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) was a fair one; and the Government should give a pledge that in the event of a vacancy occurring they would not fill it up, but give Parliament an opportunity of pronouncing upon the merits of the whole question. He (Mr. Fowler) spoke with great respect of the present Registrar; but he was not going beyond the bounds of propriety when he said that that gentleman should retire upon the pension to which he was justly entitled, and which he had fairly earned in having devoted his time to the service of the country, even though the country had not seen fit to occupy that time. When a man was paid by the Government for his time, the Government should determine how it was to be occupied. When an Office was abolished, everybody who served in it was entitled to compensation, or to be supplied with equivalent work at the same salary. There were, no doubt, plenty of other Departments of work which could be greatly increased, and in which all the staff of this Office could be merged; but he believed that it was useless to hope that any scheme of the registration of titles or deeds would be carried out by this Office. He should divide against the Vote as a protest.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) that the Government should give an undertaking that no vacancy should be filled up, said, he thought he was justified in undertaking that no vacancy should be filled up; and he could add that he was allowed by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to say that there should be an inquiry, as in the case of the Public Prosecutor, into the Office. The matter would therefore receive careful consideration; and he hoped that by next year he should be able, if he then continued to hold Office, to show some more favourable aspect of the question. He trusted that, under these circumstances, the Committee would vote the sum now asked for.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he hoped the Committee would not think it necessary to divide, for it was quite clear that the officials in this Office were entitled to their salaries for the present year, at all events. He could not understand how
  754
  the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) could divide against his own Estimates.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid that, considering that there was some contest across the Table as to who was and who was not responsible for the Vote, he felt that it was absolutely necessary to take a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 32; Noes 75: Majority 43. — (Div. List, No. 226.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (7.) £25,200, Revising Barristers (England).
  (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10, 320, 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 1886, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Police Courts of London and Sheerness."
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDreminded the Committee that the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) last year informed hon. Members who raised objections that the Vote ought to be supported because there was a London Government Bill somewhere in or about the House. The Committee were aware that not only had that London Government Bill entirely disappeared, but the Government who proposed it had also disappeared from public view; and therefore the reason which led the late Home Secretary to urge the Committee not to disagree with the Vote no longer had an existence. The Committee were, of course, well aware that in all the large towns throughout England—Manchester, Liverpool, and the other great towns —the cost of the administration of justice in the Police Courts was borne by the local rates. There might be something to be said for charging the cost of the Royal Parks upon the taxpayers at large; but there was no hon. Member— certainly not a Member of the straightforward character of the Secretary to the Treasury—who would get up and justify the imposition upon the taxpayers of the country at large of the cost of the Police Courts at London and Sheerness. The visitors who came up to London from the country were not of the criminal population, and therefore there was no

  755
  reason why the country at large should bear this purely local burden. When the late Home Secretary objected last year to the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. II. H. Fowler), he said that if the reduction of the Vote were carried the consequence would be that there would be no Police Courts for London and Sheerness; but that was not quite accurate, because the salaries of the police magistrates were charged on the Consolidated Fund; and if the Committee were to reject this Vote, as he hoped they would, the result would not be that the magistrates would be left without their salaries. No hon. Member, therefore, could raise any objection on that ground. It was obvious that the Police Courts of London should be maintained by the rates of London, as was the case in all the other large towns; and he hoped he should have a large measure of support in voting for the rejection of this charge.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 91; Noes 24: Majority 67. — (Div. List, No. 227.)
  (9.) £294,840, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
  (10.) £28,000, to complete the sum for Special Police.
  (11.) £988,343, to complete the sum for Police — Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
  (12.) £271,374, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he had to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) a question with regard to this Vote. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee any information as to the number of prisoners in the convict prisons at the present time; whether the number of convicts was still decreasing; and whether it was intended to close any of the convict prisons? He understood that it was intended to close one convict prison in the Metropolis. He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give any information as to the amount of earnings paid to the convicts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he was happy
  756
  to state that the decrease in the number of prisoners in the convict prisons continued. He held a strong opinion that in many cases the sentences were open to consideration, and he had been in communication with some of the Judges with respect to them. He hoped shortly to be able to give some further information on that point. It was true that it was in contemplation to close one of the convict prisons in the Metropolis. He was not in a position to give the exact figures; but he was told that when the Report was issued it would be found to be very satisfactory.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £351,930, to complete the sum for Prisons, England.
  (14.) £142,915, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
  (15.) £20,417, to complete the sum for the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £39,093,. 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 1886, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and others, connected with Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (16.) £48,510, to complete the sum for the Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
  (17.) £26,472, to complete the sum for the Register House Department, Edinburgh.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he had to make some observations on this Vote with respect to a grievance of some antiquity, which had been brought before the Committee year after year, but with respect to which no redress had been given. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would, he believed, be acquainted with the case; because, if he was not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman had instituted an inquiry into it under a former Government. There were three classes of clerks—first, second, and third. With respect to the first class, he had nothing to say; but the clerks of the third

  757
  class contended that, although they did the same work as those in the second class, yet they did not receive the same amount of remuneration. He did not want to detain the Committee at length at that hour by entering into the details of the grievance of those public servants. But he repeated that the grievance complained of was one that had gone on for many years unredressed. All that those clerks contended for at present and all they had contended for during the last four years was that an inquiry should be instituted into their grievance in order that it might be seen whether they actually did the same class of work as the clerks above them, who were very much better rewarded. There was a Minute several times moved for on this subject, but it had never been obtained. His hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. DickPeddie) called attention to the matter on the 7th of August, 1882; and in doing so he was supported, amongst others, by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland), who said he was pleased to support the hon. Member for Kilmarnock in his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the grievances of those clerks; he said that he thought the Secretary to the Treasury could not be averse to the inquiry; that of course it was possible that if inquiry was made it might turn out that there were too many clerks in the Office. Therefore, he hoped that a change of Government having recently taken place the grievance of this deserving body of public servants might now receive some attention; and as the hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the Vote had advocated publicly in that House an inquiry into their grievance he trusted that during the Recess some steps might be taken to carry out the object in view.
  THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. DALRYMPLE)said, he had no intention to depart from what he had said upon former occasions on this subject. He had always taken a warm interest in the case put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan); and the Office itself was one which claimed his attention on account of the enormous fees which passed through it, and from which it seemed to him they in Scotland derived very little benefit. It was, however, quite plain that nothing could be done in the matter so far as the present
  758
  Estimate was concerned; but he thought that in the months following something might be done in the direction of obtaining the inquiry which the hon. Member for Edinburgh wanted, and to that end he could assure the hon. Member that no effort on his part should be wanting. That was all he was able to say on the present occasion.
  Vote agreed to.
  (18.) £77,501, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.

  CLASS VI. — NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
  (19.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £230,710, 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 1886, for Superannuation and Retired Allowances to Persons formerly employed in the Public Service, and for Compassionate or other Special Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he was sorry that the zig-zag manner in which the Government had taken the Votes that evening compelled him to take up the time of the Committee at that late hour by making some observations on this very important Vote. They had had a debate last night upon the question of superannuation and retired pay; and he had now to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Vote showed a net increase of £ 13,882 over the amount in the previous year. He intended to move a reduction of the Vote. He entreated hon. Members to consider that this was a Vote which, of all others, was increasing rapidly every year, and that it was one by which they could best bring about a reduction in the expenditure of the country. In dealing with this Vote there were three considerations to be borne in mind—first, the abolition of offices; secondly, the payment of pensions and superannuation allowances; and, thirdly, the question of age at which the members of the Civil Service were permitted to retire upon the whole or nearly the whole amount of their salaries. In the Public Service there were many sinecures and many offices which might be called semi-sinecures: there were abolished offices, in respect of which

  759
  compensation was paid; and, lastly, there was a provision for retirement of officials from the Civil Service at the age of 60 with nearly the whole of their salaries. Now, he wished especially to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, in 20 years, the charge for pensions and retired pay in the Civil Service had risen from £300,000 for the year to £500,000. If that rate of increase was continued the country would soon be paying for superannuation and retired pay in the Civil Service £1,000,000 a-year. That was a very serious matter. The increase was due to three causes—first, to abolition of offices without re-employment of their occupants; secondly, to the terms on which public servants were permitted or were forced to retire from their offices; and, thirdly, to the increased longevity, under the better sanitary conditions of the whole country, which prevailed in the Civil Service. He would take as an example the notorious ease of the Bankruptcy Act of 1869. The annual amount of compensation paid in respect of abolished offices in bankruptcy reached in one year the sum of £39,685; and in 10 years—that was to say, from 1872 to 1882–3, the amount paid in respect of bankruptcy alone to retired Civil servants was £329,517. Let them take an individual case of thi3 extravagance. There was one Commissioner of the age of 49, who retired from the Public Service on the full amount of his salary— namely, £2,000 a-year—on account of the abolition of his Office. Take a more humble case. There was a Lord Chancellor's messenger, who had retired on £200 a-year, and who had since 1832 been receiving that provision. This was a form of extravagance against which he desired to protest. It seemed to him that retirement only ought to be allowed conditionally—namely, on the retiring officer joining some other branch of the Public Service. The Earl of Selborne, then Sir Roundell Palmer, when the Bankruptcy Act was under discussion, had said—
  "He protested against the principle of discharging all these officers without exacting from them such services as they still could give."—(3 Hansard, [196] 1906.)
  And Sir Roundell Palmer went on to say—
  "One way of avoiding a waste of public money in appointing large numbers of officers
  760
  and then dismissing them with full compensation was by utilizing the officers we had and not discharging them when they were able to perform their duties."—(Ibid. 1908.)
  Well, he (Mr. Arnold) contended for the establishment of this rule — that when officers were discharged from the Public Service on account of the abolition of their Office they should be as speedily as possible utilized in other Offices. In that way the country would not be burdened by having to pay them a large proportion of their salaries in the form of pensions. And then he thought the Treasury was much too easy in allowing officers to retire from the Public Service with their full salary. He had the case of a gentleman before him who, on grounds of ill-health, retired from the Public Service in 1867 with a pension of £1,261, which he was actually receiving at that moment. Another large cause of increase was what was known to the Treasury as "old age." He would not go back into the past, but would give the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) and the Committee some figures taken from the Estimates of the present 3'ear. There was an official in bankruptcy retired during the present year at the ago of 61, and he was to receive a pension of £357. There was a Keeper of Prints in the British Museum —a light and easy occupation one would think—who was retired from the Public Service at the ago of 64—an age at which it might be supposed a man was most competent to be a Keeper of Prints —with a pension of £500 a-year. Then there was a clerk in the High Court of Justice who had retired during the past 12 months, at the very moderate age of 63, on a pension of £800 a-year. There was the Governor of a prison retired at the age of 60—just the age at which, one would think, a man ought to be appointed Governor of a prison—at a pension of £400 a-year; and, lastly, there was a clerk in the Land Commission, who retired at the age of 60 with a pension of £366 a-year. He was quite aware he might be told that those retirements were due to length of service, and that they were arrangements carried out in accordance with law. He knew that very well. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), who was more responsible for the Estimates than anyone

  761
  else, said "Hear, hear!" but those statements were facts. What he (Mr. Arnold) was suggesting was that the time had arrived, owing to increased longevity and the superior health of the people, when the Government ought to consider this question of retirement at the age of 60. It appeared to him a fair matter for consideration. If the question were fairly considered, he believed it would be found that the age of 60 was not an age at which men ought to be retired on full pay from the Public Service. He thought Parliament might, with due regard to the public interest, raise the age at which men could retire from the Civil Service, at least, from CO to 65. Sir George Lewis, a Predecessor of the Home Secretary, had declared that he had very faint belief indeed in the possibility of a man living to be 100 years old; but now centenarians existed, and there could be no doubt that the duration of life had become much extended. At the age of 60 men were now really in the prime of life for the performance of many important and useful duties. They were reminded by the presence in that House of its most illustrious and distinguished ornament (Mr. Gladstone) that 15 or 16 years older than 60 a man could perform most valuable services to the State. He did not press so much that night the question of age; but he did press on the Committee that this system of retirement was far too laxly administered by the Treasury. For the reasons he had given, and believing, as he did, that the Treasury was not sufficiently strict with regard to the retirement of persons from the Public Service, he thought that those hon. Gentlemen who were disposed to support him in moving a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £10,000 would be doing service to the general interest of the taxpayers and the country. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £10,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £220,710, 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 1886, for Superannuation and Retired Allowances to Persons formerly employed in the Public Service, and for Compassionate or other Special Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."—[Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  THE SECERTARY TO THE TREA-SURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, the hon. Gentleman who had moved the reduction of the Vote had brought before the attention of the Committee three grounds of complaint against the system of pensions and retiring allowances practised, not by any particular Government, but generally by successive Treasuries and Governments. The hon. Gentleman went back to the bankruptcy cases of 1869, for which, certainly, neither the present nor the late Government were responsible. Those cases had excited a great deal of attention at the time, and, owing to the dissatisfaction then felt, a great and decided change had been made in the method of dealing with the question. He bad not the slightest hesitation in cordially concurring with the observations of the hon. Gentleman that it was most desirable and most necessary, in the interests of the country, to utilize those officials whose offices were abolished, or who were withdrawn for any other cause. The compensation given was liberal in those eases where the services of the retiring officer were not utilized, and it should always be considered whether the services of such a person could not be availed of in some other branch of the Public Service. This had been done in one case with which he was familiar—namely, the case of Public Prosecutor, whose Office was, as the Committee knew, recently abolished. A County Court Judgeship was offered, he believed, to that gentleman; and if he had accepted it his pension would have ceased pro tanto, so long as he held the Judgeship. He (Sir Henry Holland) only mentioned that case to put it against the cases of 1869 referred to by the hon. Member. The hon. Member's second point was that Government officials were forced to retire at the age of 60. The hon. Gentleman had frankly admitted that the present Government were not to blame, and that the late Government were not to blame, so far as this matter of age was concerned, for it was fixed, and Government could not alter it without careful inquiry and, probably, legislation. However, it was decidedly deserving of consideration whether the age should not be raised; but he (Sir Henry Holland) was not prepared to offer an opinion on the subject now. It was rather a curious thing that the hon. Gentleman had gone back

  763
  for cases upon this point also to the year 1867—
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I gave the cases from this year's Estimates.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: Yes; the hon. Member gave some cases of 1867, and then two cases of the present year.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: No; I gave five cases of this year.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY: One was the case of the Governor of a prison. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not able to find that.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Look in the Estimates.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY: It is not sufficient to state simply the age at which an official is retired without going into the circumstances of the case. Of course, I am not able to say what were the circumstances of the cases the hon. Member referred to. Was one of them the case of Mr. Hayward?
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I mentioned no names.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY: It was probably to the advantage of the Public Service that the prison Governor the hon. Member refers to should have retired. The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that every man of the age of 60 is in a good state of health.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: The hon. Baronet will excuse me. I said there were two causes of retirement mentioned in the columns of the Return. One is age, and the other ill-health. Wherever ill-health occurs it is always put down in the Return.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he was aware of that. What he was arguing was that it did not follow, because a man was only 60, that he was in a good state of health; and it might be necessary for an official who had reached that age to retire, though he might not be put down as in ill-health, because he might be so much out of sorts as not to be fully up to his work. In such case retirement might be desirable for the efficiency of the Service. He did not suppose that the hon. Member for Salford intended to find fault with the improved sanitary arrangements of the Public Offices, or to the increased longevity in the Public Service, but that he referred to those
  764
  matters as bearing upon what was in truth the only question to be considered, whether the age of 60 was the proper age for retirement. The question was one, as he had before said, which deserved consideration.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he must say that he did not think the proposal to reduce this Vote could well be supported on the grounds adduced by the hon. Member for Salford; but the question which was raised was well deserving of consideration, and he wondered it had not been brought forward with a great deal of force any time during the past 15 years. It was hardly, he thought, to be met by the reply that the blame, if any, attaching to the administrators of the Public Service could not be imputed to the present Government or to their Predecessors. It was not a question of what particular Government or Ministry was responsible for the state of things. The question was whether some change could not be made in the system which at present obtained. He himself had been retired on the re-organization of a large Public Department, and he therefore had some acquaintance with the circumstances now brought before the Committee; and he must say that, although he participated in the re-organization with satisfaction to himself, he had felt that what was then done in the matter of re-organization in the War Office was little short of a public scandal. A large number of men in the prime of life were retired, not compulsorily, but at their own option—men who were qualified for a number of years to go on giving effective service. A large charge had been thrown on the Exchequer in consequence of that reorganization, just as there had been in connection with the re-organization of the Admiralty. And in the volumes of the Public Accounts which he had seen published since that time he had not found that the country had been the gainer by the large outlay which had been brought about. With regard to the present system, he was informed that a large number of men were to be compulsorily retired at the age of 60. He fancied the hon. Baronet was mistaken when he said that there was a provision under Statute Law for compulsory retirement from the Public Service at the age of 60. He believed a

  765
  man would be entitled by the rule to retire on attaining that age; but there was no compulsory retirement under Statute, therefore there was no reason why the Treasury should deprive themselves of the services of efficient public servants simply because their certificates of birth showed that they had reached the age of 60. In the India Office, at the present moment, a considerable number of men were being turned out of the Service because they happened to be 60 years of ago, though they were, for the most part, able to continue in the Service with advantage to the country. The men so forced out of the Service, when capable and willing to remain at their posts, felt it to be a great grievance, and no wonder. A man at the age of 60 very often found his expenses as heavy as they had ever been. Many a man at that age had a family that he still had to provide for in part, and to cut down their salaries by one-third inflicted a very great hardship on them, and implanted in them a strong sense of injustice—a sense of injustice which spread throughout the Service, and the indirect effect of which it was difficult to judge, but which was palpable, and which did damage to the Service generally. Well, the real secret why the Government every now and then felt themselves compelled to enforce this retirement at the age of CO was the want of promotion in the different Departments. Why was there a want of promotion? Why, it was simply because, under the present system, there was no interchangeability between the Departments. If, when it was necessary to re-organize the War Office or the Admiralty, the Treasury were able to transfer those clerks they wanted to get rid of to other Departments, there would have been a considerable saving effected in those Departments; and the Treasury would have obviated the necessity of introducing into other Departments of the Public Service a number of young clerks who, in their turn, became a block, agitated for an increase of pay, and necessitated compulsory retirement in their Departments also. Now, what he would suggest for the consideration of the Government was this—the desirability of introducing as soon as possible some system of interchangeability throughout the Service, so that the very large number of men in the different
  766
  Departments who were competent to continue their work for years to come would not be thrown out in the flower of their age and deprived of berths they had held for years with satisfaction to all parties, with their incomes curtailed, and necessitating the filling of their places with a number of men who had to be taught their duties. The saving to the State by such an arrangement would be very considerable. What would be thought in the Army if, because there was a block of promotion in a certain regiment, a number of senior officers were pensioned against their will, instead of being transferred to other regiments? Why should not a man who was retired from the India Office or the Customs and Inland Re-venue Department be transferred to the War Office, the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, or to any other Department where there might happen to be a vacancy? Why should they not so maintain Customs and Inland Revenue clerks in the Service, no matter how great a change might be made in the duties they had to perform? It was the greatest affectation to say that because a man had been in the Customs and Inland Revenue Department or in the Post Office for 10 or 12 years he was at all unfitted for the duties if transferred to any of the Secretary of State Offices. But the difficulty the Treasury had to deal with was the passive resistance of what were called the first-class Offices to the introduction of personnel from what were called inferior Departments. This was one of the changes that the Treasury ought to be firm about. They ought to insist on the superior Departments taking clerks in this way where they were wanted, however great might be the objection of the permanent officials. The Secretaries of State did not care about the matter; it was the high permanent officials who objected. If the course he recommended were adopted, he was confident the Government would soon find these lists of pensions melt away; and, besides that, they would find that they had produced contentment in the Public Service, and had avoided that irritation which they experienced whilst things were as they were now, through agitation, brought about now, in the hope that by causing retirements a considerable amount of promotion would be secured for men who otherwise would

  767
  have to wait for it for a considerable number of years. There was another matter as to this Vote which he would like to ask a question about. Why was it that in some cases the Treasury refused to allow this Vote to be lightened by commutation of pensions? He had lately heard of a case in the Board of Works in Ireland where a man had been compulsorily retired at the age of 42—thrown on the world at that age with a diminished income. He had been anxious to start life anew in some other way; and in order to obtain the capital to enable him to do that he had applied, through the head of the Board of Works, for the consent of the Treasury to the commutation of his pension. That request was summarily, though courteously, refused. Why such an application as that was refused he (Mr. A. O'Connor) did not know. It was the Treasury who had refused the application, the letter in which the refusal was conveyed to him being from the Commutation Board, and stating that the Lords of the Treasury declined the application, and that no steps would, therefore, be taken in the matter. It appeared to him (Mr. A. O'Connor) that that was a most arbitrary and inconsistent manner of dealing with a public servant against whom there was absolutely no complaint, but who, on the contrary, had been recommended very highly by the Department with which he had been connected. Perhaps the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury could enlighten him on this subject.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to point out that the Vote contained several items relating to pensions of Irish officials, as would be seen on reference to page 454. Having regard to the pledge given by the Government that no Irish Votes would be taken until Monday next, he hoped the hon. Baronet would either withdraw the Vote, or exclude from it that portion relating to Irish officials.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he should be very sorry to be supposed to have broken faith with the Irish Members; but the understanding had been that Class III. alone would be postponed until Monday. The Votes the hon. Member referred to in Class VI. were not strictly Irish Votes.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork
  768
  (Mr. Parnell) and he (Mr. Sexton) had understood, by the arrangement entered into, that no Votes affecting Ireland would be taken before Monday next. If the hon. Member insisted on going on with the Irish Votes in this Class he would be obliged to move to report Progress, and prolonged resistance to the Votes in question would be offered by the Irish Members on Report.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, the Votes referred to were not mentioned.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the only object which his Friends had had in view in eliciting from the Government that the Irish Votes would not be taken before Monday was to make sure that they would not be wanted this week. There was a very limited attendance of Irish Members at the present moment, the reason being that Irish Business was not expected to come on. He wished to know whether the hon. Baronet held himself at liberty to take Votes 5, 6, and 9 of the present Class, every penny of which would go to Ireland? He did not suppose that the hon. Baronet would maintain that in bringing on those Votes he was adhering to the engagement the Government had entered into on this matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he did maintain it without the slightest doubt. The Votes which it was proposed to take on Monday had been specially mentioned, and these were not amongst them.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I beg, Sir, to move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  [The Motion was not proposed from the Chair.]
  MR. ILLINQWORTHsaid, the Civil servants were becoming a vast army in this country, and it was becoming a question of the very first importance as to whether there was due economy in connection with it. He did not wish to argue the point put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold); but he would mention another which was of great importance. The supply of young men fitted for all these offices was largely on the increase in this country, owing to the working of the Elementary Education Act and their endowed schools system. If that were so, there was great pressure on the part

  769
  of young men growing up in life to obtain public employment, and he did not think it was necessary to give the same remuneration which was given some time ago when education was not so common, and when it was more difficult to fill up these appointments. He agreed that 60 years of age was an unnecessarily low limit to fix upon as the period of retirement. No great commercial establishment in the country could live and keep its head above water if, when one branch of its business became slack and it could not find employment for its servants, it offered them superannuation on such extravagant terms as were offered in the Public Service. Nothing was more common than for a branch of the Civil Service to rearrange its Departments, and draw from one Department its surplus staff, superannuating them, in order that it might develop another. At this time, when economy of all kinds was absolutely necessary—when they had been indulging in such extravagant expenditure on their Military and Naval systems— there should not be such wanton—there should not be such extravagance in dealing with the Civil servants. Though the Secretary to the Treasury might say he did not feel any particular responsibility at that moment, the hon. Gentleman the late Financial Secretary was able to say much the same thing. That was the only opportunity hon. Members and the country had of reviewing and criticizing what was going on in connection with the employment of officials in the Public Offices. That was not the time, he thought, to maintain that the Rules of the Government Departments were like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which did not in any way change. He thought that attention should be called to the matter, not only by speeches, but also by divisions.
  MR. TOMLINSONwished to make an observation as to one item in the Vote. The pensions in the Vote seemed to be limited to the age of 60; but he saw that one had been given in a case where that age had not been reached— where the recipient, in fact, was only 46. That gentleman seemed to have commenced at the age of 21 years, because he claimed 25 years' service. The only explanation in the margin of the Vote was that the payment took place under the 6 & 7 Vict. ss. 42 and 43. That,
  770
  so far as he could gather, did not offer any real explanation. A further point he would refer to. He had heard that this gentleman was, some time ago, Secretary of Legation at Madrid, and that he was now employed in Brussels. He (Mr. Tomlinson) failed to understand how it was that, if that gentleman had received a further appointment, his name could appear on the list of pensions. He did not know whether any Member of the Government could give him any information on the subject?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was not able to answer the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston except that the pension alluded to was granted under a special Act. That was the reason why it was not in the same category as other pensions. With regard to the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor)—the case of a clerk employed in the Irish Board of Works having been refused a commutation of his pension— he believed the reason was this—that the clerk, being so far from the age at which he could retire with a pension, it was thought that it might be possible, if his health allowed, to utilize him in the Public Service.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that this gentleman was not pensioned on the ground of ill-health. It was in consequence of the re-organization of the Office that this gentleman of 42 years of age was sent out. He had desired to obtain money for the purpose of entering into some other employment, and that was the reason why he had endeavoured to commute his pension.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he should have thought there were strong grounds in such a ease why a pension should be commuted. As to the other remarks of the hon. Gentleman, he had submitted that there should be interchangeability of clerks between the different Departments, and declared that if that were done they would have a more contented Public Service. Well, he pitied the Treasury if interchangeability were ever carried out; and he very much doubted whether they would have as contented a Public Service as they had now, under that system. There might be a deal to be said in favour of interchangeability; he said there was a great deal to be said in favour of it. But there was also a great deal to be said against it. Suppose

  771
  they changed clerks from the Customs to the War Office and the Colonial Office, they would prevent promotion in the War Office and the Colonial Office, and cause a much larger pension list to be made out in respect of those Departments than there was at present. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), he should like to say a word or two in confirmation of what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, that the hon. Gentleman's remarks would have been rather more appropriate in connection with what took place 15 or 20 years ago than what was happening at this moment. He (Mr. Hibbert) did not think they were appropriate to the present time. The Treasury were much more careful in making re-organizations, and were much more determined to prevent everything like extravagance, than they were some years ago. He quite agreed that some years ago there were many extravagant schemes carried out, one of which was the re-organization of the War Office, which had been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor). He believed that had been a very extravagant scheme, and had cost a great deal of money. But with regard to the present Vote, he thought that if they were to go closely into the figures they would not find that there had been a very great increase during the past few years. Of course, if they had an increasing Civil Service, they must have increasing superannuation allowances; and he doubted whether, if the present system of pensions were done away with, the country would be able to retain anything like the splendid body of men it had now serving in the Departments of the Public Service. With regard to the age at which retirement should take place, if he had had to fix it he should have thought 65 much more appropriate than 60. He believed the time was coming fast when the people of this country would look closely into this question, and would require considerable alteration in the system. At the present time, he could not allow it to be said that the Treasury were at all lax in the mode of allowing pensions to be given. The four or five cases which had been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arnold) were cases where the
  772
  persons had had a right to retire, having reached the age of 60.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had thought it rather unworthy of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland), when he was making his reply, to refer to the question of sanitary conditions as though it were a joke—as though he (Mr. Arnold) had spoken of it jokingly. That was not the tone he had adopted. With regard to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, he might point out that he had received several letters from gentlemen who had been superannuated in the Civil Service, complaining that when they were retired they were not the least useful members of the Service. Then the hon. Gentleman, in defending the Vote, had said that the increase had not been so great of recent years. But during the past 20 years the amount had been steadily increasing at the rate of £10,000 a-year. It had increased £200,000 in 20 years. But a considerable increase —one of the very largest—had taken place during the present year, the extent of it being £13,000. It was maintained that there was no wrong-doing in this matter at the present time. He would take the liberty of saying to the Secretary to the Treasury that the ground on which he (Mr. Arnold) had asked for a reduction of the Vote was not in reference to age. The reason assigned for the reduction was that the Treasury were not sufficiently strict in regard to the matters involved. He should like to ask the late Government whether, when they dealt with the Bankruptcy Act, they had regard to the vast number of Civil servants retired in the case of the former Bankruptcy Act? There was a diplomatic pension in the Vote granted this year by Her Majesty's late Government—a pension of £1,700 a-year—which certainly need not have been granted. That was one of the reasons why he asked the Committee to assent to the reduction of the Vote. He wished only to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who "could not find" the Governor to whom he (Mr. Arnold) had referred, that that official might be discovered if the right hon. Gentleman would turn to page 459. He was in the middle of the page—"Age 60. salary £752, retiring pension £400."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had explained to the Committee what was the understanding between the Irish Members and the Government with regard to the postponement of the Irish Votes—what was the only reasonable construction to put upon the agreement. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) had now sprung upon them the theory that the pledge the Government had given was only intended to have effect to Irish Votes in one Class. But Irish Votes were just as much Irish Votes in one Class as another. The object of the understanding had been to secure to the Irish Members a period during which they might be absent, and during which they might be assured no public money in which Ireland was specially interested would be voted in the House. The bulk of the Irish Members were absent that night in consequence of the pledge of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the House (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and he (Mr. Sexton) should be very much surprised if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury persisted in his intention to take Irish Votes that night. If he did—if he insisted on imposing his will upon them against their understanding of the pledge which had been given—he (Mr. Sexton) would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Sexton.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he regretted that there had been a misunderstanding; but he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) must feel that it was impossible for him (Sir Henry Holland) to go back from what he had stated as his recollection of the arrangement arrived at. He would suggest to the hon. Member that he should allow the present Vote to pass, and then, should there be any case that the Irish Members desired to call attention to, it should be discussed on Report. Of course, after what had passed, he (Sir Henry Holland) would not propose to the Committee to take Vote 5, or 6, or 9, which were purely Irish Votes. If the hon. Gentleman would allow any point affecting Ireland arising on the present Vote to be considered on Report, he would promise, on the part of the Government, that
  774
  any special case brought under their attention would be inquired into. He would postpone the other Votes.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would withdraw the Motion, at the same time intimating that the next time a pledge was given by the Government to the Irish Members across the floor of the House, he should be very careful about phrases.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the figures of this Vote showed how absolutely unreasonable it was to fix the age of 60 as the age for compulsory retirement. If the hon. Baronet would would look at page 457, he would see that there were a number of men who were retired at ages very much above the age of 60, and that one of them—an Examiner in the Bankruptcy Division of the High Court of Justice—retired at the age of 78 with only 17 years of service, so that he must actually have been over 60 years of age when he was first appointed. If it was reasonable to appoint men of 60 years of age for their first entry into the Service, surely it could not be reasonable to establish the rule that a man should have the option of a retiring allowance at the age of 60, and that the Treasury should have the power to compel the retirement of any number of men as soon as they reached that age. A large number of men in the Diplomatic Service retired at the ages of 68, 66, 67, 69, 71, 63, 68, 63, and so on through the whole list. It was perfectly clear that the age of 60 was exceeded in an enormous number of cases, without any loss or injury to the Service; and it did appear to him a great injustice to a large number of men to compel them to retire at the age of 60, when so obvious an expedient as transfer from one Department to other branches of the Service was open to the Treasury. The hon. Baronet had not yet answered the question put to him with regard to the refusal of the Treasury to commute the pension of one of the clerks lately connected with the Irish Board of Works. Seeing that the man had never been sent up to the Medical Authorities for examination, but that his application had been summarily refused, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) would ask the hon. Baronet whether he would not reconsider the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, the case referred to by the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat had occurred in 1884, and he (Sir Henry Holland) had had no opportunity of making himself familiar with the circumstances. He would, however, inquire into the matter.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £220,710, 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 lS86,for Superannuation and Retired Allowances to Persons \formerly employed in the Public Service, and for Compassionate or other Special Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 21; Noes 92: Majority 71. —(I)iv. List, No. 228.)
  MR. SEXTONasked the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) to be good enough to look into the case of Matthew Anderson, which was to be found under the head of Law Charges. That gentleman had been a Crown Solicitor, but his office had been abolished, and in the Estimates there was a sum of £262 put down to him. Was that to be an annual allowance, or was it a single sum? Under what circumstances was it promised, and had the transaction resulted in an increased burden being put upon the Exchequer?
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL. — [BILL 99.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL. — [BILL 99.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Reduction of amount required in uncontested election by Third Schedule of 38 and 39 Vic. c. 84).
  MR. HEALYsaid, this Bill proceeded on a wrong assumption. He thought it would be apparent to the mind of the Government that if a Sheriff had to deal with an election that was uncontested the amount to be paid to him should
  776
  not depend upon the number of voters in the constituency. For his own part, he would prefer that the Bill should provide for a fixed sum, as had been proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). According to the 3rd Schedule of the Act passed in 1875—
  "If at the end of the two hours appointed for the election, not more candidates stand nominated than there are vacancies to be filled up, the maximum amount which may be required is one-fifth of the maximum according to the scale."
  This Bill, however, proposed to alter the proportion to one-tenth; and that appeared to him to be altogether too high. He had himself a proposal on the Paper to make the sum required as security one-twentieth of the maximum according to the scale; but he thought it better that they should give the Sheriff in the case of an uncontested election a lump sum of, say, £20 or £25. Why should he get security at the rate of £100 for every 1,000 electors, and £50 for every 500? There was no reason whatever for the difference, because the trouble would be precisely the same in both cases. If the Government were not disposed to accept the Amendment he was about to move, let them accept the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork — that, instead of receiving security according to a graduated scale, £20 should be given. Considering that the Sheriffs in Ireland had only to issue a notice at a cost of 10s., and to pay railway fares to a similar amount, he thought that was quite enough security for them.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words "one-tenth," in order to insert the words"one-twentieth."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one-tenth' stand part of the Clause."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, on consideration, he thought it better to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member or the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
  MR. HEALYsaid, in that case, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and move to substitute £25 for one-fifth of the maximum, according to the scale in the Act of 1875.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, it would, perhaps, be better

  777
  if the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) were to continue his Motion to leave out the words "one-tenth."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he should like to understand exactly what the Government proposed to do in this matter. He could understand the contention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the contention of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) with reference to uncontested elections in Ireland; but the state of the case with regard to England was very different. Were they to understand that the only security required from a candidate, in the case of an uncontested election in England, was £20? Certainly, he considered that some explanation of this extraordinary proposal was necessary.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. GORST)said, that in England £25 would cover all the expenses of an uncontested election. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) proposed that where in England, Scotland or Ireland an election was uncontested, the amount of security to the Returning Officer should be £25.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was aware of the nature of the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan. His contention was that £25, or twice that sum, would not be sufficient in the case of an uncontested election in a large borough to meet the preliminary proceedings. No case had ever been submitted to the late Government with regard to England or Scotland. The Bill had been brought in entirely to meet the case of Ireland.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: No.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it frequently occurred that more candidates wore nominated than could be elected, and that one or more of them were withdrawn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the argument of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) did not apply, because the Schedule provided that if at the end of the two hours appointed for the election not more candidates stood nominated than there were vacancies to be filled up, the security might be required.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he agreed with the opinion expressed by the hon. and
  778
  learned Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He was quite satisfied of the impossibility of working an election in any large borough for the sum mentioned. It was certainly impossible for the Returning Officer to make the necessary arrangements in the case even of an uncontested election for £25.
  COLONEL NOLAN: There are no large boroughs now.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had remarked truly that large boroughs had been done away with. He would point out to the Committee, what seemed to have escaped the notice of some hon. Members, that this was not a question of the expenses of an election; it was merely a question of the amount of deposit which by way of security the Returning Officer might require in the case of an uncontested election. If the Sheriff could show that he had incurred a greater expense than the amount received, he could recover it from the candidate, who was always liable to him. But this Amendment simply applied to elections such as he had known, and where the payment of £18 or so to the Sheriff, where there were only a very few electors, would be a gross imposition. He repeated that the legal liability of the candidate would remain for any sum that was due over and above the deposit; it did not take away an atom of his responsibility, and the Sheriff could claim from the candidate any sum that he might consider himself entitled to. The Amendment proposed simply that if at the end of the two hours appointed for an election, not more candidates stood nominated than there were vacancies to be filled up, the amount which the Returning Officer might require as security should not exceed £25.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, if the Committee would consider the amount which the Parliamentary Elections Act allowed the Returning Officer to charge in the case of an uncontested election, they would see that the £25 proposed was an ample deposit. The Returning Officer could only charge three guineas, and the rest of the items related to the polling clerks and assistants. The charges would at the outside amount to £18, and it was proposed that the maximum amount of the Returning Officer's secu-

  779
  rity should be £25 in the case of an uncontested election in any borough.
  MR E. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)remarked, that there would be 26,000 electors in the City of London, and he should like to hear how the Returning Officer would deal with a case of that sort?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, this Bill only applied to cases where there was no contest. It was of no use to speak of the cost of polling clerks and matters of that kind, because under the circumstances they would not be required. He was convinced that the Sheriff would always take care that out of the £25 proposed by the Amendment there should always be £24 clear profit for himself. In his own case he expected there would be no contest; but if he had to advance a larger sum than the actual expenses, there would be no chance of his getting anything back.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to point out what would be the result of the amount which the Government had adopted. In preparing the Act, the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) ignored Ireland altogether, and made a scheme as between England and Scotland, dealing with England in Part 1, and with Scotland in Part 2. The Committee were in this position in consequence—they were getting into a muddle with regard to the Bill before them. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would be carried; then there would be an Amendment with regard to England, and another with regard to Scotland. He regretted the absence of the late Lord Advocate, who, he thought, ought to have been in his place to justify his arrangement of giving Part 1 to England and Part 2 to Soctland.
  Question, "That the words 'one-tenth' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, "That '£25' be there inserted."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  New Clause:—
  Page 1, after Clause 2, insert—

  COMMITTEE.

    Part II.—Scotland.
    (Payments to deputy Returning Officers.)
    "3. Where a returning officer is empowered to appoint a deputy, he may pay such deputy
    780
    according to the scale set forth in the Schedule to this Act, and such payments shall he allowed as expenses properly incurred by the returning officer within the meaning of 'The Parliamentary Returning Officers' Expenses (Scotland) Act, 1878,and of 'The Ballot Act, 1872,'"—(The Lord Advocate,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill
    New Clause:—
    (Amendment of Part II. of Schedule I. of the 46 and 47 Vic. c. 51.)
    "Part II. of Schedule I. of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, shall be read and construed as if the following words and figures were not contained therein, namely, 'not exceeding the amount authorised by the Act 38 and 39 Vic. c. 84,' "—(Mr. Warton,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    MR. WARTON, in rising to move the second reading of the clause, said, as the Committee would be aware, there was a maximum fixed in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act of 1883, which, when the measure was passing through Committee, was the subject of a great deal of discussion. He had no doubt that the Lord Advocate had the Act before him, and if he would look at the second part of the 1st Schedule he would find that the first payment there referred to was the charge of the Returning Officer. Now, that item was one of those which came within the maximum. Again, by the 8th section of the Act, no Member might spend more than the maximum, and, by the 11th section, if he did, he would lose his right to be a Member of Parliament for seven years, besides incurring other penalties. So that a candidate, if he should do wrong or even make a mistake, would be in a very serious position. He quoted from the second part of the Act words which now stood therein. Those words were added to the Bill in the dinner hour, in a thin House, on the Motion of the Solicitor General. He said that that Motion took the then Government by surprise; it was opposed very strongly by the late Government, but, as he had said, the words now stood part of the Act. On the division which took place there voted for the Motion 65 Members, of

    781
    whom there were only seven Conservatives, 15 Home Rulers, and 43 Liberals, nearly all of whom were Members of what he might call the extreme Radical Party. Such was the composition of the majority. On the other side there voted 56 Members, 40 of whom were Liberals, and that number included 26 Liberal officials, or nearly the whole strength of the Government who were opposed to the Amendment of the Solicitor General at the time he moved it. The other 14 Liberals were what one might call regular Ministerialists. Most of the Conservatives present also voted against the Motion; the official Conservatives were not in their places, and were probably at dinner. He contended that the Motion had been carried by a mere accident, and that it was utterly opposed to the feeling of the late Ministry. The danger was that a candidate would be liable to the severe penalties provided in the Act, if the Returning Officer, by accident or design, charged him £1 more than he ought to pay.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."—{Mr. Warton)
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, this matter was a very much more reasonable one than the Committee would have thought from the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, who was anxious, in the present condition of the House of Commons, to reverse the decision of the Committee of 1883. If that decision were reversed, as he was afraid they would not be able to get as many to vote as last year, it would be a small House reversing the decision of a larger one. The question was whether candidates' agents would charge candidates by a scale which was according to Act of Parliament, or by a scale of their own invention? The advantage of the scale in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act was that the candidates knew what the charges were, and that they would have to pay the lawful scale of the Act, and nothing more. If a candidate paid more than the statutory charges he would be guilty, not of a corrupt practice, but of an illegal payment, and, no doubt, if elected, he would forfeit his seat thereby. If the amounts in the Schedule of the Bill were not sufficient, of course, they could be increased. The other Amend-
    782
    ments of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given Notice raised the question whether the sums in the Pill were sufficient or not, and on that question the Committee would be able to give an opinion. But he (the Solicitor General) contended that the principle as to the charges which the House had adopted was the principle which should guide the Returning Officers. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the decision arrived at so wisely in 1883, and would restrict the charges of the Returning Officers to the legal amount.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he begged to move the other new Clause standing in his name, as follows:—
    (Increase of Returning Officers' charges in certain cases.)
    "Notwithstanding the scale of charges laid down in the First Schedule of the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875, it shall be lawful in any county or borough constituency where the poll is kept open to an hour later than 4 p.m. for the Returning Officer to charge four guineas for each presiding officer and thirty shillings for each clerk at a polling station."
    He thought that, as they had increased the hours of polling and thereby also increased the amount of duty to be performed, so far as the presiding officers and clerks were concerned, that those officials should have a higher scale of remuneration.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I beg to point out to the hon. and learned Member that his clause does not come next in order.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought he was at liberty to move the clause at this point.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It will come on at the end.
    MR. WARTON: I merely reversed the order of my clauses. Having taken the second first, I thought I could now take the other.
    MR. HEALTsaid, he begged to move the following new Clause:—
    (Borough scale to apply to counties in Ireland.)
    "In Ireland the scale applicable to a borough in the Third Schedule of the above Act shall apply also to counties, and the scale applicable to a 'county or district of a contributory borough' shall not extend to Ireland."
    The 3rd Schedule of the Act was put altogether out of date by the passing of

    783
    the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Act, and which would make the borough scale apply equally to counties and boroughs. This question of scale had been overlooked in previous legislation, the fact being that when that legislation was passed a large number of boroughs which had now been constituted were not thought of. The scale commenced where the number of electors did not exceed 1,000; but in the future there would not be a single borough with such a small electorate. The smallest would be 3,000 or 4,000. It was entirely unnecessary, so far as Ireland was concerned, that there should be this distinction between them. The Committee would remember all along that these deposits were only guarantees of good faith. They would not prevent the Sheriff from coming on the candidate if he had over-spent the amount. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had this very good Amendment on the Paper—
    "In Ireland the following scale, which shall apply both in counties and boroughs, shall be substituted from and after the end of this present Parliament for the scale allowed by the Third Schedule of the above Act:—
    Where the Registered Electors do not exceed 4,000, £100;
    Where the Registered Electors exceed 4,000, but do not exceed 7,000, £200;
    Where the Registered Electors exceed 7,000, but do not exceed 10,000, £250;
    Where the Registered Electors exceed 10,000, but do not exceed 15,000, £300;
    Where the Registered Electors exceed 15,000, £400."
    He should like to see that Amendment accepted; but if the Committee preferred it, he (Mr. Healy) would adhere to his own Amendment. It would meet with the support of the Irish Members. Something was necessary in order to put a stop to the system of plunder which had been adopted by the Sheriffs. During the last 10 years the Sheriffs, owing to a law which was intended to prevent men of straw from becoming candidates, had had a deal of plunder out of the candidates, and he thought it behaved them to do what they could to cut those gentlemen down in some way or other.
    New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, that it would be more satisfactory if the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) would allow his Amendment and that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to stand over until the Report, the Government undertaking, meanwhile, to give the proposals their careful consideration. Hitherto the Government had scarcely had an opportunity of looking into the matter. If the course he proposed were adopted, an endeavour would be made to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion by the time the Report stage was reached.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a very reasonable one, and he should have no hesitation in accepting it. These clauses were really matters of arrangement between the Government and private Members. He would point out, however, that it was rather inconvenient to take a discussion on the Report stage, for the reason that hon. Members could not speak twice.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: I would suggest that we should now report Progress.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
(Mr. Waugh, Mr. George Howard, Mr. Stafford Reward, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Ferguson.)
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

  [BILL 26.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. ELTONsaid, he desired to move the following new Clause on page 16, after Clause 31:—
  (Payment of office fees on enfranchisement.)
  "In the case of any enfranchisement by award after next admittance or enrolment (save and except as herein otherwise provided, and subject to any order by the Commissioners to the contrary) the office fees payable to the Commissioners on enfranchisement shall be paid one half by the lord, the other half by the tenant.
  "Until payment of the moiety payable by the lord the same shall be a charge on the manor, including land within the manor settled to the same uses, rent-charges arising from enfranchisements within the manor and appurtenant thereto, and moneys received for en-francisements within the manor. And until payment of the moiety payable by the tenant the same shall be a charge on the land enfranchised, and in each case the charge shall take priority of all other charges except charges under this Act or the Copyhold Acts, tithe

  785
  commutation rent-charge, or any rent or other charges for the drainage or improvement of the land under any Statutes for those purposes. The certificate or certificates of the Commissioners under their seal shall he conclusive evidence of the amount of each such moiety, and of the liability of the lord or tenant to pay the same; and the same, together with the costs and expenses incurred in their recovery as between solicitor and client, shall be recoverable either as an ordinary debt, or under the provisions of 'The Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1SS1,' as if the Commissioners were mortgagees."
  The clause had a rather formidable appearance; hut he might inform the House that it was a provision drawn by the Land Commissioners to enable them to draw office fees and expenses for enfranchisement. The exception referred to Clause 33, where certain cases were specified in which the Commissioners might charge otherwise.
  New Clause brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
  MR. ELTONsaid, he proposed, in Clause 28, page 14, line 5, after "tenant," to add—
  "And notwithstanding the provisions of the Copyhold Acts, including this Act, the lord and tenant may at any time, after notice of enfranchisement shall have been delivered, agree in writing that the Commissioners shall fix and determine the value of and compensation to be paid for the enfranchisement of the manorial and other rights and incidents, by way of rent charge, issuing out of the lands enfranchised and to be subject to the provisions of this Act. And the Commissioners shall, upon receipt of such agreement, take such proceedings and make such inquiries as they may deem necessary to ascertain, fix, and determine such value and compensation, taking into consideration all such matters and things as valuers appointed under the Copyhold Acts are bound to take into consideration in making a valuation under such Acts, and, having fixed and determined such value and compensation, the Commissioners shall communicate the result in writing to the lord and tenant, and shall fix a time within which any objection to such determination may be signified to them in writing by the lord or tenant, and forthwith after the period fixed for such objections to be signified shall have expired, if there he none or if there be any, then forthwith, after the Commissioners shall have considered and disposed of such objections and made such alterations, if any, in such valuation and determination as they shall see fit, the Commissioners shall make their award of enfranchisement in like manner as if the compensation had been ascertained by valuers under the Copyhold Acts."
  The object of the Amendment was to allow the lord and the tenant, for the sake of cheapness and economy, to agree in writing that the Land Commissioners
  786
  should do the business of fixing the value and amount of compensation for enfranchisement. There could be no objection to the Amendment, which he only proposed for the sake of economy.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ELTONsaid, he now proposed, in Clause 46, page 20, line 13, after "same," to add—
  "In all cases where the Commissioners for the purpose of the Copyhold Acts, including this Act, are authorised to fix or determine the compensation for enfranchisement, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to employ such valuers or land surveyors, and at such remuneration, as the Commissioners shall think fit, and the costs of and incidental to such employment shall form part of the costs and expenses of the enfranchisement."
  He proposed the Amendment at the wish of the Land Commissioners. They already had power to raise the cost of the inquiry, and it was suggested that the costs should include the costs of such valuers as they thought it essential to send down to make the valuation. The Amendment was to explain that the cost of the employment of valuers might be included in the costs of the inquiry.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ELTONproposed, in Clause 50, page 20, line 35, to leave out from "apply" to end of clause, and insert—

  "(a.) Any five or more of the tenants of any manor or lordship may, at any time after the time fixed for the commencement of this Act, give notice in writing to the lord or steward of their desire to have their respective lands held, or parcel of the said manor enfranchised, by an award of the Commissioners, for such consideration, and upon such terms, as the Commissioners shall, in manner herein appearing, ascertain to be fair and just, and may thereupon forward to the Commissioners an application in writing to that effect, together with a certified copy of such notice;

  "(b.) Forthwith, after the receipt of such application and copy notice, the Commissioners shall take such proceedings, and make such inquiries, as they may deem necessary to ascertain, fix, and determine the value of, and the compensation to be paid by, the said several tenants for the enfranchisement of all the manorial and other rights and incidents attached to their respective lands, taking into consideration all such matters and things as valuers appointed under the Copyhold Acts are hound to take into consideration in ascertaining the compensation for enfranchisement under such Acts, and, after having fixed and determined such value and compensation, they shall communicate the result in writing to the lord and each such tenant, and shall fix a time within which any objection to such determination may be signified to them in writing by the lord or any such tenant;

  787

  "(c.) Forthwith after the period fixed for such objections to he signified shall have expired if there he none, or if there he any then forthwith after the Commissioners shall have considered and disposed of such objections, arid made such alterations (if any) in such valuation and determination as they shall see fit, the Commissioners shall proceed to frame an award of enfranchisement, with particulars and schedules attached, applicable to all the said tenants, and in such form as the said Commissioners may deem expedient, and the award so made shall have the same force and validity as an award of enfranchisement under the Copyhold Act, 1858, and as if the same were a separate award of enfranchisement for each tenant;

  "(d.) The compensation to the lord shall consist of annual rent-charges issuing out of the respective lands enfranchised, and shall be subject to the provisions of this Act;

  "(e.) The said award of enfranchisement shall in other respects be subject to the provisions of the Copyhold Acts, including this Act;

  "(f.) The award of enfranchisement shall be deposited and kept with and by the Land Commissioners, and any copy of or extract from the said award sealed by the Commissioners shall be received in evidence without any further proof thereof;

  "(g.) All the expenses of and incident to enfranchisement under this section shall be paid by the tenants requiring the same in such proportions as the Commissioners shall direct, regard being had to the amount of compensation or rent-charge payable by each tenant, and any other circumstances affecting each tenant."

  This Amendment was in the nature of a compromise clause to meet certain objections, and it was a compromise proposed by the Land Commissioners. He thought it was one of a very beneficial nature. The clause, as it stood in the Bill, was to the effect that on five tenants in a district sending for an Assistant Commissioner that Commissioner should not go away until every copyhold in that district had been enfranchised. It was considered hard on those individuals who did not want to be enfranchised to compel them to occupy a similar position to the five tenants who sent for the Assistant Commissioner. This clause was, therefore, proposed to enable as many as wished to be enfranchised to enter their names on the list when the Commissioner came down, and the Commissioner would reduce the cost of the proceeding to a few shillings. The remaining copyholders would not be enfranchised at that time, but would be enfranchised under the ordinary operations of the clauses of the Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

PUBLIC HEALTH (MEMBERS AND OFFICERS) BILL.— [BILL 114."]
(Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Long, Mr. Cowen.)
PUBLIC HEALTH (MEMBERS AND OFFICERS) BILL.— [BILL 114."]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Amendment of Section 193 of the Public Health Act, 1875).
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "sale." He understood the object of the Bill to be to allow officers or employés of Corporations or Town Commissioners reasonable facilities, in small matters, for having business transactions with those Corporations. He objected to the power given in the Bill to officers of those Local Boards to make purchases of lands from the Boards; and he, therefore, moved the omission of the word "sale." A small hiring of those lauds might take place from year to year; but that was very different to giving full power of sale. Those officers, as hon. Gentlemen were aware, were electioneering agents, and, as such, nothing would be easier than for members of those Boards to endeavour to enlist their support by giving them valuable property at a nominal value. He knew that that was done in Ireland. It was not desirable that public bodies in a more or less obscure position in the country should have those powers.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word"sale."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'sale' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, this Bill had nothing to do with Municipal Corporations, who possessed these powers at the present moment. It only referred to Local Boards, which had to do with these transactions on a much smaller scale. This was one of the difficulties experienced under the existing law— supposing there was a piece of a street which a Local Board wished to acquire, which belonged to a clerk or other officer of the Board, there were no means by which possession of it could be secured. But for fear there should be such collusion as the hon. Member (Mr.

  789
  Biggar) seemed to look upon as likely, there were special provisions and securities in the latter part of the clause to guard against it. For instance, full publicity would be required, and it would be necessary that transactions should not take place without due notice, and then only with the consent of two-thirds of the Board. As the absence of such a power as would be conferred by this clause had given rise to serious difficulty and inconvenience, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was aware that the Bill only applied to small bodies; but the safeguards which the hon. Baronet alleged to exist in the Bill were no safeguards at all. In small places the members of these Boards all belonged to one particular party, and, under such circumstances, it would be no safeguard to the ratepayers to have publicity given to these transactions. The publicity would not be to the interest of the ratepayers, but to members of the Local Authority. In all probability, when one of these transactions came up for consideration, there would be very few-members of the public body present, and the sanction of two-thirds of these would be sufficient. He held that that was not sufficient; and though he knew that Corporations in England had similar powers, it would be a dangerous power to give these small local bodies. There could be nothing more objectionable than to allow them to buy and sell amongst each other, and amongst their officers, and he should certainly take the opinion of the Committee upon his Amendment. He did not know whether the Government were in a position to oppose or defend the principle laid down in the clause; but he should be very much surprised if they did not support him in his attempt to strike this obnoxious theory out of the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. In the first place, the Bill did not apply to Ireland; therefore, the experience the hon. Member had given of the state of things in that country was really irrelevant. If the Amendment were carried the Bill would lose a great deal of its utility. Cases often arose where land was required for public pur-
  790
  poses, such land belonging to officers of the Local Boards. In such a case, either the land could not be obtained, or the officer would have to relinquish his appointment, or render himself liable to a penalty of £50 and be deprived of the power of ever again serving the Board. The hardship of that was greatly enhanced and made much more manifest by the fact that no such restrictions existed with regard to the dealings of members of Boards with each other. He hoped the hon. Member would not think it worth while to press his Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he failed to see any force in the argument that the Bill did not apply to Ireland. English Members were never chary of interfering with Irish matters, and Irish Members had an equal right to interest themselves in measures which only applied to England. But to say that because it was competent, according to law, for members of a Board to trade with each other as a Board—he did not say it was competent according to morals—that, therefore, Boards should have power to trade with their officers was to use an argument which could not carry weight. He still thought that the power contained in the Bill was very objectionable, and that it was his duty to go to a division. The right hon. Gentleman said that jobbery was not so likely to take place in England as in Ireland.
  THE PRESIDENT: No, no!
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that he had stated that a great deal of plundering had taken place by reason of such transactions as were legalized in this Bill; and the right hon. Gentleman had said that this was an English Bill, and, therefore, what took place in Ireland could not be quoted in regard to it. It was not very long since the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) brought in a Bill to reform a whole lot of English Corporations. What was proposed by this Bill was to enable a lot of small Corporations in England to put themselves into such a position that some future President of the Local Government Board would be required to introduce a measure for reforming them again. He (Mr. Biggar) thought it desirable that the reform should take place now. They should not wait until the local bodies had misconducted themselves.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he must confess he looked on the Bill with a great deal of jealousy, and very much sympathized with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He was sure, however, there was no intention to institute an unfair comparison between England and Ireland in the matter. There seemed to him to be a method by which the objection of the hon. Member could be met—namely, by strengthening the Proviso at the end of the clause. As it existed at present it was scarcely sufficient. It stated this—that the contract entered into should be sent to each member of the Board, giving him notice. If, in addition to that, the intention of the Board to enter into the contract were advertised, so that the people of the neighbourhood might know what was being done, and be familiar with the terms of the arrangement as well as the members of the Board, that would secure that the matter would be properly handled in the interests of the locality.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not disposed to comply with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney).
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 38; Noes 9: Majority 29. — (Div. List, No. 229.)
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had several other Amendments on the Paper of a character similar to the one just disposed of; but after this decision of the Committee it would be useless to proceed with them. The principle involved in each was the same. The question was whether or not these bodies should have power to sell, purchase, or lease from their officers; and as the point of sale had been determined, and the difference between that and the others was very slight, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a further division. He had, however, another Amendment to propose in page 1, line 18, after the word "authority," to insert the words—
  "Provided the price agreed on be a fair market price; and, in case it is not so, the members of the board who voted for the contract shall be liable to make good to the ratepayers the amount of loss to the ratepayers, from the fact that the price was not a fair one. Amount to be ascertained by means of an action brought by any ratepayer, either in County Court or High Court of Justice."
  792
  He wished by this Amendment to give an opportunity to test the question as to whether or not transactions under the Bill were bond fide by enabling ratepayers to bring actions in respect of them in the County Court or the High Court of Justice. Evidence would in this way have to be given as to the genuineness of the bargain, and to show whether the gentlemen engaged in it had acted in the interests of the ratepayers, or in their own interests.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 18, after the word "authority," to insert the words—"Provided the price agreed on be a fair market price; and, in case it is not so, the members of the hoard who voted for the contract shall be liable to make good to the ratepayers the amount of loss to the ratepayers, from the fact that the price was not a fair one. Amount to be ascertained by means of an action brought by any ratepayer, either in County Court or High Court of Justice."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, he did not believe the hon. Member could be serious in moving this Amendment. It was difficult to get men of good standing to serve on these Local Boards as it was, and if this were passed it would be still more difficult. If these gentlemen did their best to make good bargains, they would still be at the mercy of every common informer who might choose to go against them and declare that the bargain was faulty. However good their intentions might be, they might be punished in a Court of Justice for what proved to be an unsatisfactory arrangement. He could not accept the proposal.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not think it was right to call "a ratepayer" a "common informer" if he desired to make sure that a transaction under the Bill was a bond fide transaction or not. They knew from observation and experience that nothing was more common than for underhand transactions to take place in connection with these public bodies, and he thought it would be extremely valuable to give the ratepayers the power of bringing these transactions to the test of a decision of a Court. It might be moved as an Amendment to his proposal that the ratepayer who brought an action against one of these public bodies must give security for costs. In this way a man who could

  793
  not substantiate his case, instead of making the Local Board suffer through his prosecution, would suffer himself. He did not think the promoters of the Bill should object to his Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, it would be undesirable to countenance such litigation as was proposed by the hon. Member. Those transactions would not be large matters; the question at issue in one case might be the hiring of a room which the Local Board might desire to have the use of for some public purpose. Due notice having been given, and a majority of two-thirds of the Board having assented to the transaction, there might be litigation at the suggestion or instance of anyone who might be dissatisfied with the vote of the Board—it might be at the instance of a member of the Board who did not agree with the vote of the majority of his colleagues against him. To allow parties to be brought into Court in this way from a bad motive or no motive at all would serve no useful purpose. The object the hon. Member had in view was to give a proper public safeguard, and he (the Attorney General) believed that if the clause in the Bill were passed in its present form that object would be attained.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, there would be no safeguard whatever. There was nothing deserving the name of public opinion in these small places managed by Local Boards, and no means of obtaining an expression of opinion from the ratepayers. Some small lots of shopkeepers in these country villages got themselves nominated and put on these Boards, and unless there were some means of investigating their conduct in a Court of Law, there would be nothing to prevent them from grossly abusing the powers contained in the Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in the intention he had declared of carrying this Amendment to a division, for it was obvious he had no chance of gaining anything by it. At the same time, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) thought the Committee had failed to appreciate the importance of much that the hon. Gentleman had urged. It was a matter of notoriety that in certain parishes in Birmingham—and, no doubt, it was even worse in small Provincial places where
  794
  there were a couple of Local Boards, the members of which were precluded from entering into these business transactions with the Boards—the contracts and little jobs which the one authority had to do were given to the members of the other. If, for instance, there was a Vestry in one place and a Board of Guardians in another, this plan might be, and in many cases was, adopted. The members of these Local Boards were, as a rule, a lot of small tradesmen who met in a public-house parlour once a-week and arranged the contracts for the parish. The work of the Vestry would be handed over to the members of the Board of Guardians, and the work of the Board of Guardians would be handed over to the members of the Vestry. In this way every little thing would be arranged for from time to time. There was nothing in this Bill, so far as he could see, to prevent an extension of this system; and he thought it would be only reasonable to allow some independent ratepayer in a parish an opportunity of having transactions of this kind, which he might consider fairly open to attack, made the subject of investigation before a legal tribunal. He remembered hearing of a case in London in which a certain amount of property had been transferred to a Board of Guardians by one of the members of the Board. Everyone knew that this gentleman had himself been instrumental in arranging the transfer; and it was matter of notoriety that he had been by no means a personal loser by the transaction. That sort of thing was reproduced by dozens and scores, and what was done in London was probably done in a great many other centres in the country. There was, he thought, a great deal to be said for giving an independent ratepayer an opportunity of challenging a proceeding of this kind. It was obvious, however, that if the Amendment were pressed to a division, those in a favour of it would only be half-a-dozen in one Lobby against five or six times as many in the other. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Biggar) would not effect anything useful by taking the opinion of the Committee on the question.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that what he desired to do was to put on the Government the responsibility for this new law, which would give Local Boards the power of plundering the ratepayers

  795
  in this unblushing manner. If the Government were content to accept the responsibility, well and good. He should, however, press his Amendment to a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 9; Noes 36: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 230.)
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not propose to move the Amendments standing in his name; but he would propose another to carry out the suggestion he had made to the Committee a short time ago. He wished to provide, not that notice should be sent to the members of the Board, but that it should be publicly given. He would propose, after "notice," in line 27, to insert—
  "Shall have been published in some newspaper circulating in the neighbourhood, and."
  The clause would run—
  "At a meeting held after seven days' clear notice shall have been published in some newspaper circulating in the neighbourhood, and shall have been sent in writing to every member, "&c.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 27, after the word "notice," to insert the words "shall have been published in some newspaper circulating in the neighbourhood, and."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the ratepayers, as a matter of fact, would get no notice at all, because the notice would appear in a newspaper that no one ever read. He did not see that there was much use in the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Restriction on recovery of penalties).
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that under the Act it was competent to any person to bring an action for the recovery of the penalties; but this clause of the Bill proposed that no action should be brought except with the consent in writing of the Attorney General. He was aware that there were many cases in which the consent of the Attorney General was required; but he did not think that in this case the Attorney General should be charged with the delicate power of determining whether
  796
  a person should be charged in cases which often involved political considerations. Among other cases, there might be actions with respect to newspaper rights, and the action of the Attorney General in consenting or not consenting might be criticized as being the result of political friendship or otherwise. He did not think the Attorney General should be made a party to the bringing of actions under the Act. He was prepared to accept the substitution of the words "Public Prosecutor" for "Attorney General." The former was a public officer, and he thought his judgment in matters of this kind might be trusted. He should therefore begin by moving the omission of the words "Attorney General," in order to make the substitution he proposed.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words "Attorney General," and insert the words "Public Prosecutor."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, that the consent of the Attorney General had already been imported into the Act of last year. There was, therefore, nothing new in the Bill, so far as that provision was concerned. He did not think it would be well to introduce into this measure the consent of the Public Prosecutor. There was a possibility of members and officers being liable to heavy penalties, even when they acted in good faith; and therefore, for obvious reasons, he said they ought to retain the words which made the Attorney General a consenting party to the bringing of an action for the recovery of such penalties.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that with regard to cases under this Bill, the mere certificate of counsel would be all that was necessary; but he thought that the substitution of the Public Prosecutor for the Attorney General would make the bringing of actions more difficult. The activity of the Public Prosecutor had certainly not been manifested in any degree, and sometimes his consent could not be got at all. In practice, therefore, he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would defeat the very object he had in view.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would not go into the merits of the two officers. He wished to point out that cases of this kind often gave rise to discussion on the character of the action of the Attorney General. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had argued on the position of the Office of Public Prosecutor as it was last year; but it should be remembered that it now stood in quite a different position. He thought it was an error to intrust the initiation of an action to the Attorney General in these cases, and so much so that he was desirous of taking the sense of the Committee on the clause, although he was quite ready to make the compromise he had suggested. The hon. Member opposite had said that a large sum might be recoverable in case of action in this matter; but he (Mr. Courtney) did not see why it should not be permissible to the Judge to rule that the damages should not exceed £50, so that, if necessary, that sum should be awarded in all cases. If the Government did not agree to the compromise he had suggested, he should feel it his duty to object to the clause altogether.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he had had considerable experience of actions brought in cases of this kind, and he recollected that in two or three instances the Judges at the trial had stated that there had been no moral offence of any sort or kind, or any improper conduct on the part of the defendant, and that they regretted there was no authority whose consent was necessary before proceedings could be taken. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), he did not think there was anything to warrant the belief that an amount of jobbery would go on as the hon. Member had suggested. He could not consent to the Public Prosecutor being substituted in this case for the Attorney General; he desired to call the attention of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) to the fact that Section 25 of the Act of last year provided that proceedings for recovery under the Act should not be taken without the consent of the Attorney General. As to the ruling of the Judge in these cases, the suggestion which the hon. Member had made was, he said, inapplicable. There must be something in the nature of a penalty to be suffered
  798
  by the defendant who had been guilty of an offence. He thought it would be very desirable not to divide the authority responsible for proceedings being taken, and he did not believe there would be the slightest difficulty in obtaining a thoroughly impartial decision in cases of the kind from the Attorney General, whatever Government he might represent. Although it was possible that in some rare cases political feelings might come in, he should think the result, in such a case, would rather be in favour of giving permission than withholding it. He could not accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard, because he had the strongest feeling that the Attorney General in years gone by had always acted in the most impartial manner, and had always decided the cases submitted to him on their merits. Inasmuch as this was a small matter, and inasmuch as the general question was going to be raised hereafter on a larger Bill, he asked the Committee to confirm the view that the Attorney General was the proper person to authorize these proceedings.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, as amended; to be considered upon Monday next.

MOTION.

  MARRIAGES (SAINT JOHN, COWLEY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to render valid certain Marriages at Saint John, Cowley, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. STUART-WORTLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 234.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.