Commons Sitting of 17 June 1886

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Orkney Roads, put off.
Considered as amended—Shanklin and Chale Railway (Extension to Freshwater)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Merchandise (Fraudulent Marking)* [291].
First Reading—Patents Amendment* [289].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension* [276]; Public Works Loans* [288]; Idiots* [287]; Revising Barristers' Appointment* [245]; Oxford University (Justices)* [280].
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [285]; Westminster Abbey Restoration* [284]; Shop Hours Regulation (re-comm.) [216].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Patriotic Fund* [271]; Contagious Diseases (Animals)* [268]; Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption (re-comm.) [264].
Considered as amended—Public Works Loans (Tramways Ireland)* [259]; Sea Fishing Boats (Scotland)* [270].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) [157], and passed.
Third Reading—Customs * [267], and passed.
Recommitted—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading— Returning Officers' Charges (Scotland)* [281], and passed.
Withdrawn—Church Sites (Compulsory Powers Repeal)* [171]; Parliamentary Elections* [82].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Elementary Education Confirmation (Birmingham)* [272]; Elementary Education Confirmation (London)* [273].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ORKNEY ROADS BILL [Lords] (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. LYELL: I rise for the purpose of moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on this day three months. The reason I take that course is that I regard the measure as a piece of exceptional legislation. In the first place, its name—"the Orkney Roads Bill"—is altogether a misnomer, and conveys a misapprehension. It is not promoted by the county of Orkney at all; but, on the contrary, it is petitioned against by the Commissioners of Supply of that county. I myself presented a Petition against the Bill on their behalf in February last. I have said that it does not deal with the Orkney roads; it is promoted by four Island proprietors to relieve themselves of their share of the Consolidated Public Road Debt, with the view of throwing the entire burden on the other Islands and the Mainland proprietors. It is, in point of fact, an attempt, by a Private Bill, to set aside the provisions of the Roads and Bridges Act, which was passed so recently as the year 1878, and by which the management of roads in Scotland is regulated. That Bill deals with the maintenance of roads in the Orkneys, but not specially with the debt upon them; and these four proprietors of Island property are now trying to relieve themselves of their share of the debt, in order to throw it upon the proprietors of land and heritages on the Mainland and other Islands. The effect, if they are allowed to relieve themselves of the responsibility, will be to increase the burden borne by their neighbours. I must say that I think it would be highly improper for Parliament to relieve private individuals in this manner by a Private Bill, and by so doing to set aside a Public Act passed only eight years ago, which dealt with the whole question. The Orkney roads were constructed under two Acts of Parliament passed in 1857 and 1867, and under the provisions of those Acts most
    1682
    of the existing Island roads were made. The whole of the roads, however, were not constructed by means of borrowed money, and the principal promoter of this Bill constructed three roads in the Island with which he is connected upon a valuation assessment by virtue of a private arrangement between himself and his tenants. He himself undertook to pay a portion of the poor rates, and by that means the roads were constructed, the tenants consenting to an increased assesment in order to meet the charge for making the roads. The roads were constructed, piece by piece, in the course of a series of years, and no debt was incurred. If, under the present Bill, it is intended that the tenants should be relieved of the cost of maintaining the roads, there might be some fairness in the proposal; but if the Bill passes, although it will, undoubtedly, relieve the proprietors, it will not confer any benefit whatever on those who actually did make the roads. It will, undoubtedly, relieve certain proprietors who are the promoters of the Bill; but the occupying tenants and the proprietors of other Island property, who get no benefit from the roads in the Mainland, will receive no benefit at all. No doubt, some of the Islands get a smaller advantage from the Mainland roads than others; but it has been distinctly proved that a great number of the inhabitants of these Islands do derive benefits from the Mainland roads. These roads were mainly constructed under the auspices and at the instigation of the Island proprietors, with the object of affording as much benefit as possible to the inhabitants of the Islands, who are at liberty to carry their horses and carts over these roads, while a large number of them travel over them by foot. The postal communication goes over miles of these Mainland roads, and, consequently, the inhabitants generally derive large benefit from them. The principle of the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878 was that the whole of the roads in the county should be maintained by those who make use of them. All the tolls were to be abolished, and the whole of the debts were consolidated. The duty of maintaining the roads fell upon the elected and proprietary trustees. The object of the Act was to put the management of the roads in the hands of one body, as far as possible, so that they

    1683
    should be maintained for the benefit of the entire community. The Act deals exceptionally in some cases with the debts which had been incurred prior to the passing of the Act; but the proprietors in the Islands of Orkney do not appear to have seen any reason why they should be placed in any exceptional position, judging from the action they took when the Roads and Bridges Bill was before Parliament. They acquiesced in the principle of that Bill, and they refrained from disputing the provisions of the Act from 1878 down to 1883, when the Act came into full operation. Since 1883 there has been no protest against the Act, and it is only now that these four Island proprietors have come forward to protest against it, and to endeavour by a Private Bill to set aside it sprovisions. If this Bill passes, the tenants on the Islands where there are no roads may fairly be asked to be relieved of all payment for road maintenance in their district, and a very great hardship will be inflicted upon the townspeople—the householders in towns upon the Mainland and in the Islands who will still be called upon to pay this debt. Under the Roads and Bridges Act the assessment in the small towns has been practically doubled. By the local Orkney Road Acts of 1857 and 1867 the householders in the towns only pay half-rates; but the Roads and Bridges Act made the assessment uniform for all houses, lands, and tenements. The result has been that the inhabitants of Stromness and St. Margaret's Hope, and of the fishing Islands, have had to pay a double assessment for roads from which they only derived indirect benefit; and if this Bill passes an additional burden will be thrown upon all the Mainland proprietors. It is calculated that the assessment in the towns will be increased to the extent of one-third. That I submit would be a great hardship, and the inhabitants generally protest against being called upon to pay a larger assessment from which they will derive no proportional benefit. The roads which have been constructed by the promoters of this Bill share with the other Road Trusts in the management of the roads in the Orkneys; and it seems to me that the promoters, who are perfectly well able to contribute their share towards the burden, ought not to be afforded the relief which is contemplated by this
    1684
    Bill. Their property has been benefited more by the passing of the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878 than almost that of any other proprietor in the Orkneys. I may add that the Commissioners of Supply have petitioned against the Bill. It is an attempt on the part of the promoters to relieve themselves of a legitimate burden, in order that they may throw it upon the great bulk of the householders and landowners on the Mainland of Orkney. I beg, therefore, to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Lyell.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has rightly described this Bill as one to relieve certain Island proprietors of their share of the debt for the roads on the Mainland of Orkney. The hon. Member stated further, as an objection to this Bill, that it is an attempt by private legislation to interfere with the provisions of a Public Act. That may appear to be so at first sight; but the question is whether there is not sufficient justification for the proposal? The hon. Member said that the promoters of the Bill wish to relieve themselves of a burden, and throw it upon others. I think it would be more correct to say that they are protesting, by this Bill, against a burden being imposed upon them which was never contemplated at the time the Roads and Bridges Act for Scotland was passed. The roads in the Orkneys have been made, as the hon. Member said, under two Private Acts passed in the years 1857 and 1867. All the roads in the Orkneys have, I believe, been made under those Acts, and the guiding principle of the Acts was that each Island should be constituted into and form a separate district for roads. Except when otherwise specially provided, the assessments were to be levied in pursuance of these Acts on the Island or district in which the roads were constructed. The roads were made on the principle that each Island formed a separate district in itself. When the Roads and Bridges Act of

    1685
    1878 was passed a general principle was adopted with regard to the maintenance of roads; but with respect to the burden of debt, as the hon. Member has stated, special provisions were made where exceptional circumstances were shown to require them. In the case of two counties—Argyllshire and Forfarshire—special provisions were made with regard to the incidence of the old debt; and no doubt if the people of Orkney had been properly alive to their interests they would have obtained similar treatment to that which was accorded by Parliament to the inhabitants of the counties of Argyll and Forfar. But that idea does not seem to have dawned upon the minds of the people of Orkney. They do not appear to have comprehended that the Act of 1878 would affect them in the way in which it has. That was a mistake for which they must bear the blame; but, at the same time, as it bears very hardly on individuals, surely it is not unreasonable that the persons who feel themselves aggrieved should desire relief from the injustice to which they have been subjected, and ask Parliament to correct the mistake. It is with the object of removing the injustice that this Bill has been promoted. The state of the case is this. On the roads of what is called the Mainland of Orkney, which is the largest Island of the group which forms the Orkneys, there is a considerable amount of debt; but on the other Islands there are very few cases of debt. Some of them have none at all. Indeed, some of them have no roads at all; others have made their own roads; and this considerable debt applies only to the Mainland of Orkney. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the roads of one Island are necessarily of use to the people who live on another, especially in the Orkneys, where the communication between the different Islands is not of such a nature as to make the roads of the Mainland of use to the inhabitants of the other Islands. The principle which is now contended for, although not recognized as applying to debt, in the Act of 1878, is recognized with reference to the construction and maintenance of new roads and bridges. In the 58th section of that Act it is provided that new bridges and roads cannot be constructed except on the responsibility of the persons who live on the Island in which they are made;
    1686
    so that one Island is not responsible for the cost of constructing roads and bridges on another. This is the only principle which I think can be considered fair, and it is upon that principle that the roads and bridges have been constructed hitherto. It certainly seems inequitable that the burden of the old debt should be spread over those who before the passing of the Act had no responsibility whatever connected with it. My hon. Friend has said that the proprietors who have promoted this Bill were parties to the making of the roads on the Mainland, and consequently to the contracting of the debt. There, again, the hon. Member is altogether under a mistake. No doubt, as members of the Commission of Supply, and as Members of the County Board, they gave their approval to the plans which were submitted to them for the construction of the roads, and for raising the money to defray the cost of construction. But at that time they knew that they themselves, as being interested in other Islands, had no responsibility whatever for the financial part of the transaction. Therefore, it is scarcely fair to say that because the Commissioners of Supply approved of the construction of the roads of the Mainland, the proprietors in other Islands should be saddled with a share of the debt in contracting which they had no interest whatever. I may mention, also, that the objection which at first sight meets us in regard to this Bill was considered by the Secretary for Scotland; and he replied, through the Under Secretary, that while of opinion that it was undesirable to override the scheme of legislation embodied in the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act of 1878, as is proposed in this Bill, he considered that the circumstances of the Islands of Orkney were of a very special nature, and he intimated that it was not his intention to make any objection to the Bill being proceeded with. The provisions of the Bill have already been adopted by the other House of Parliament, and the measure now comes down to this House for our consideration. There can be no doubt that if the position of the roads in these Islands had been brought under the consideration of Parliament in 1878 special provision would have been inserted in the Act passed in that year, giving to the

    1687
    smaller Islands of Orkney the same relief that was given, on similar grounds, in Forfarshire and Argyllshire. In those counties there existed a large debt upon certain roads. That debt was retained in the position which it occupied at the time of the passing of the Act, and it was not spread over other portions of the counties. No doubt the people of Orkney were in fault in not having properly brought their case under the notice of Parliament while the Roads and Bridges Act was being passed; but they did not think the Act would affect them in the way it has done. That may be explained in this way. The Act of 1878 was popularly regarded in Scotland as an Act for the abolition of tolls, and there never were any tolls levied in Orkney. It seems never to have occurred to the people of these Islands that they would be affected by the Act, and therefore they made no representation to Parliament. I believe that if they had made a representation the same relief would have been given as in the counties of Argyll and Forfar. I trust that under the circumstances of the case the House will consent to read this Bill a second time.
    MR. RAMSAY&c.): I should regret very much if the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Lyell) should induce this House to reject this Bill and refuse to send it to a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that the Commissioners of Supply have opposed the Bill. I do not doubt it. I can easily conceive that the Commissioners of Supply on the Mainland may very well desire that the burden for the interest of their debt should be thrown upon property which has neither contracted debt for the making of roads nor derived any benefit from the expenditure which was incurred in contracting the debt which now exists; but I feel sure that such a course of injustice as that of compelling the owners and occupiers of land who gain no benefit from these roads, and who have no debt of their own to bear this burden, will not receive the sanction of this House, and that the application of those proprietors for relief will be attended to. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell) has referred to the exclusion of the counties of Argyll and Forfar from the operation of the Act of 1878 with regard to the debt
    1688
    upon the roads of those counties. I was a Member of this House at the time that Act passed, and I took an active part in promoting the amendment of the Bill in that particular. I know that what we did on that occasion was a source of great satisfaction to the people of Argyllshire, who strongly objected to be included in the general provisions of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyell) is undoubtedly correct in stating that no objection was raised by the people of Orkney at the time of the passing of the Roads and Bridges Act to their being included in the provisions of that Bill; but, as my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Campbell) has said, there can be very little doubt that if the proprietors of land in these Islands had come forward in 1878, and had made the representation which they now make, the Government would not only have listened to them, but would have meted out to them the same exemption from the provisions of the Act which was given in the case of Argyllshire and Forfarshire. With regard to Argyllshire, it is provided by the Argyll Local Act that the county shall be divided into districts, and each district so divided is constituted into a county of itself for road purposes, with power at any time, by resolution, for the Road Trustees of each district to dissolve its connection with the county for road purposes, and thereby place themselves under the operation of the Roads and Bridges Act. Although it is true, as the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Lyell) has said, that many of the persons who live upon these Islands receive little or no benefit from the roads on the Mainland, yet when they pass over to the Mainland they have to make use of the roads, even if they travel only on foot. It might have been a matter for the consideration of a Committee, seeing that the roads on the Mainland are thus occasionally used, to what extent the Islands should be exempt—whether in whole or in part—from contributing towards the interest of the debt incurred for the construction of these roads; but there can be no reason for exempting them from their fair and proper contribution to the cost of maintaining them. As it is in the power of the county of Orkney, at the option of the Road Trustees, to separate themselves from the Local Acts and place themselves exclusively under the Roads

    1689
    and Bridges Act, I cannot see what ground of complaint the Commissioners of Supply can have if any of their neighbours seek to be relieved from the payment of a debt which they never contracted nor derived any advantage.
    MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.): The Orkney group is composed of 22 Islands, and under the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878 they were formed into one county for the purposes of assessment, It is now proposed by some of the gentlemen holding property in some of the Islands to relieve themselves from their share of the debt incurred in making roads all over the county. The valuation assessment rental of these Islands is, I believe, £14,000, and their assessment to the debt amounts to about £450 a-year, which, if this Bill passes, would be thrown on the proprietors of houses and land on the Mainland for the debt incurred in making roads all over the county. I think that would be most unfair, because the Act of 1878 made the county the unit for assessment. If Parliament is to allow the owners of property in one portion of the county to come in and free themselves from their portion of the liability for the debt incurred in making the roads of the county, because they seldom use the roads in the course of 12 months, not only would the Act become a dead letter, but a great amount of confusion would arise and a very bad precedent for future legislation would be set. I trust the House will very carefully consider the matter before they consent to pass the Bill. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Mr. Lyell) will press the Amendment to a division, and that the House will evince its desire to protect the ratepayers generally from being unduly taxed, as they would undoubtedly be if this Bill is allowed to become law.
    DR. CAMERON: There is one point in connection with this Bill which I think is of some public importance. The Bill proposes to remedy a grievance which is alleged to exist in the Islands of Orkney in the same way as a similar grievance was remedied in the case of Argyllshire and Forfarshire by the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878. I have not the smallest objection to that being done; but the grievance felt by the gentlemen who are promoting the Bill
    1690
    is a grievance which is not confined to them. In the Report of the Crofters' Commission attention was called to a number of cases in which the inhabitants are obliged to pay part of the assessment for making roads. Although they live in a part of the county far removed from the roads they are required to contribute to, in some instances, as much as 20 miles. The Commissioners recommended in their Report that the case of these ratepayers should be met by general legislation; and I am of opinion that when we have a recommendation of that kind from an important Body we ought not to take the exceptional step now proposed, for the simple purpose of relieving these four landed proprietors from the burden imposed upon them, but that the grievance which has been pointed out should be remedied by general legislation. That seems to me to be the best course which we can take in this case. It is a matter which requires to be dealt with by a public measure and not by a Private Bill, and for that reason I shall support the Amendment and vote against the second reading.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY): I hope the House will hesitate before it decides upon rejecting this Bill at the present stage. I think it ought to follow the Constitutional practice of reading the Bill a second time, and sending it upstairs to be considered by a Select Committee. Of course, it could not be considered this Session; but, in accordance with the Resolution which was recently passed, the Bill will be suspended at the stage it will have reached, and its further progress deferred until next Session. I admit that the opposition to the Bill is based upon a principle which, as a general rule, I consider to be a sound one—namely, that you should not in a Private Bill interfere with a public law. I have laid down that principle myself once or twice in the course of the present Session, and I think it is a principle which should be invariably followed, unless there are strong and special grounds for taking a different course. I cannot see that in this Bill there is any attempt made with the future management and maintenance of the roads in Orkney, as prescribed in the Roads and Bridges Act; and, therefore, I shall support the second reading. The opponents of the Bill object to the measure

    1691
    on the ground that it is a violation of the provisions of the Roads and Bridges Act. That is scarcely so, because, so far as the Roads and Bridges Act is concerned, this Bill only affects the pre-existing debt which had been incurred in respect to the roads on the Mainland of Orkney before the Act of 1878 was passed. The whole question, therefore, is whether the arrangements made in regard to the pre-existing debt, in the Roads and Bridges Act, is one which ought to be maintained? Now, the Roads and Bridges Act itself, as has already been pointed out, contained a special arrangement in regard to Argyllshire and Forfarshire; and, therefore, the presumption is that as the case of Orkney is on all fours with those of Argyll and Forfar, if it had been brought before Parliament at the time the Roads and Bridges Bill was passing through this House a similar provision would have been made with respect to the debts already existing in the Islands of Orkney as was made in regard to the road debts of Argyll and Forfar. Under the Roads and Bridges Act the pre-existing debts in Orkney were thrown upon the whole county, and, in consequence, certain districts which had incurred no debt whatever, but had paid for the construction of their own roads, were charged with a share of the debt incurred in the construction of the roads upon the Mainland. By the same Act the debts of the county of Argyll were kept distinct, and the burden of defraying them was thrown upon the districts in which they had been incurred. The object of the present Bill is simply to carry out the same principle in reference to Orkney, and to confine the debts incurred before the passing of the Roads and Bridges Act to those portions of the county by which they were incurred. The measure does not in any respect apply to the future, but only to the past. The allegation of the Commissioners of Supply is that this case was overlooked, and that, in con-sequence, certain Islands in the Orkney group were subjected to an injustice which ought to be remedied. I do not propose to pass any opinion upon that allegation; but I do submit that it is one which ought to be considered by a Committee upstairs. It is distinctly a case of that kind which cannot be judicially considered and disposed of in the
    1692
    House itself. I may add that the Bill has already been before the other House, and sent down to the House of Commons as a measure which ought to be sanctioned. I would strongly recommend the House to assent to the second reading of the Bill, so that in the due course of time it may go before a Select Committee next Session, which will examine all the facts of the case, and see whether the promoters of the measure have made out a good case to justify Parliament in departing from the provisions of the Roads and Bridges Act with respect to the pre-existing debt of the Islands of Orkney.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 82: Majority 1.—(Div. List, No. 133.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for three months.

  PRIVATE BILLS.

    STANDING ORDERS FOR THE SUSPENSION OF PRIVATE BILLS, OR BILLS TO CONFIRM ANY PROVISIONAL ORDER OR CERTIFICATE.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY): I have to move a series of Standing Orders to provide for the suspension of Private Bills and Provisional Orders during the remainder of the present Session, with the power of resuming them next Session at the stage they may occupy in this. The first provides that the promoters of every Private Bill which shall have been introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, shall have leave to suspend proceedings in order to proceed with the same Bill next Session. I may explain that it is customary to pass these Orders when the Session is about to be prematurely brought to a close.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Promoters of every Private Bill which shall have been introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament, shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereupon, in order to proceed with the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
    MR. SEXTON: I see that this Order has undergone an alteration since it was placed upon the Paper. As it originally stood, the words were—
    "The promoters of every Private Bill which has been introduced into this House."
    It now stands—
    "The Promoters of every Private Bill which shall have been introduced into this House."
    MR. SPEAKER: The object of the alteration is simply to cover the case of Bills which may be brought up from the House of Lords after the passing of this Standing Order.
    MR. SEXTON: The explanation is perfectly satisfactory; but before the House proceeded to affirm this Standing Order I thought hon. Members had a right to know what it exactly meant. On the 31st of May I moved, in the Belfast Main Drainage Bill, to insert a new clause in reference to the municipal franchise of that city. I believe that the House was prepared to affirm that clause by a majority. An hon. Member above the Gangway on this side of the House moved that the consideration should be postponed in order that the Lords might, in the meantime, have an opportunity of considering a general Bill for extending the municipal franchise in the Irish boroughs. We assented to that proposal, and the consideration of the Belfast Bill was adjourned until Monday next; but, in the meantime, hon. Members above the Gangway blocked the Municipal Franchise Bill, and have, consequently, prevented it from reaching the House of Lords. If, by this first Standing Order proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, it is intended to allow the promoters of the Belfast Main Drainage Bill to suspend that Bill in its present stage and proceed with it in a Winter Session, without the insertion of the clause which I proposed on the 31st of May, and without the House of Lords having passed the Municipal Franchise Bill, I feel bound to stigmatize the arrangement as a gross breach of faith. The clause which I proposed would have been inserted in the Belfast Bill three weeks ago if it had not been for the understanding which was arrived at that the Lords should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the Municipal Franchise Bill. Under these circumstances, I feel bound to move an Amendment to the Standing
    1694
    Order proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means to insert, after the word "Bill," in line 1, the words "except the Belfast Main Drainage Bill." If that Amendment is adopted, the promoters of the Belfast Main Drainage Bill will be unable, by taking advantage of the present form of the Standing Order, to delude, deceive, and humbug the House of Commons. I may remind the House that when this question was under discussion three weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly intimated that we were entitled this Session either to have the Municipal Bill considered by the House of Lords, or to have the clause which I proposed inserted in the Belfast Main Drainage Bill. I must insist on the performance of the engagement in one form or another, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the word "Bill," to insert the words "except the Belfast Main Drainage Bill."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: With respect to the alteration which has been made in the verbiage of the Standing Order now under consideration—namely, the substitution of the words "shall have been" for "has been," I may explain that it has only been done in order to provide for the case of a Bill which may, for instance, be brought up from the House of Lords to-morrow. As the Order now stands, it will apply to Bills not only already here, but to all which may be brought up from the other House before the close of the Session. I apprehend that there can be no objection to that proposal. In regard to the Belfast Main Drainage Bill, it is not intended that this Order should, nor will it, interfere in the slightest degree with the power of the House over that Bill. The Belfast Bill stands for Consideration and Report on Monday next; and, whatever may be done with regard to this Standing Order, when the Private Business of the House is reached on Monday it cannot be removed from the Order Paper. As a matter of fact, when the Order is reached on Monday, it is perfectly competent for any hon. Member to move that the Order be discharged

    1695
    and that the Bill be withdrawn. The House may deal with the Order in any way it likes. This power of suspension has reference only to such Bills as survive when the Session closes, and which it has been found impossible to go on with. They will be hung up, in accordance with the usual practice, until next Session. Whenever the Business of Parliament has been interrupted by a premature Dissolution, that has been the invariable practice, and the Bills which have survived, but have not been disposed of, have been hung up until the next Session. If the House decides to take no action at all in regard to the Belfast Main Drainage Bill, it will be brought up again next Session precisely at the point which it has now reached. This Standing Order will not in any way affect the power of the House to deal with that Bill. This Order will not affect the consideration of that Bill in any shape or form, and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may move the insertion in it of any clause they like.
    MR. SEXTON: After the explanation of the hon. Gentlemen, and upon the clear understanding that the promoters of the Bill will not have the power on Monday next to withdraw it from the consideration of the House, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Gentleman will have full power of proceeding with the adjourned debate upon his Amendment when the Bill is brought on on Monday.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
    MR. SEXTON: Yes, Sir.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Have the Government any objection to introduce the words of my hon. Friend as an Amendment?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I think it would be irregular to pass an Amendment upon a matter which stands on the Order Book for consideration on Monday next. If we were to insert the words proposed by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), it would have the effect of preventing the House from taking the Belfast Main Drainage Bill into consideration on Monday next. This Order is clearly meant to apply to Bills which have not been dealt with by the
    1696
    House before the Prorogation, and to continue such Bills in the stage they have reached after the re-assembling of the new Parliament. I certainly think that the best course for the hon. Member for Sligo to follow is to wait until Monday, and then take the course which may seem to him to be best in regard to the Belfast Bill. So far as I am able to understand the matter, I think his object will be attained by deferring any question with regard to the Belfast Bill until Monday. This Order only applies to Bills which may not have been disposed of by the day of the Prorogation of Parliament; and before the Prorogation of Parliament takes place this Bill will have been disposed of in one way or other.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    (1.) Ordered, That the Promoters of every Private Bill which shall have been introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament, shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereupon, in order to proceed with the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

    (2.) Ordered, That the Promoters of every such Bill shall give notice in the Private Bill Office, not later than the day prior to the close of the present Session, of their intention to suspend any further proceedings thereon; or, in the case of Bills which shall have been suspended on the Report of a Committee, or which, having passed this House, shall then be pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session.

    (3.) Ordered, That an Alphabetical List of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which the same were suspended, shall be prepared by the Private Bill Office, and printed.

    (4.) Ordered, That not later than three clear days after the next meeting of Parliament, every Bill which has been introduced into this House shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, in the form required by Standing Order No. 201, with a declaration signed by the Agent annexed thereto, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been so suspended, at the last stage of its proceeding in the House in the present Session; and, where any sum of money has been deposited, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that fact from the proper officer of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England or Ireland, or the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, as the case may be.

    (5.) Ordered, That such Bills, indorsed by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, as having been duly deposited with such declarations and certificates annexed, be laid by one of the Clerks of that Office upon the Table of the House, in the next Session of Parliament, in the order in which they shall stand upon such

    1697
    List, but not exceeding 50 Bills on any one day.

    (6.) That in respect of every Bill so laid upon the Table, the Petition for the Bill, and the order of leave to bring in the same in the present Session, shall be read, and thereupon such Bill shall be read a first time; and a second time (if the Bill shall have been read a second time previously to its being suspended); and if such Bill shall have been reported by any Committee in the present Session, the Order for referring the Bill to a Committee shall be dispensed with, and the Bill ordered to lie upon the Table, or to be read a third time, as the case may be.

    (7.) That in case any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in this House, shall be brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, the Agent for such Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office, prior to the first reading thereof, a declaration, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session; and where any sum of money has been deposited, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that fact from the proper officer; and so soon as one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office has certified that such deposit has been duly made, the Bill shall be read a first time, and be further proceeded with in the same manner as Bills introduced into this House during the present Session.

    (8.) That all Petitions presented in the present Session ageinst Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate, and which stood referred to the Committees on such Bills, shall stand referred to the Committees on the same Bills, in the next Session of Parliament; and that all Notices and grounds of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard given in the present Session within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Referees relating to such Notices shall be held applicable in the next Session of Parliament.

    (9.) That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on such Bills, unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session.

    (10.) That in case the time limited for presenting Petitions against any such Bills shall not have expired at the close of the present Session, Petitioners may be heard before the Committee on such Bill, provided their Petition be presented previous to, or not later than, seven clear days after the next meeting of Parliament.

    (11.) That all Instructions to Committees on Private Bills in the present Session, which shall be suspended previously to their being reported by any Committee, be Instructions to the Committees on the same Bills in the next Session.

    (12.) That no new Fees be charged in respect of any stage of a Bill upon which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

    (13.) That all Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Public Bill introduced, or intended to be introduced, during the present Session, shall be held applicable to any Bill for the same objects introduced in the next Session, and where the Examiner has already reported upon the compliance with the Standing Orders
    1698
    in respect of any such Bill, he shall only Report in the next Session whether any further Standing Orders are applicable.

    (14.) Bills to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, in the present Session, shall be suspended from the close of the present Ssssion, in order to be proceeded with in the next Session of Parliament.

    (15.) That with regard to any such Bills the Order of Leave in the present Session shall be read, and thereupon the Bill shall be read a first time and a second time (if the Bill shall have been read a second time during the present Session); and if such Bill shall have been reported by any Committee in the present Session, the Order for referring the Bill to a Committee shall be dispensed with, and the Bill ordered to lie upon the Table, or to be read a third time, as the case may be.

    (16.) That all applications made, and Certificates given, and all other proceedings taken with reference to any Bill introduced, or intended to be introduced, in the present Session for confirming any Provisional Order in respect to the Inclosure of Commons, under "The Commons Act, 1876," shall be deemed to apply to any Bill introduced for the same object in the next Session.

    (17.) That Standing Order 39 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Duplicates of any Documents relating to any Provisional Order or Certificate be extended to not later than seven clear days after the next meeting of Parliament.

    (18.) That all Petitions for Private Bills deposited in the present Session, in the Private Bill Office, as to which the Examiners have not already reported, and all Petitions for leave to deposit a Petition for a Bill, or for additional Provision, deposited or presented during the present Session, shall be suspended from the close of the present Session, and the Standing Orders complied with in respect of the same shall be held applicable to such Petition or Petitions in the ensuing Session.

    (19.) That the said Orders be Standing Orders of this House, and be printed.

    STANDING ORDERS.
    Standing Order 135, line 1, wa8 read and amended by inserting, after the word "owner," the word "lessee."
    Standing Order 183A, line 2, was read and amended by inserting, after the word "agreement," the words "or which extends the time for taking land compulsorily or by agreement."
    Standing Order 200A was read and amended, in line 6, by leaving out the words "on an Order of the House."
    In line 8, by leaving out, after the word "Order," the words "for the Second Reading of," and inserting the words "of the Day relating to."
    In line 12, by leaving, out, after the word "Order," the words "for the Second Reading of," and inserting the words "of the Day relating to."
    "In line 13, by leaving out, after the word "Bill," the words "or the Order for commitment thereof, as the case maybe."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—LETTERS TO THE NIGER AND GULF OF GUINEA.
  MR. HUTTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, For what reason letters weighing not over half an ounce with 4d. stamps addressed to the British possessions on the Niger and in the Gulf of Guinea are opened by the Post Office authorities, and returned to the writers marked insufficiently prepaid?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): On inquiry I fail to ascertain that any such letters have been opened at the Post Office and returned to the writers. If the hon. Member will furnish the Postmaster General with the particulars of any letters stated to have been so dealt with the matter shall be investigated.

  LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS (IRELAND)— NOTICE OF EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. COXasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is a fact that the coastguards in Ireland receive notification of the time when examinations for the positions of lighthouse keepers on the Irish Coast are to be held, and that the information is not afforded to the light keepers, whose sons are thereby deprived of the opportunity of competing for those positions; and, whether the same facilities will be given to sons of light keepers to compete for places under the Board of Irish Lights as are now given to the sons of coastguards?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND)(who replied)said: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that, on application being made for the appointment of lightkeeper, a printed form of questions as to age, antecedents, &c., is sent to the applicant, and should his replies appear satisfactory his name is placed on a list with others to be called up for examination as occasion may require, the number placed on the list at a time being generally restricted to 12, and a preference given to those who have either been to sea or brought up to some trade. When an examination is to be held, all the approved candidates
  1700
  get timely notice of the date thereof, no special notification being given to any in preference to others. As a matter of fact, there are in the service a number of men who are the sons of lightkeepers.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIP BUILDING, &c.)— CONTRACT PRICES.
  COMMANDER BETHELL(for Mr. CHARLES WILSON)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, The reason for so great a difference in the contract prices given for building the Australia and Galatea, £152,000 each; Narcissus, £153,500; Orlando and Undaunted, £164,257 each; the tonnage and horse power being the same for each ship?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): The contracts were given to the three firms who sent in the lowest tenders, and were so distributed to insure the most rapid completion of the ships, this being an object of the greatest importance.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)—SIR JOHN LENTAIGNE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the age of Sir John Lentaigne, Inspector of Industrial Schools; what time he is able to give to the daily discharge of his duties in that office; whether he has applied for an assistant; and, whether it is intended to provide one; and, if so, who will be appointed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Sir John Lentaigne, who is a tried and valuable public servant, has now, I understand, reached his 83rd year. He has recently applied for an assistant, and the Irish Government had hopes that they might be able to make arrangements by which, while securing for some little time longer the aid of his large experience in the working and management of reformatories and industrial schools, they might, to some extent, relieve him of the labour of actual inspection in remote localities by the temporary appointment of an assistant for which there is power in the Act. The Treasury, however, with whom the financial question rests, have not seen their way to sanction the cost that would be involved in this arrangement,

  1701
  and we have, therefore, now to determine what is best to be done for the public interest. This is under our consideration at present.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary, whether he could state how many posts Sir John Lentaigne held at the present time?
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he was unable to answer the Question.

  PORTUGAL—QUARANTINE AT TERCIA— THE "MAGGIE."
  MR. CARBUTT&c.) (for Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. What has been the result of the representations addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Portuguese Government on the subject of the quarantine imposed upon the British vessel Maggie, of Port Talbot, Glamorganshire, by the Portuguese authorities at Tercia; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has passed on the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The Portuguese Government have declined to entertain the claim for compensation preferred by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the owners of the Maggie, giving as their reason that the Local Authorities of the Azores have power, in cases which they consider exceptional, to set aside the general quarantine regulations issued by the Government. There will be no objection to lay the Correspondence on the subject on the Table.

  POST OFFICE—ACCELERATION OF MAILS TO OBAN.
  MR. RICHARD CAMPBELL&c.)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Postmaster General, having regard to the increasing importance of the burgh of Oban and the large influx of visitors there during the summer months, will reconsider the reply recently given by him to a Memorial and a Petition from the Magistrates and Town Council and the Ratepayers of Oban respectively, praying for an acceleration of the mails from the South to that burgh, so that the unnecessary delay at present arising through the detention of the mails at Stirling may
  1702
  be obviated, and the inhabitants of Oban enabled to receive and answer their letters on the same day?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to state that the Postmaster General is not unmindful of the importance of acclerating the arrival of the London Night Mail at Oban during the summer season; and, while the objections to the plan proposed by the Memoralists still hold good, his Lordship is endeavouring by negotiations with the Railway Company to effect an improved arrangement in another way.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—LIVERPOOL VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the greater number of or all the Volunteers of Liverpool are un provided with great coats, owing to the inadequate amount of the Capitation Grant; whether two of the Volunteers who were kept under arms during many hours of heavy rain on the occasion of Her Majesty's recent visit to Liverpool, have since died from the effects of such exposure without proper clothing; and, whether the Government intend to propose such an increase of the grant as will supply the Volunteers with sufficient means to provide against the recurrence of so lamentable an event?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): I am informed that it is a fact that the greater number of the Volunteers in Liverpool are without great-coats, and I regret to hear that the deaths of two Volunteers are said to be due to exposure to inclement weather during Her Majesty's visit. As regards the capitation grant, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply I made on the 11th instant to a Question of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanarkshire.

  BOARD OF TRADE—COLLECTION AND PUBLICATION OF LABOUR STATISTICS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps have been taken by

  1703
  the Government to give effect to the Resolution of the House of March 3rd, directing that immediate steps should be taken to insure in this Country the full and accurate collection and publication of Labour Statistics?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND)(who replied) said: Since the Resolution of the House in March last, the Board of Trade have arranged with the Treasury the necessary establishment for giving effect to it, and they trust before long to make a considerable progress in the collection and publication of labour statistics. Immediately on the passing of the Resolution, the existing staff of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade directed their attention to the collection of some important information with regard to this question, and with the additional assistance now obtained the business will be pushed forward as energetically as possible.

  CHURCH BUILDING ACTS—GRANTS BALANCE.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What is the amount of the balance remaining in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from the million and a-half fund voted by Parliament in 1815 and 1824 for building churches; whether the Commissioners now use this balance solely for the purpose of making "nominal" grants, which are often not paid, to persons building churches under the Church Building Acts in order to bring churches so aided under the provisions of the pew renting sections of those Acts whereby as many as four-fifths of the seats may be let, and only one-fifth let free for the use of the general body of the parishioners; whether it is the fact that but for this arrangement pew rents could only be legally levied, in the case of churches in public patronage, under the provisions of the Blandford Act of 1856, whereby half the seats and those as advantageously situated as the rented ones, must be free; and, whether the Commissioners are prepared to expend the balance of the fund in substantial grants towards the building of churches the purpose for which the money was originally voted by Parliament?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND): The balance of the moneys referred to by the noble Lord may be said to amount to about £8,000. The Commissioners use this money—not solely, but partly—for making in aid of the erection of churches small grants which the persons building and promoting those churches desire to obtain for the purpose specified. The pew rent provisions of the Blandford Act of 1856 are confined—comparatively speaking—to a very limited class of cases, in all of which there has been or must be provided a substantial permanent endowment. This is not the case with respect to ordinary Church Building Act churches. According to a recent Resolution of the Board, the Commissioners have determined that they will not sanction any scales of pew rents based on future grants of the character referred to, unless the proportion of free to rented sittings is at least equal both as regards number and quality. The Commissioners have no intention of making any change in their established practice in this respect. I understand that the noble Lord's ideas, both as to the non-payment of grants voted, and as to there being any necessity under the Church Building Act to leave the particular proportion of one-fifth of the sittings free, are based on misapprehension.

  ARMS ACT (IRELAND)—SEIZURE OF ARMS AT LISNASKEA, CO. FERMANAGH.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the police lately seized a case containing 14 revolvers, one double-barrelled gun, and 50 rounds of ammunition for each revolver, consigned to Arthur Dunne, a prominent Nationalist of Lisnaskea, county Fermanagh; and, whether Arthur Dunne was in possession of a licence for the sale of firearms?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It is true that the police seized the arms and ammunition referred to. They were consigned to Arthur Dunne, who had no licence, but of whose politics the Government have no knowledge whatsoever. The case is before the Attorney General.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—BAYONETS FOR THE VOLUNTEERS.
  MAJOR GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to test the bayonets which are now in possession of the Volunteers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): As soon as circumstances will allow of it, bayonets of the long, triangular Martini-Henry pattern, which have undergone the full test, will be issued to Volunteers. Meanwhile, it is not considered necessary to test the short Snider converted bayonets now provisionally in their possession.

  RAILWAYS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— SOMERSET AND DORSET RAILWAY —CASE OF JOHN COX.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received further information as to the case of John Cox, the signalman recently sentenced at Taunton to six months' imprisonment for an error, which would have been made impossible if the Somerset and Dorset Railway had adopted the safety arrangements recommended by the Board of Trade; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to express an opinion as to the justice of advising the remission of the said sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, he had received some further information, but not sufficient to enable him to arrive at a decision.

  SCOTLAND—BYE-LAWS FOR PUBLIC ROADS—REGULATIONS AS TO BICYCLES AND TRICYCLES.
  MR. MENZIESasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that there is now a great want of uniformity in the bye-laws of the different counties in Scotland applicable to bycicals and tricycles; and, whether he will introduce a Bill making the Secretary for Scotland the approving authority in the case of those bye-laws instead of the sheriff of each county.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.), in reply, said, he was aware that numerous complaints had been made on the subject
  1706
  of the diversity of the bye-laws in different counties in Scotland, causing great inconvenience to those who used bicycles and tricycles. The Secretary for Scotland and he had been considering this matter, and they thought there might be greater uniformity, and that with a view to bringing about that uniformity, instead of the bye-laws being submitted to the Sheriffs, they thought they might be put into the hands of the Secretary for Scotland. They would consider whether this matter should be dealt with by a separate Bill, or whether it should be dealt with in a measure comprehending various amendments on the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—LOANS FOR BUILDING FISHING SMACKS.
  MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that last January a rule was made by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, according to which loans for the building of fishing smacks can be advanced to fishermen on the security of the fishing smacks themselves; whether applications for such a loan were made last February by Kinsale fishermen; and, what is the cause of the great delay in granting the sums applied for?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The Rule to which reference is made in this Question was passed by the Privy Council in January last, and applications under it from Kinsale and other parts of Ireland were held over pending a decision of Government as to the extent to which the Rule was intended to apply. The decision arrived at some little time ago was that the extended facilities were intended to be limited principally—indeed, almost exclusively—to applications from the West and North-West Coasts, where the fisheries are least developed. I have no doubt the applicants from Kinsale have been so informed by this time.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE TRUCK ACT —THE RHYMNEY COMPANY.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state the result of the prosecution for breach of the Truck Act against the Rhymney

  1707
  Company, of which Sir H. Tyler, M.P. is Chairman?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I have not yet received any written official report from the Inspector. But he has sent me a telegram and a newspaper account of the proceedings, from which I gather that there were in all 14 charges against the company for infringing the Truck Act. With regard to the first case heard, the Bench came to the unanimous conclusion that a breach of the Act had been clearly made out against the Rbymney Company, and they imposed a fine of £20, and allowed £10 10 s. costs. The other 13 charges were withdrawn, on the understanding that the Company should not appeal in the case already decided, and that they should undertake that there should be no further infringement of the Act. I have every reason to hope that the understanding will be carried out.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE KIMBERLEY DIAMOND MINES.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the beneficial results from the compounds erected for the Natives working in the Diamond Mines at Kimberley, in preventing their demoralization from drinking; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will recommend the High Commissioner to support the present system?
  MR. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a Letter from the Good Templars' Lodge of Central South Africa to the Secretary for Native Affairs at the Cape, dated 24th March, 1886, in which complaint is made of the want of proper protection for the Native labourers at Kimberley, and the consequent demoralization of large numbers of them by the spread of drunkenness and disorder; and, whether, as a means of abating the evils complained of, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of recommending the extension of the compound or barrack system, under adequate Government inspection?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): I am afraid my hon. Friends forget that the diamond mines of Kimberley belong to the Cape Colony,
  1708
  which is a self-governing Colony, and, that being so, the matters referred to in the Questions do not in the ordinary course come under the cognizance of the Colonial Office, nor are we in a position to interfere in them.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked whether the Home Government would use its influence with the Cape Government in the direction indicated in his Question?
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he could ask the Governor of the Cape Colony to make a report on the matter; but the Colonial Office did not like interfering with the self-governing Colonies in matters like this, for which they, and not we, were responsible.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS— RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION OF TEACHERS.
  MR. CONWAYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether there is any provision in the Elementary Education Acts which authorises the managers of Board Schools, built and maintained by general rate for common use, to exclude the professors of any Christian Denomination from employment as teachers in the schools; whether the Finsbury Division of the School Board for London differs in this respect from other Metropolitan Divisions; whether, in the 45 Board Schools of the Finsbury Division, 735 teachers are employed by the School Board, and paid out of the rates; how many of such teachers have been trained in the Roman Catholic Training Colleges recognised by the Education Department; whether any attempt is being made to remove from the Gillespie Road, Highbury Vale, Board School Miss Mary Birch, who was trained for two years under the Education Department in the Liverpool Roman Catholic Training College, though erroneously represented in the Board's Returns as trained in the Stockwell Nonconformist College; whether Miss Birch is duly certificated by the Education Department, has likewise obtained her full drawing certificate, and two science certificates from the Science and Art Department, has always received good reports from Her Majesty's Inspector, and has taught for several years in the Gillespie Road Board School with marked success, and without complaint from children or parents; and, whether the local managers

  1709
  of Finsbury Board Schools, with whom, under the Board's regulations, rest the appointment and supervision of teachers, are justified in representing and treating the Board Schools of that Division as a "Protestant preserve," from which Roman Catholic teachers, though otherwise in all respects qualified, are, on account of their religion, to be excluded or expelled?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): A School Board may select any qualified teachers it chooses for employment in the Board schools. There is no difference in this respect between Finsbury and other Metropolitan divisions. The hon. Member is probably correct in stating that there may be 735 teachers in the Finsbury Board schools, but I have not had time to verify the figures. We have no knowledge of and do not inquire into the religious denominations of the teachers. Miss Mary Birch was trained for two years in the Liverpool Roman Catholic Training College, and her certificate was issued in 1879. She has been on the staff of Gillespie Road Board school since May, 1881, and has during that time uniformly received good reports from Her Majesty's Inspector. The Department have no information as to any proposal to remove her from the school. I have no knowledge as to the practice of the Managers of the Finsbury Board schools in regard to the appointment and dismissal of teachers, and have no control over their action.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS— WIGHAM'S DOUBLE QUADRIFORM GAS LIGHT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has seen reprinted from the Scientific Proceeding of the Royal Dublin Society a statement by Professor W. F. Barrett, of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, respecting the result of practical experiments which he had made with Wigham's double quadriform lighthouse gas light, in which the following passage occurs:—
  "I cannot but think that the facts here recorded are worthy of attention. They demonstrate that the double quadriform arrests the attention, as a conspicuous glare to the naked eye, and as a clearly defined object in an opera glass, through a fog of sufficient depth and density to cut off a first class light shining through an annular lens at half the distance,
  1710
  and to quench the sound of a fog siren adjacent to the double quadriform,"
  and also that this gas light is twice as powerful as any yet tried by the Trinity House or the Board of Trade; whether this double quadriform was refused a trial at the South Foreland experiments by the Trinity House; and, whether, in the interests of navigation and the saving of life at sea, the Board of Trade will desire the Trinity House to test this light, in comparison with the best light in their possession, in order that the truth may be ascertained as to what is the best light for the illumination of lighthouses?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND)(who replied) said: The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the opinion expressed by Professor Barrett with regard to what is known as the Double Quadriform. It was not thought desirable to include any such form of apparatus in the recent experiments made by the Trinity House at the South Foreland, as the object of those experiments was to ascertain the relative values of oil, gas, and electricity as lighthouse illuminants, and to obtain the data necessary to settle any question as to the effect that would be produced by any combination of burners or apparatus used in the experiments. I am advised that this result has been attained, and that the effect of using such an apparatus as the Double Quadriform is calculable from the results already obtained, so that no further experiments for this purpose are required.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—APPEALS.
  MR. ARTHURO'CONNORasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether there would be any difficulty in arranging for appeals from a Judge in the Queen's Bench Chambers being taken direct to the Court of Appeal, instead of first going to a Divisional Court and thence to the Court of Appeal?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL)said, that the present system of appeals was governed by the rules laid down by the Judges. An opinion, no doubt, existed that the appeal ought to be direct to the Court of Appeal. He would bring the matter to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.

  TRADES UNIONS ACT, 1871—THE RETURN.
  MR. BAZLEY WHITEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Is it compulsory for Registered Trades Unions to make the Return referred to by section 16 of "The Trades Union Act, 1871;" and, if the Kent and Sussex Labourers' Union is exempt from the provisions of this Act; and, if not, upon whom does the duty of enforcing compliance rest?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; Registered Trade Unions are compelled to make the Return referred to. The Kent and Sussex Labourers' Union is not exempt from the provisions of this Act. The duty of enforcing compliance rests with the Registrars of Friendly Societies, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State to any prosecution. I am informed by the Chief Registrar that this Society's default only began on the 1st of June, and the usual reminder which is sent in such cases was sent out from his Office yesterday.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT BELFAST.
  MR. JAMES O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the disturbances which have lately taken place at Belfast have been entirely due to the riotous conduct of the Non-Catholic party, composed largely of the employés of the Mayor of Belfast; if it is the fact that, in the course of those disturbances, the Non-Catholic party attacked, pillaged, and wrecked the houses of a number of Catholics living isolated in Non-Catholic districts of the town; and, if it is the fact that the Catholics of Belfast have taken no part in those disturbances; that there has been no encounter whatever during those disturbances between Catholics and the Non-Catholic party; and that the disturbances have been entirely confined to attacks by the Non-Catholic party on the armed forces of the Crown, viz. Police and Military, and on the houses and property of isolated Catholics?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The Irish Government have decided to issue a Commission of Inquiry into the recent
  1712
  deplorable occurrences at Belfast. The inquiry will extend to the origin and the nature of the riots, the proceedings taken by the magistrates and other Local Authorities for their prevention and suppression, and the action of the police during the riots. Under the circumstances, I will ask the hon. Member to excuse me from entering into the matters raised by his Question.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—ADMISSION OF VISITORS TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether arrangements can be made after the Prorogation for the admission of visitors to the House of Commons at proper times and under necessary restrictions?
  MR. LEVESON GOWER (A LORD of the TREASURY), in reply, said, that the admission of visitors when the House was not sitting was entirely in the hands of the Lord Chamberlain.
  MR. BUCHANANasked if the First Commissioner of Works would make a representation on the subject to the Lord Chamberlain?
  MR. LEVESON GOWERsaid, he would bring the matter under the notice of his hon. Friend; but he would also advise the hon. Member himself to make such a representation to the Lord Chamberlain.

  THE CURRENCY—RELATIVE VALUE OF GOLD AND SILVER.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have yet any information as to the course proposed by the Royal Commission on Trade Depression in regard to the question of the relative International value of gold and silver coins?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)(who replied) said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no information on this subject.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Will information be obtained?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that when the Royal Commission had any communication to make to the Chancellor

  1713
  of the Exchequer they would do so in an official and proper manner.

  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL— THE LAY COMMISSIONERS.
  DR. M'DONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the two lay Crofter Commissioners are to give their whole time to the work of the Commission, or whether they are to be allowed to carry on their businesses of large farmer and factor, respectively, while in the receipt of £800 a-year as Commissioners?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.)said, it was intended that the two lay Crofter Commissioners should give their whole time to the work of the Commission, and consequently they would have to make such arrangements with respect to the conduct of any separate business in which they might now be engaged as would enable them to give their time accordingly.

  ADMIRALTY—NAVAL RESERVE MEN.
  DR. M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that men belonging to the Naval Reserve are prevented from joining the Army, owing to their being obliged to repay "a sum equivalent to the amount they have received as drill pay and retainers" before being allowed to do so; and, whether he is prepared to give Naval Reserve men the same facilities for joining the Army as is given to them by Regulation 212 to join the Navy, in which Regulation the payment of above-mentioned sums is waived?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBEBT): The attention of the Admiralty has been drawn to the subject of the Question of the hon. Member, and it is at present receiving careful consideration.

  RAILWAYS—NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY —ACCIDENT NEAR SUNNYSIDE.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to an accident that took place on the 7th of June on the North British Railway, near Sunnyside Station, whereby the driver of the train was fatally injured;
  1714
  whether the bridge at which the accident took place is constructed in conformity with the Regulations of the Board of Trade; whether it is the fact that previous accidents have occurred at the same place; and, whether an inquiry will be made into the case?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND): No report has yet been received from the Company of the accident to which the hon. Member alludes. The Board of Trade are not aware that previous accidents have occurred at the place mentioned; but they will communicate with the Company, and, if necessary, direct an inquiry to be held.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—EXACTIONS AT SALONICA.
  MR. JAMES HUTTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received information relative to a patent Galloway boiler shipped to Salonica in August 1885 by Messrs. Galloway and Sons, of Manchester, at the certified invoice cost of £200, which was detained by the Customs authorities until the consignee paid duty on £400, or double the value; whether the consignee having offered to surrender the boiler to these authorities at the declared value of £200 and been refused, Her Majesty's Consul at Salonica had the authority of Her Majesty's Government to state that, as the consignee had not abandoned the boiler, he must consider as lost the extra duty he was compelled to pay, under protest, on the excessive value of £400 assessed by the Turkish authorities; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will instruct the British Ambassador at Constantinople to endeavour to obtain redress for the acts complained of?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): No information on this subject appears to have been received by Her Majesty's Government.

  FIJI—THE HURRICANE.
  MR. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any official account has been received of the recent destructive hurricane in Fiji; and, whether the local Government was able to render

  1715
  any effectual help to the poor people whose property was destroyed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): We have received three despatches on this subject from Mr. Thurston, the officer administering the government of Fiji, which show, unfortunately, that the late hurricane has been attended by very serious damage to property and some loss of life. Mr. Thurston has depatched Circulars to all the parts of the Colony enjoining the Chiefs to keep him well informed as to the condition of their districts, and has sent responsible officers to the districts most injured for the purpose of distributing relief among the Natives. I fear, however, that some time must elapse before the Islands recover from the effects of this visitation as the assistance tendered by the local Government must necessarily be limited.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) —SHERIFF SUBSTITUTES AS PRESIDING OFFICERS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If, in view of the approaching election, he will instruct Sheriffs to avoid appointing Procurators Fiscal and Sheriff's Substitutes as Presiding Officers, whose duty it might be to investigate and adjudicate upon cases that might arise during the election?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.), in reply, said, he thought that, for the reason indicated in the Question, it would be well that Sheriff Substitutes and Procurators Fiscal were not appointed Presiding Officers at the Election, and he would address a communication to the Sheriffs expressing that view.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC —REPORTED MASSACRE AT THE NEW HEBRIDES.
  MR. HOWAED SPENSLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Has the Government any definite knowledge of the asserted massacre of French citizens at the New Hebrides; if not, does the Government intend to make due inquiry into the matter, and in the meantime take steps for a joint occupation of the Islands?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Before the hon. Gentleman
  1716
  answers that Question, I should like to ask him another on the same subject—namely, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received information as to the alleged hoisting of the French flag in the New Hebrides, and if he can state the nature of any communications that may have passed between the two Governments on the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Central Finsbury, and to the Question just addressed to me by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition, I have to state that the only official information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government as to the reported massacre of French citizens at the New Hebrides is derived from the statement made to Lord Lyons by M. de Freycinet, on the 10th of June, that a French Company had sent a considerable number of Frenchmen to work in the New Hebrides, of whom several had been massacred by the Natives; the rest had called upon the Company either to make provision for their safety or to remove them. On the application of the Company to the Governor of New Caledonia, two French ships had been sent with troops on board by the Governor to the places where Frenchmen were in danger. On that occasion M. de Freycinet added that it was possible that a temporary post might be established until quiet should be restored, but that the measure taken had no political significance, and that there was no question whatever of occupying the New Hebrides, or of anything tending to relax the obligations of France towards Great Britain respecting them. On the 14th instant, Lord Lyons again saw M. de Freycinet, and represented the excitement, both in England and Australia, which the mere presence of French troops in the New Hebrides was calculated to produce. M. de Freycinet repeated, in the most positive manner, his assurance that France had no designs affecting the political condition of those Islands, nor any intention of occupying them, and that she held herself bound by her agreement with England to respect their independence. He did not know whether any troops had been in fact landed, but if there had been any put on shore they would be withdrawn directly the emergency had passed away.

  1717
  The only official information respecting the hoisting of the French Flag which Her Majesty's Government possess is contained in a telegram from the Acting British Consul in New Caledonia to the Governor of New South Wales stating that he had reason to believe that the French Flag was hoisted in the New Hebrides, and that he had made a formal protest to the Governor of New Caledonia. The commanders of two British ships of war now at the New Hebrides have been directed to report occurrences without delay. No report as to the hoisting of the French Flag has yet been received from them. Lord Lyons has been further directed to call the immediate attention of the French Government to the reported hoisting of the French Flag, and to the excitement resulting from it, and to inquire as to the circumstances under which it took place, as well as to the particulars of the massacre referred to in the Question. The House may rest assured that Her Majesty's Government is fully sensible of the gravity of the matter.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Can the hon. Gentleman inform us how long it takes for telegraphic information to come to this country from the New Hebrides?
  MR. BRYCE: The New Hebrides are at least three days' sail from the nearest point in Australia with which telegraphic communication exists.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): Who is the British Consul at New Caledonia who sends these alarming telegrams? Is he a mercantile gentleman or a paid Consul?
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Gentleman had better give due Notice of that Question. All I can say at present is that the official in question is the Acting Consul.

  THE GENERAL ELECTION, 1885—RETURNS OF ELECTION EXPENSES.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Return of Election Expenses incurred by Candidates at the last General Election will be presented?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): The three portions of this Return—English, Scotch, and Irish—have been duly received, and are now in the hands of the printers;
  1718
  but the Irish portion is not in a very complete state and will require to be completed in proof. The Return will be presented in "dummy" this afternoon, and no time will be lost in preparing it for publication, but the revision of proofs will take considerable time.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)— SHEEP STEALING IN PERTHSHIRE.
  MR. MENZIESasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention haa been called to the prevalence of sheep stealing in Perthshire; and, whether it would be possible, by giving temporarily further and exceptional powers to the police in Scotland, to deal specially with the crime in question?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.), in reply, said, his attention had been repeatedly called to the prevalence of sheep stealing in Perthshire within the last few years, and he had had various communications with the county on the subject. The abolition of tolls and the facilities now afforded for selling and removing sheep were believed to have conduced to the increase of the crime, and it had been suggested that a system of registered marks should be established, and that sheep should not be removed without the written authority of the owners of the marks. This would, however, he feared, impose an undue restriction upon the movement of sheep, and the only remedy would seem to be for the police to exercise as great vigilance as possible. The giving of exceptional powers to the police could only be done by Statute, and great care would be required not to make them of such a character as to impede lawful dealings in sheep. If his hon. Friend had any suggestions to make on the subject he should be glad to consider them.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—THE VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether section 460, Volunteer Regulations, referring to the assembly of Corps during Parliamentary elections, apply to recruits and small bodies of Volunteers under training or instruction in camp?
  MR. DONKINasked whether the Artillery Volunteers at

  1719
  Tynemouth, numbering 240, would be allowed to assemble and go into barracks on the 24th instant?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): I think the case referred to by the hon. Member for Tynemouth does fall under the provision of Section 460 of the Volunteer Regulations, and that such an assembly cannot be allowed. I am, however, of opinion that the restriction would not apply to a small party of recruits or other Volunteers assembled merely for instructional purposes.

  DUTCH WEST INDIES—ISLAND OF CURACOA—CASE OF MR. GODDEN.
  MR. BANISTER FLETCHERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been invited to the consideration of the various acts of oppression to which Mr. Godden, a British subject and merchant of the City of London, has for some years been persistently subjected, both, directly and indirectly by the Dutch authorities in Curaçao, a system of oppression that, in 1885, culminated in the imposing on the said Mr. Godden of taxes such as no other proprietor in the Dutch West Indies is obliged to pay; taxes assessed on a valuation of his property made by a Commission composed of employés of the Dutch Colonial Government, and of Mr. Godden's Dutch competitors in trade, and not by independent citizens of Curaçao as required by the Law of that Island; whether Her Majesty's Government have instituted an inquiry as to some of the grievances indicated, and what is the result of that inquiry; whether the Dutch Colonial authorities in the West Indies profit by having conceded to a second party lands in the adjoining Island of Aruba, previously granted by them to Mr. Godden, and for which he has continued to meet all obligations, and has been accredited accordingly by the same authorities; though, at the same time, excluded by the second Concessionaire, and with their sanction, from possession of the said lands; and, whether, as the Dutch Colonial and Home Law Courts afford no remedy for the aforesaid and other grievances, Her Majesty's Government will make an official representation on
  1720
  the subject to the Netherlands Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): It would be impossible, within the limits assigned to the answer to a Question, to enter into the merits of this case. It has been inquired into and very fully considered by Her Majesty's Government. A representation was addressed to the Netherlands Government asking for a favourable consideration of Mr. Godden's complaint, and an unfavourable reply having been received from them, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken upon the legal aspect of the case. The question at issue is really one of law, and turns on the proper construction of an Ordnance under which the lands in Curaçoa are assessed. Mr. Godden was informed in April last that unless he could show that there was any inequality in the application of the Dutch Assessment Law, there did not appear to be any ground for the further intervention of Her Majesty's Government. I may add that Her Majesty's Government will give the fullest consideration to any further arguments which Mr. Godden may adduce in support of his case.

  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL— APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS —MR. MACFARLANE.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I have to ask the Solicitor General for Scotland a Question of which I have given him private Notice. My attention has been called to a statement made by him in the House on Friday, when I was not present, to the effect that I had recommended one of the candidates for appointment as a Commissioner under the Crofter Bill. I have to ask, When, and to what Member of the Government, either verbally or in writing, did I make any recommendation whatever?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension with regard to what I said when speaking on this matter in the House on Friday, no doubt consequent on his not being present at the time. I find that what I said is reported more fully in The Scotsman than in any other newspaper I have seen, and on referring to it I find that I am there reported to have said—

  1721
  "Among other recommendations which were put before the Government in support of Mr. Hosack's appointment were one by the hon. Member for Argyleshire and another by the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs."
  That statement is, Sir, in all respects correct. Upon the 10th, Mr. Hosack transmitted to the Scottish Office a letter from my hon. Friend addressed to the Rev. Mr. W. R. Taylor, which I will read—
  "62 Portland Place, May 6th, 1886.
  "Dear Mr. Taylor,—In reply to yours of the 29th, I have to say that if an opportunity offers I should be very glad to say a word on behalf of your friend, Mr. Hosack. I suppose he has made his application in the proper quarter. I may say that my persistent action on behalf of our people has not endeared me to the Government."
  This letter, I assume, was written in reply to a letter from Mr. Taylor to my hon. Friend asking him to give a recommendation to Mr. Hosack. Mr. Taylor appears to have interpreted the letter as being a valuable testimonial in favour of Mr. Hosack, because he sent it to him, and Mr. Hosack, apparently taking the same view, transmitted it to the Scottish Office, and it thereupon took its place among other testimonials in the Scottish Office in favour of Mr. Hosack. I have no doubt the Secretary for Scotland put the same interpretation on this letter as Mr. Taylor, to whom it was written, and Mr. Hosack, to whom it was transmitted, and I venture to think the House will be of the same opinion in regard to what the meaning of the letter was.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I would ask the indulgence of the House while I make a personal explanation. The letter referred to is six weeks old. It was addressed to a third person, a rev. gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect, who addressed me in favour of this candidate, and the answer I made him has just been read to the House. The intention of the answer, as I interpret it, is that if under the improbable contingency the Lord Advocate or any other Gentleman representing Scotch affairs in this House should make an appeal to me or ask my opinion or advice, which I need scarcely say did not take place, I would say to the Member of the Government who made the appeal that I knew nothing of this gentleman personally, but a rev. minister for whom I have a great respect spoke very highly of him. That opportunity which is referred
  1722
  to in my letter never arose, because, as I have said, no application was made to me. My opinion was not asked, but my action, light as it was, seems to have had a great effect on Her Majesty's Government. My letter was not intended for Mr. Hosack or the Government. I made no communication to the Government, and received none from them on the subject.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCES—THE FORTIFICATION OF SIMON'S BAY AND TABLE BAY.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether adequate steps have been taken by the Government for ensuring the safety of naval and coaling stations of Simon's Bay and Table Bay against attack by an enemy; and if there is any truth in the report that proposals made by the Cape Government to connect the fortifications by a railway have been negatived by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BAMERMAN)&c.): With regard to Simon's Bay the approved permanent defences are being proceeded with rapidly. Those at Table Bay are still the subject of correspondence between the Home avid Colonial Government, and, in the meantime, the provisional defence of Table Bay is considered fairly effective. With regard to the latter part of the Question, no final decision has been arrived at as to the conditions under which this railway should be constructed; but there is no departure from the opinion that the railway is indispensable for the military defence of these two important coaling stations.
  MR. W. H. SHITH: IS it possible that a decision will shortly be taken on the question?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should think so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

PUBLIC EDUCATION (ENGLAND).

  DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): According to the promise of the Prime Minister the Education Statement was to be made on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. The Estimates which are before the House were prepared by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Holland) when he was Vice President of the Council, and the Code, which made little alteration in the previous Code, was also signed by him before I entered Office. I have no complaint to make in the matter, and I only mention it in order to give him the credit. As the House will not be required at the present time to enter into the consideration of the detailed Estimates, it may be more convenient if I deal less with these, and direct more attention to the general results of our educational system than is usually the case in making the annual Statement. We ask the House to vote for elementary education, £3,422,989, or £123,092 more than last year. This increase is due to two causes—1. The increase in average attendance; 2. The increase of grant due to a higher efficiency in passing the Standards. On each of these causes of increased Estimates I have a few remarks to make. The natural increase due to the necessity of providing schools for an increasing population has been in past years largely augmented by bringing into schools neglected children under compulsory law. But, fortunately, there is now a partial exhaustion of this source of supply. For some years after 1870 the increase in average attendance varied from year to year from 7 to 13 per cent. Since 1880 it has been going down gradually from 6 per cent to 3 per cent, and we calculate it for the current year to be only 2·6 per cent. In time we may hope that the normal increase will only be that due to the growth of the population, which is about 50,000 annually. The next cause of the increase of the Estimate is one in regard to which we have full satisfaction—namely, to the higher results of education by a more satisfactory passing of the Standards. Last year the rate of grant per
  1724
  day scholar was 17 s. 1½d., and this year we are obliged to ask for 17 s. 6d., or an increase of 4½d. Of this 1¼d. is due to the cost of drawing being transferred from the Science and Art Department to the Education Department; but 3¼d. is entirely due to the increasing proficiency in passing the Standards, and better average attendance. The increase of school accommodation during the past year has been greater than the increase in school children. The increase of school seats in 1885 amounted to 172,000, while the increase in average attendance was only 98,000. It will be more interesting, however, to state what is the aggregate provision of school seats, and what is the use made of them by children. The population in 1885 is estimated at 27,499,041, and the school seats in elementary schools under the Department absolutely required are 4,583,173. The actual supply is now in excess of this demand by upwards of 400,000 seats; but although this is satisfactory in the gross, there are still several counties in which the accommodation is not equal to one-sixth of the population. In London the increase of school children is 12,000 annually, so that at the present rate of increase a new school for 1,000 children ought to be opened in London for at least 10 months in the year. But the adequacy of accommodation and the number of children on the school registers do not show how far the schools are fulfilling their purpose in educating school children. For every 100 children of school age who ought to be at school the public schools have provided 91 seats; but only 80 scholars are on the register, and only 62 are in daily attendance. Undoubtedly we are improving steadily, but there is still great need for further exertion. To show our rate of progress and existing deficiencies, I must remind the House of the dates of the Acts under which we work, and compare the rate of progress under these Acts and under the Codes which produced substantial changes in the educational system. The main Act which gave to England and Wales a national system of education was passed in 1870. In 1873 there was an amending Act, on which I need not dwell. The next important Act was Lord Sandon's Act of 1876, which made it the duty of every parent that his child should be taught during the age of 5

  1725
  to 14. This Act introduced indirect compulsory attendance by imposing upon employers of labour the responsibility of seeing that the requirements of the Acts were obeyed. It also established School Committees in districts which had no School Boards. Then an Act of 1880 substituted direct for indirect compulsion by providing that no children should go to work till they had passed certain Standards. The Codes followed the changes in the Acts; and therefore the Codes of 1871, following Forster's Act of 1877, following Lord Sandon's Act, and Mr. Mundella's Code of 1882, following the Compulsory Act of 1880, are marked features in our national system. The Codes required time to show their effects, and I wilt take two years after each Code to show our progress in getting children into daily attendance at schools. In 1873, two years after the Code of 1871, out of every 100 children on the school registers 66·8 were in daily attendance. In 1879, two years after Lord Sandon's Code, the average attendance was 69·95; and in 1884, two years after Mr. Mundella's Code, 75·46 were in attendance; and last year—1885—we have the largest regular attendance on record—76·4, or more than three-fourths of all the children on the register attended school with regularity. This percentage exceeds that of Massachusetts, the best educated State in America, where the average attendance is 72·5, while in New York State it is only 59·6. This increase is very satisfactory, and shows that parents appreciate the schools and urge regular attendance; partly, also, because the Act of 1880 prevents the children being employed in labour till they pass certain Standards. But look at it in another way, and the House will see how much remains to be done. Of every 100 children on the registers we have now got 76·4 in daily attendance. But 23·6 per cent of absentees is a heavy allowance to make for sickness and other unavoidable causes. The number of children on the registers is 4,412,000, and of these no less than 1,041,000 are daily absent from one of the two openings of the schools. There is, therefore, much room for increased activity on the part of the managers of schools, as well as for increased efficiency in the working of the Code. Unquestionably, however, we are making great progress. Perhaps the House will appreciate this more
  1726
  easily if I show what proportion of the population is now in public elementary schools. For this purpose I must add the number of children who are being educated in workhouses, certified efficient schools, industrial schools, &c. This raises the number of children on the registers of all public elementary schools to 4,630,000 children. For every 100 of the population in the year 1869—the year before the Act of 1870—there were only 7·0 children at public schools, while at the present moment there are 16·67. If we compare this with foreign countries, we have great reason for gratification. Germany was long ahead of this country in a national compulsory system of education; but there is only one town in that country—Elberfeldt—which approaches our numbers; that town has 16·3 children out of 100 of the population at school. Berlin has only 10·64, Cologne, 12·8; Frankfort is still behind what we had in 1869. Hamburgh, which has excellent schools, has only nine children out of the 100 of population. The number which we have reached of 16·67 in 100 of the population is a reward for the liberality of Parliament. Before I leave this part of the question, I wish to state that there is a considerable improvement in regard to infant schools. The methods of instruction for older scholars and infants are different. The infants require separate and well-arranged departments. Much attention to this improvement has been given in recent years, and they are now improving more rapidly than schools for older children, as will be seen if we take the classification for the merit grant, and divide them into moderate and really good schools. The really good infant schools, comparing 1885 with 1884, show that they have increased by 6·8 per cent, while the really good schools for older scholars have increased by only 1·34 per cent. Before I pass to the instructional results of the schools, I ought to state how much extra-Parliamentary resources have come to the aid of the grant in last year. Voluntary contributions amounted to £757,000; the rates yielded £1,141,000; and the school pence amounted to £1,791,000. If we convert these sums into the aid per child taught, the rates gave 19 s., the voluntary contributions, 6s. 7¾d., and the average

  1727
  school fee per child was 11 s. 2¾d. in Voluntary schools, and 9s. 4d. in Board schools. I pass now to a more interesting part of the annual Statement—the results of the teaching. That these are rapidly improving are shown by the substantial fact that the House is asked to pay 4½d. per child more than it did last year for better average attendance and better results of teaching. In 1880, of all children examined in the Standards, 81·2 per cent passed; last year this had increased to 85·14 per cent. But that is a crude way of viewing the result. When children pass a Standard lower than Standard IV., or leave school at 14 years of age in order to enter into labour, the wear and tear of life soon rubs off their thin veneer of education. Standard IV. is fortunately the lowest Standard which most School Boards adopt to let children become half-timers at 10 years of age, and it can readily be passed by an average child. There are, however, some towns which have adopted Standard III., and one large town which still retains Standard II., though I am glad to say it is ashamed of it, and intends going one step higher. Generally, however, Standards IV. and V. are those prescribed. Now it is interesting to see what progress is being made in teaching children up to those Standards, which alone become to them a life-possession in education, and I am glad to say it is steadily increasing. The per centage of children in Standard IV. and upwards to all scholars examined was 24·61 per cent in 1880, and it has increased to 32·9 per cent in 1885. Still the schools seem to have little attraction for children when the exempting Standard has been reached, for they rapidly disappear from the school. Of the 407,137 children who came up for Standard IV. in 1884, as many as 166,732 disappeared from the examination lists of our schools in 1885; while the 221,491 scholars in Standard V. of 1884 had dwindled to 91,039 in 1885; and, lastly, of the 83,270 scholars in Standard VI. in 1884, there only remained one-fourth, or 21,416, in 1885. Opinions differ as to how far education should be carried in public elementary schools; but it should certainly be carried higher in our schools than in those of other countries, because we do not possess those continuation or improvement schools which most European nations
  1728
  have as part of compulsory or of formative education. Our elementary schools form a system in themselves, having little or no connection with secondary schools for the further teaching of working men. Sometimes a few scholarships are attached to them by which bright scholars may enter endowed schools. But for the mass of the people the education begins and ends in our public elementary schools, although they should be mere steps into continuation or improving schools. Last year a cry of over-pressure arose, and many persons believed that school children, were being too severely urged. To a certain extent that was true as regards individual instances. It is a fact that English elementary schools demand much less work from children than foreign schools. Mr. Matthew Arnold's Report will soon be in the hands of Members. In it he contrasts the work of a Hamburgh child, as typical of a German child, with that of an English child. He says—
  "To release a child as we do from school at 10 or 11, because he passes the Fifth Standard, would be thought in Germany absurd and most injurious."
  He tells us that the weekly number of hours for a Hamburgh child, between 10 and 14, is 32, while with us the Code only enjoins 20, though, in practice, 24 or 25 hours are given. Then in these 32 hours the German child has to learn 13 subjects, while in our 20 hours the English child has only seven matters of instruction. But in Germany there is no cry of over-pressure. The German child must remain within the school till he is 14, and is not releasable by any Standard. The popular schools in Hamburgh, in addition to the "three R's," history, geography, geometry, natural science, and drawing, have English as a compulsory subject, and French as an optional one. Thus, when the German or Swiss child leaves the elementary school, he is far in advance of the English child, even if the latter had passed Standard VII., which so few do. With the English child his education is then ended, while the foreign child, after leaving the elementary school, finds continuation and improvement schools ready to receive him as part of the public system of schools. While, therefore, we may be justly pleased that our elementary schools are covering the

  1729
  area for primary education, we would sadly mistake our ability to raise the English working population to the intelligence of foreign working men if we do not give them means of advancing in knowledge. A pressure is now being put upon the Education Department which I foresee will become so great that the mind of Parliament must soon be taken in regard to it. This pressure is in the direction of technical education, and I must ask leave to say a few words in regard to it. Twice this Session the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Mather) has had the first place to call the attention of the House to the subject; but he has given way to political exigencies. His Motion is as follows:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential to the maintenance and development of our manufacturing and agricultural industries, in view of the rapidly increasing competition of Foreign nations, both at home and abroad, that our National system of Education should be so widened that manual training, the teaching of the natural sciences, and technical instruction may be brought within the reach of the working classes."
  This Motion covers the whole question of technical education, and is, therefore, wide in its scope; but at present I desire to confine my remarks to that portion relating to elementary schools, in which the hon. Member demands that—
  "Our National system of Education should be so widened that manual training and the teaching of the natural sciences may be brought within the reach of the working classes."
  It is to be observed that the Education Department has been gradually forced to include some technical subjects into the Code, and to extend instruction beyond the three R's. Manual work is already adopted to a limited extent. Thus girls are taught needlework, and pressure is constantly put on the Department to increase this form of manual leaching, to the exclusion even of the English in the upper Standards. Again, cookery is taught to girls in the last years of their attendance at school. As yet it has not widely extended, but it is rapidly growing. In 1884 only 7,597 girls earned the grant of 4s.; but last year they had increased to 17,754. Both school boards and voluntary associations are making arrangements to extend this humble but very necessary kind of technical instruction. Again, last year the Department made a serious attempt to introduce drawing
  1730
  systematically as a class subject, the Science and Art Department undertaking the examinations, while the Education Department made the payment which, as I have already stated, accounts for 1¼d. of the increased grant per child that we ask for this year. Now, drawing is of immense importance in training both the hand and eye, even while it is freehand drawing; and if we can extend it into mechanical drawing, so as to enable boys to understand working plans placed before them, it becomes almost half of technical education. Now, what has been the result of our year's experience? I cannot express it to you in figures, for I have not yet got them; but I may say generally that it is satisfactory in quality and unsatisfactory in quantity. The quality of the drawing has much improved in the schools; but there is an indisposition to take it as a class subject through all the Standards. The reason for this is obvious. By Lord Sandon's Act the amount of grant not conditional upon subscriptions is limited to 17 s. 6d. per child. The schools naturally desire to reach this limit by subjects most easily taught among the six class subjects, and drawing is found to take more time and attention than some of the other subjects. The Government will have to consider seriously whether, as the examinations are already under the Science and Art Department, the payments should also, as formerly, be made by it, so as to remove the cramp which keeps down the growth of drawing in elementary schools. I have thus shown that there are various kinds of manual teaching as well as mental teaching encouraged by the Code. Now, a new demand is made that the use of tools in wood and iron should be taught to boys in larger schools. Already some of the largo towns have built workshops and supplied them with tools for boys in the upper Standards of board schools. The boards in these cases do not ask us for money in aid of this equipment; but they demand, under Article 16 of the Code, that the Department should recognize the use of tools as a specific subject, and pay for it accordingly. The House need not be reminded that a specific subject is one taught to individuals and not to a class. The specific subjects are enumerated in Article 15; but the 16th Article invites the school managers to take any other specific subject

  1731
  if it is sanctioned by the Department. Two difficulties have met us in dealing with these demands. The first is that our Inspectors, able and talented as they are, have no experience in appraising the results of working with tools in wood and iron. This might be got over by asking the Science and Art Department to do so, because in administering the Whitworth scholarships it has got experience in this direction. But our main difficulty is that we do not like to enter into a branch of education without knowing the mind of Parliament. Unfortunately, the very important Reports of the Royal Commission on Technical Education have never even been discussed in Parliament, and have not yet seriously occupied the attention of the Government. That Commission found in various foreign countries that the use of tools is taught in elementary schools with excellent effect, and with this knowledge it would be difficult for the Education Department to say that it would not approve the teaching as a specific subject. But I would make a remark as to the conditions under which such an application could be considered. It is clear that the use of tools could not be encouraged among children learning the lower Standards. There is work enough to be done in giving literary education to these children. In after life they will have nothing but manual labour, and it would be hard to abstract any part of their time from the small amount of literary education which they get at school. After children have passed Standards V. or VI. the advantage of teaching the use of tools is more worthy of consideration, for it is then that they are apt to leave school altogether, and anything which would induce them to remain longer at school must prove a gain to themselves and to the State. Foreign countries keep all children to 14 years of age, and we fail in doing this. No less than 175,000 children have become half-timers by passing moderate Standards soon after 10 years of age. These are questions of importance, which cannot be determined by the Education Department without knowing the mind of Parliament. It is a great disadvantage to our educational system that there are not more frequent discussions on such subjects in the House. The political pre-occupations of recent years have stood in the way of
  1732
  such discussions; but the want of them paralyzes the hands of the Administration. Before referring to other subjects of technical education, I should like to make a few remarks on the progress of the Science and Art Department, as it, both directly and indirectly, does much to spread a knowledge of the Science and Art which form the true basis of technical education. The progress last year is remarkable. There are now 1,984 Schools of Science and Art under the Department, and last year 94,838 individuals were under instruction in Science and 69,837 in Art, besides those in the elementary schools. In subjects bearing directly on technical instruction, such as machine construction, building construction, applied mechanics, steam engines, practical chemistry, mining, and metallurgy, there were last year 28,639 persons under education. Gradually the localities are equipping well-furnished laboratories to make the chemical instruction practical as well as theoretical; and last year there were 14,587 places in these laboratories for experimental practice in chemistry. In Art, also, the progress of last year is very satisfactory, especially in the higher grades in which the subjects of design, architecture, and modelling are treated. The number of papers sent in for examination last month in the two grades of drawing was 57,867, showing an increase of 5,903 as compared with 1885. The Department of Science and Art now carries on a most useful work by circulating objects of artistic excellence to the various local museums throughout the country. There are now 30 local museums which have permanent loans made to them changed each year. Of these 14 have been added in the last two years, and the average value of each loan is £2,000. As the total sum granted by Parliament for the purchase of new objects is £10,000, it will be obvious that the local museums are supplied with objects of Art of greater value than the Annual Vote. The number of objects circulated to museums, exhibitions, and schools last year amounted to 26,718. Those who are interested in the promotion of technical education must be satisfied that this House and the Government have not been negligent in promoting it to a considerable extent, and even in anticipation of the demand which has only lately expressed itself in a more definite

  1733
  form than formerly. The House is aware that a Select Committee sat upstairs during this Session to inquire into the operation of the Endowed Schools Acts. Unfortunately, it has not been able, owing to the premature closing of the Session, to complete its evidence and to make its general Report. But I may state some general facts in regard to which there is no division of opinion. The Charity Commissioners adopted the views of the Schools Inquiry Commission, and divided the schools into three grades. The third or lowest grade of school was intended to meet the wants of the working classes exclusively, and was little above a higher elementary school. But the public elementary schools have advanced so much that the better schools are equal to the third grade endowed school, so that this class of school is now no longer regarded as necessary. It seems, therefore, to be expedient that these schools should be changed in their character into what foreign countries call improvement or continuation schools, and that they should be intimately connected by scholarships with the common elementary schools of the district. The Charity Commissioners have been spontaneously acting in this direction, and have been trying to impress upon those lower endowed schools more of a practical or technical character. It is in this direction that we must look for speedy development of advanced education for the working classes. Abundant evidence was given to the Committee that by the aid of scholarships to be competed for out of the elementary schools poor lads of promise were able to use the endowed schools of the country as schools of advancement. The Charity Commissioners have announced that in future they will endeavour to promote technical education through these schools. Returns were laid before the Committee showing that this had been done to a considerable extent already, even in advance of the demand which has recently arisen. A fully-equipped technical school requires a considerable endowment; but schools with smaller endowments teaching Science and Art can be used as stepping-stones to more advanced technical schools. It is in such a direction that the country must chiefly look for the development of technical education, because the Votes
  1734
  for Elementary Education are already so large that Parliament may be unwilling to give to them an indefinite extension. All the schemes of the Charity Commissioners have ultimately to be approved by the President and Vice President of the Education Department, so that by a cordial and activece-operation such as that which now exists between the two Bodies, a necessary link may be forged between the primary and endowed secondary schools of the country. It is the absence of any combination between primary and secondary schools which renders this country so inferior in educational organization to other countries in Europe. A few years ago a Select Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers), recommended, as a first stop to obtain this organization, that a Minister of Education should be appointed. But Parliament in the following year, instead of consolidation, effected division in the educational work of the country by separating Scotch education from English education, and putting the former under the charge of the Secretary for Scotland. This, therefore, is the first year in which the Vice President of the Committee of Council for Education in England has nothing to tell the House about education in Scotland. I did all I could to prevent the repeal of this educational union last year; but I was unsuccessful, and the union was repealed. The Lord President is still a connecting link between the two countries; but the Vice President, who is responsible to this House for the educational administration of English education, has now no knowledge or responsibility for what is doing in Scotland. We used to receive much encouragement from the comparison of educational progress in the two countries; but now I know nothing about it till the Report comes out, unless the Lord Advocate follows me, and gives an educational statement for Scotland. I am afraid that I have detained the House too long upon a subject which bristles with statistics, and, if I had chosen to introduce them, with questions of controversy. I have avoided the latter, because there is now sitting a Royal Commission which is dealing very fully with the contested subjects of administration. They necessarily arise, however fairly and equally the balance

  1735
  is held between two systems—namely, voluntary and board schools. They are both working with the same end in view—the efficient elementary education of the people. The difficulties of working the two systems were greater formerly than they are now, and the Royal Commission will, no doubt, help us to remove the few points of friction which may remain. In the Select Committee on Endowed Schools we were all struck with one fact, that denominational difficulties seemed altogether to have disappeared. In a like Committee in 1873, on which I sat, our whole time was taken up in adjusting sectarian disputes. In the Committee of 1886 they had vanished altogether. This gives hopes for the future working of elementary education, because when the promoters of different systems have the same end in view it ought to be possible to work in complete harmony. This has been a year of great educational activity as regards inquiring into educational deficiencies. There is another Royal Commission of Inquiry in active operation. Its object is to devise the best means of educating the blind, the deaf, and the imbecile. Though a Member of that Commission, I have been too fully occupied with other work to take an active part in its deliberations; but from the evidence which I receive, and from my occasional attendances at its meetings, I am sure that we shall have a most valuable Report upon the means of educating those whose disabilities are so pitiable, and who look to us for the means of enabling them to become useful, and often productive, members of the community. In reviewing, as I have attempted to do, our educational position under the Department to which I belong, with no certainty that I will ever appear before you again in the position of Vice President, allow me to gratify my personal feelings, in which, however, I am sure you will share, by a concluding remark. I have pointed out to you that, so far as the original Act of 1870 founded a national system of elementary education, our progress since then has been eminently satisfactory. But the master builder who erected that edifice is no longer with us. In 1870 I was a mere apprentice hand in Parliament, and could do no more than lay a few bricks in the building which Mr. Forster was rearing. It
  1736
  is the only year since I entered Parliament in 1869 that we are no longer assisted by his counsels on all subjects which touched the welfare of the people, and I am sure that you would have thought my educational statement incomplete if I had failed to make some loving allusion to his memory.
  MR. CONWAYsaid, the Vice President of the Council had glided over certain little difficulties that existed. In the debate on the Education Act of 1870 it was over and over again laid down by speakers in that House that no harm was intended to the voluntary schools—that the board schools were to be supplementary and not competitive. The children in voluntary schools were quite as well taught as in board schools, and the voluntary schools were much more economically managed. The House ought, therefore, to see that no wrong was done to these schools. But since 1870 many of them had been crushed out of existence by the board schools; and between 1870 and 1880, 22, and between 1880 and the present time, 15, Catholic schools which had fulfilled every condition of the Code had been closed in consequence of the action of the board schools and their managers. In some cases the Department had shown itself ready to remedy grievances, but had been overborne by the school boards, who, in some respects, had more power than the Department. He hoped, however, that the Department would re-assert itself; and if the present Government again came into power, as he hoped they would, he earnestly trusted that they would remedy this most serious grievance.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEsaid, he must congratulate the Vice President of the Council on his lucid and admirable statement, and trusted he would long continue to fill that Office. Having, together with the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Woodall) and his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Mather), been engaged on the Royal Commission on Technical Education, he was extremely pleased to find the right hon. Gentleman speaking out so strongly and so decidedly on this important subject, which he believed the country now generally felt should be introduced into our elementary school system. It was interesting to know that the Vice President had long

  1737
  entertained these views—that he was, in fact, the first to draw attention to the subject many years ago. In comparing the work done in this matter on the Continent with that done in this country the first point that struck one was the great difference in regard to drawing. He found that abroad the attention paid to the subject, which was the foundation of technical instruction, was almost universal; whilst in this country, in no fewer than three-fourths of the schools, drawing was not taught at all. He was extremely glad to learn that this question had attracted the attention of the Education Department, and that we were actually paying 1¼d. per child per annum for this most important subject. The subject of manual instruction had been mentioned by the Vice President; and he wished to point out that the subject was comprised in the recommendations of the Royal Commission, who advised that proficiency in the use of tools for work in wood and iron should be paid for as a specific subject, arrangements being made for the work being done, as far as practicable, out of school hours. He agreed with the opinion of the Vice Presideut as to the desirableness, in the higher Standards especially, of introducing manual work. Just as they had laboratories for the teaching of practical chemistry, so they ought to have workshops and appliances for the teaching of manual work, and in which not furniture or boxes should be in ado, but correct geometrical forms should be constructed, and models illustrative of mechanical principles. It seemed to him that as the Department paid for manual work, such as sewing and cooking by girls, there was no reason why they should not pay on the results for manual work by boys. With regard to science teaching, in the first place he would congratulate the Vice President of the Council upon the great progress made by the Science and Art Department. That Department was unique in Europe. There was no such thing in any part of the Continent as a thoroughly well organized system of examinations extending all over the country and comprising all sorts and conditions of men. This system, founded by the late Prince Albert, had grown to really astonishing proportions; and as a rule the work done—he spoke from his
  1738
  experience as an examiner—was admirable, and was producing most marked and valuable results. But in education there was no standing still, and he held that there were many matters, especially manual instruction, that might with great advantage be taken up by the Science and Art Department. The Royal Commission had recommended, with regard to scientific instruction, that the class subjects should be only two in number instead of three, and that in the lower divisions of elementary schools the object lessons should include geography. In the elementary schools of the lower grade the object lessons were most admirably taught; but then there was a great break, and the object which the Commission had had in view was to render scientific teaching, elementary scientific teaching—continuous from the lower grade of the elementary schools to the higher grade until the point was reached where the subject became a specific one. He trusted the House would not lose sight of the importance of setting the foundations of technical instruction in the elementary schools, and that drawing and manual instruction would be further encouraged, for he felt sure that that was the direction in which we must look for giving that sound practical instruction which was needed in order that our artizans might be educated up to the highest pitch of proficiency, and to enable them to compete with, success with foreign nations.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he must, in the first place, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair) upon the excellent and interesting statement which he had made. He had not only travelled over all the special questions of interest in this educational question; but he had managed to pass over all the many debateable points. He had been wise in adopting this course, as a Royal Commission was sitting to examine into such, points; and he (Sir Henry Holland) trusted that they would be thoroughly threshed out before that Commission. He himself, certainly, in the few observations he had to make, would keep clear of these special matters. His right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) had been kind enough to give him the credit for the preparation of the Estimates and signing the Code. As regards the Code, he

  1739
  would remark that he had thought it his duty to make as few alterations as possible. He regretted that it had been found necessary so often to alter the Codes, as such a course threw increased difficulties in the way of those who had to work them. He thought that the Code of 1883, for which the country was so largely indebted to the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella), who had done so much in the cause of education, should have a longer trial before any experimental changes were made. He also considered that as his own tenure of Office of Vice President was likely to be so short, he should only make such alterations as were called for by some immediate and pressing necessity. By referring to page 30 of the Code it would be seen that only two alterations had been made. The first was rendered necessary by the alteration as to drawing; the other was made to meet an objection raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the terms of Article 15 of the Code of 1883, which provided that, for the purpose of calculating the average attendance, each "attendance of a half-time scholar shall be counted as an attendance and a-half." This the Comptroller and Auditor General called "special attendances not actually made." He admitted that the power of defining an attendance was given by Section 97 of the Education Act of 1870; but he contended that the Department had no right to declare that an ordinary attendance should count for one and a-half or two attendances. This view was disputed by the Department; but there seemed no good reason to keep up the difference, as the principle of half-time was not disputed, nor the power of defining an attendance. An alteration was therefore made defining the attendance of a half-timer to be one hour and twenty minutes. As to the Estimates, he would only observe that the right hon. Gentleman had shown that the increase was entirely due, first, to increased attendances, and therefore increased grants; and, secondly, to increased efficiency. These improvements were most satisfactory, and must reconcile taxpayers to what was always primâ facie an unsatisfactory thing—namely, an increase of Estimates. He was glad to hear the statistics given by the right hon. Gentleman as to the attendance in this country compared with the attendance
  1740
  in Germany and America. Great doubt existed upon this point, and with a view of solving it Mr. M. Arnold was sent out, while the late Government were in Office, to inquire into this point, as also into the question of over-pressure and standards of education. He regretted that, owing to circumstances over which the right hon. Gentleman had no control, the Report of Mr. Arnold was not before the House; but he gathered from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the attendance here was better than in Germany; and the official Reports from the United States showed the same result; so that we had nothing to fear from a comparison with those countries which had been so often thrown in our teeth by speakers who had not really studied the question. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the great and increasing improvement in infant schools; but he thought that, in many cases, there was still room for improvement in the teaching of infants, and in interesting them more in their work. He believed that wherever the Kindergarten system, or some modification of it, had been introduced, good results had followed. As regarded technical education, he was fully alive to the difficulties of introducing it to any large extent in purely elementary schools. Nor did he believe that the ratepayers would assent to the increased charge which would have to be made if it were so introduced. His present impression was that they must look to endowments, and to the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, for the establishment of such schools in central and convenient localities; while, at the same time, they might hope to see some technical education given to those children in elementary schools who had passed the Fifth or Sixth Standards. It was unfitted for those who were in the lower Standards, and who had not mastered the indispensable subjects of reading, writing, and arithmetic. But this matter should receive the careful consideration of Parliament at an early date. As regarded grants for drawing, which was an important item in technical education, he did not quite see the force of the suggestion of his right hon. Friend that they should be paid by the Science and Art Department. It did not appear to him (Sir Henry Holland) that it made any real

  1741
  difference whether the amount in respect of such grants was paid by the Science and Art Department or by the Education Department. The money in either case must come out of the pocket of the taxpayer.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he referred to grants above the 17 s. 6d. fixed by Lord Sandon's Act.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he quite understood that; but if the amount was to be paid it would come out of the pocket of the taxpayer whether it was voted for the Science and Art Department or the Education Department, and the only difference was that in the latter case the Act referred to might have to be altered. And now, with the leave of the House, he would address himself to the speech of the hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. Conway), who was a skilled witness in educational questions, and to whom the House had listened with great interest. The hon. Member had made special reference to the Dan-y-Graig case, and as this case had come before him (Sir Henry Holland) as Vice President he desired to make some observations upon it. He would first point out to the House the position of the case when he had to deal with it. A decision against making the grant had been given by his Predecessor (Mr. Mundella) on December 12, 1884. That decision was based upon the interpretation given to the Act of 1870 by the Education Department—namely, that when once a school board had been started, they must supply any deficiency of accommodation in the district under their jurisdiction, and that the Board were the judges whether such deficiency exists. This opinion was based upon the wording of the 18th section of the Act of 1870, which he would venture to read to the House. It provided that the school board—
  "Shall, from time to time, provide such additional school accommodation as is, in their opinion, necessary in order to supply a sufficient amount of public school accommodation for their district."
  He begged the House to observe that the board were to judge whether there was a deficiency; and it was very doubtful, to say the least of it, whether the Education Department could interfere with the exercise of their discretion. If the board failed to provide sufficient accommodation, the Department had express powers
  1742
  given to them to interfere, and to compel the board to do their duty; but it would seem that they had no power to prevent the board from enlarging their schools and providing more accommodation, although the Department might not be satisfied that such accommodation was in fact wanted. The action of the Department in assenting to the enlargement of their premises by the Board, and the reasons for such action, are stated in a letter of January 23, 1886, to the Rev. A. P. Wilson—
  "The application of the school board for permission to enlarge reached this office on the same day (viz., 21st February, 1884) as that upon which the warning before referred to was sent to you. It was not within their Lordships' administrative duty or power to direct the school board to postpone their own application (which they were entitled to make under Section 18) in favour of one from voluntary managers. With the view, however, of avoiding an unnecessary expenditure upon competing schools, a suggestion was made to the board to communicate with you upon the subject of your undertaking. The decision whether they would act upon this suggestion or not was a matter for their own discretion upon a review of the local circumstances within their knowledge."
  Rightly or wrongly, however, the Education Department had in June, 1884, granted their assent to the board to enlarge their premises on the ground of the proved deficiency of accommodation, and the duty which rested upon the board to supply such a deficiency. The ratepayers had, therefore, been taxed for the enlarged school, and their interests had to be considered when the Department were asked to make a grant to a voluntary school, however good and efficient—and this school was undoubtedly both good and efficient—in the district of the school board. In these circumstances, he did not think he was justified—and the Lord President concurred in this opinion—in overruling the decision of his Predecessor and the practice of the Department. He would add, what had not been fully pointed out by the hon. Member for North Leitrim, that the Dan-y-Graig school managers could not have been taken by surprise by the refusal of this grant. They had not had, as they asserted, permission given to them by the Education Department to build, as no permission was needed, and none was therefore granted. But, on the other hand, they had full warning given to them in February, 1884, that the school board would be consulted as to

  1743
  the grant. In a letter of that date it was stated that—
  "For the purpose of avoiding any misapprehension, their Lordships cannot make any promise of annual grant until the school is in operation; and also that before giving such promise they will have, in accordance with their ordinary practice, to invite the opinion of the school board upon the application of the managers."
  The managers, in these circumstances, could hardly blame the Education Department for their action, though they might find fault with the Act of 1870, or contend that it had been wrongly interpreted. Well, this was one of the questions which he hoped would be brought before the Royal Commission which was now sitting. Speaking for himself alone, he should like to see each case dealt with on its own merits. He did not suppose that the Education Department would desire to have this responsibility thrown upon them; but he was inclined to think that it should be put upon them; and that they should have power, if they had it not now, to refuse to allow a school board to enlarge their premises, and thus cast an additional burden upon the ratepayers, when, in the opinion of the Department, there was already sufficient accommodation in the district if the voluntary schools were taken into account. He thanked the House for the attention they had given to him; and he desired to conclude, as his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) had done, by expressing his sense of the great loss the cause of education had sustained by the death of Mr. Forster, and of the untiring zeal and ability which he had always displayed in promoting that cause.
  MR. MATHERsaid, the Vice President of the Council had referred to the fact that he had put a Notice on the Paper of his intention to open out the very wide subject of extending to the working classes the advantages not only of elementary education, but of manual training and science instruction generally. It was impossible on this occasion to enter upon that great subject. He would content himself with some observations on the new era which the Vice President had opened out before the House by the expression of his views upon, the future of education in favour of bringing science and art teachidg and technical knowledge within the reach of the working classes. Those who had already spoken in the debate
  1744
  represented the professional knowledge of teachers in connection with educational matters. He belonged to that large army of employers who had to make use of the forces which the teachers in our elementary schools, Colleges, and educational institutions placed within their reach for the purpose of carrying on the great industries of the country. He had observed during the last 15 years in which the Education Act had been in operation that the youths coming into their employment year by year had shown a higher degree of refinement, greater brightness in their manners and aptitude, and a higher moral tone in their general conduct. To the Education Act of 1870 they must attribute these changes, and he would be the last to deprecate the advantages it had brought to the country. At the same time, there appeared to be a lack of those qualities which were necessary to enable us in the future to maintain the position of the country against the competition of other nations. The practical faculty of the boy coming into the workshop at the present time was not developed in the same measure as literary knowledge had been acquired. Such was the tendency of the education now given in our elementary schools that there was a distinct want felt on the part of employers of labour in consequence of the boys coming to them having scarcely a superficial training in science, and, so far as practice of the hand was concerned, as in drawing, hardly any training at all. He hoped from the speech of the Vice President that that state of things would speedily be altered. That could only be done by bringing manual training within the scope of the Elementary Education Act. This manual training would not interfere with the necessary literary instruction. On the contrary, it had been found, where manual training had been given in conjunction with elementary education, that all the subjects appertaining to that kind of education were more rapidly acquired, and more readily understood by the boys and girls, who during a certain portion of the school time had some means of manual employment. The experiments made in educating both head and hand together had been very successful in the United States. Manual training, if provided in our elementary schools for boys between the ages of 10 and 13, would tend to

  1745
  qualify a large number of the children of the working classes for occupations more likely to benefit themselves and the country than some of those they now followed. The great cry from all our Colonies had always been not to sand them young people who had no knowledge of facts and things and the use of their hands, but to send those that had a practical training. Hitherto the Education Code had given much more encouragement to the literary than to the practical side of education. He had hoped to introduce for the consideration of the House the subject of having in our elementary schools a workshop or laboratory in which the boys could pass some hours a-week, and in which they would receive a training constituting the experimental stage for the subjects taught them in their class-room. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, if he remained at the Education Department, would encourage this view. There could be no doubt that we had to meet in competition nations which had endeavoured to inculcate into the minds of the lowest classes the necessary knowledge to enable them to make the best use of the materials they possessed. No country possessed richer materials, so far as the bounty of Nature could bestow them, than our own. No country possessed in such large measure the energy, perseverance, and determination which distinguished the Anglo-Saxon race. But in the future we must not rely so much upon these natural resources, because other countries with less resources were still following closely upon our heels. We must meet intelligence with intelligence, knowledge with knowledge, and skill with skill. He had the greatest confidence that England in the future might maintain even a higher relative position than she had held in the past, for when once the attention of Parliament and the country was turned to our needs they would take the means necessary to supply them. It might be necessary that the country should be asked to supply larger funds for educational purposes, and money spent in that direction he would never deplore. It was money better spent than in the building of ironclads, which were very soon found to be obsolete and useless—["No, no!"]—or, at least, had to be altered. To insure our not being overtaken by the competitors who were beginning to draw up to us, the country must not begrudge an increased
  1746
  expenditure upon education. The sciences, he held, ought to be taught to children early in life, just as the mysteries and paradoxes of grammar and language were taught to them now. It was not the enemies who might come against us with physical force that we had cause to fear, but rather those opponents who, going into our markets with greater skill, greater knowledge, and greater enterprise, turned us out from possessions we had hitherto enjoyed, and which we hoped to hold against the world for nil time. In defending those possessions any amount of money would be well spent. If every child were able to spend five hours per week in the workshop connected with every elementary school the working classes of the future would be intelligently trained from earliest youth in the mechanical arts to enable them to cope with the other nations of the world. The training of the head and hand mutt go together, and then he was sure that intellectually, industrially, and morally England would hold in the future a place higher than that she had held in the past, and that whatever progress other countries might make we would still hold our own against them. Before sitting down he wished to refer to another subject, and to urge that the school board should be made the proper authority for the remission of school fees. Great hardship was caused to parents by their being compelled to appear before Boards of Guardians to prove their poverty before they could obtain the remission of their children's fees.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that the Budget which the Vice President of the Council had explained to the House was the Estimate which had been prepared by his Predecessor in Office. He would have been glad if the Vice President of the Council had given the House the advantage of his opinion on some of the burning questions connected with the subject of elementary education in this country. He had given the House the benefit of some statistics; but while they expected those, they ought to have heard more in regard to the health of the children who were now under elementary training, and especially with reference to overpressure. There was no doubt, although the reports were not now so alarming as they had previously been, that there was still a great deal of injury being done to

  1747
  the health of children through the heavy tasks expected of them. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) thought it would have been well if the Vice President of the Council had made some reference to the famous Report of Dr. Crichton Browne on this subject, for this was a Report which had justified the suspicions and the anxieties of the whole country. The Code was still enforced with a rigidity which was incompatible with the elasticity of human nature. A little more discretion should be permitted to the teachers to withdraw children from the examination. They should be allowed to do this without permission or direction from the Inspectors. Teachers naturally knew more about the children intrusted to their care than the Inspectors could know. That was a matter which had over and over again been pressed upon the House and the country by those who understood the working of elementary schools; and Vice Presidents, no matter what side of the House they sat upon, had not given due attention to the matter. He should like to have heard more from the right hon. Gentleman as to the system of payment by results as it worked in England and Wales. It was a question which the Education Department should take thoroughly in hand. Unless the health of the children was better looked after in our elementary schools, our system of education would keep them at a continued disadvantage in life. Again, he urged that they wanted continuation schools, and they wanted secondary schools; but they ought not to have the elementary schools mixed up with the secondary, otherwise, instead of enabling poor children to rise to the higher steps of the educational ladder, they would keep them back. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had spoken of his desire to ascertain the mind of Parliament on some of the subjects to which he had referred; but it should be remembered that they might fairly expect the Minister who had charge of the Education Department rather to lead Parliament on these questions than to follow it. The House wanted to know what the Minister of the Education Department had to say on these and cognate subjects; and he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had not gone so far into the whole matter as the House had a right to expect.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, that, as a Member of the Royal Commission on Education, he desired to express his concurrence with the views of the hon. Member for South Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe) as to the desirableness of something being done to impart scientific and technical instruction to the pupils attending our elementary schools. This was a matter which he had himself frequently urged on previous occasions. At the present time it was found that the labour market of this country was being to a large extent destroyed, so far as Britons were concerned, by the importation of skilled foreign labour into the country. This labour was obtained at a much lower price as compared with what was ordinarily paid for it in our manufacturing districts; and it was far in advance, as regarded scientific skill, of anything which we could offer in our schools here. There could be no doubt that one of the great deficiencies we had to meet at the present time was the want of scientific and technical education. He hoped the hon. Member for South Manchester would come before the Royal Commission on the Education Acts and give evidence on this important point. The Commission desired to obtain evidence such as the hon. Member could give. He had a confident hope that they would be able to make their Report within about a year of the present time.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that he, too, was a Member of the Commission, and therefore he could not discuss controversial topics. He congratulated the Vice President on the able and interesting statement he had made. He thanked the late and the present Government for the appointment of the Commission which he urged without apparent effect in the course of the debate on the Education Vote last year. Pressure was brought to bear with more success after the debate; and the gravity of the subjects inquired into, and the evidence taken upon them, had been quite sufficient to justify the appointment of the Commission. Evidence of a practical kind had been given by persons of actual experience, and all such evidence would be gladly received and carefully considered. It was satisfactory to find that the voluntary schools were not only holding their own but making progress. In Church of England schools the accommodation had risen from

  1749
  2,413,676 in 1883 to 2,515,770 in 1885; the average attendance had risen from 1,562,507 in 1883 to 1,637,426 in 1885, and the voluntary contributions of all denominations in 1885 amounted to £583,936. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the school board system, it must not be forgotten that there was all this voluntary agency, which was discharging a great deal of the educational work of the country. The Vice President strongly deplored that the House had so little time for the discussion of educational matters. If the Government had resisted the blandishments of Irish Members below the Gangway the House might have had more time this year. The past could not be retraced; but it was to be hoped that the House would in the future have more time to attend to the education of the country.

PUBLIC EDUCATION (SCOTLAND.)

  DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): Sir, I propose very shortly to lay before the House some words of explanation of the Scottish Educational Estimates, and regarding the progress of education during the past year. The House will notice that the total amount set down in the Estimate is £524,263. This involves an increase on the Vote of the previous year of £21,214; and the whole amount, practically, of this increase arises from the augmented earnings of the scholars, who will, it is believed, in the year for which the Estimate is taken, earn £19,366 more than in the current year. If the cost is greater I am quite sure the House will be gratified, and will consider it exceedingly satisfactory to find that the increase goes out in increased earnings of grants. In respect of administration there is an apparent increase of cost; but it is apparent only. The salaries of the officers of the staff were previously alone on the Scotch Estimates, and on these salaries this year there is a reduction of £1,000 as the result of the reconstruction of the Office. The increase on the whole cost, or apparent real increase, is due to the fact that, the cost of the clerical staff was previously included in the English Vote. The English and Scottish branches, however, are now distinct; and the cost of the Scottish clerical staff, which is about £5,600, is
  1750
  now transferred from the English to the Scotch Vote, which explains the apparent increase on that head. When regard is had to the very large amount which requires to be disbursed by the Department—something exceeding £500,000 a-year—in very small sums in fulfilment of the conditions on which such grants are made, and after very careful verification, and when we consider the cost of correspondence—the grant being distributed to not fewer than 100 school boards after the necessary correspondence with the managers of more than 3,000 schools in all—and when we consider that besides there is the supervision by an inspecting staff numbering about 50, it will not be thought that the administration cost is large. It works out, I find, to about 1⅔ per cent. The business of the Scotch Education Department is now I carried on in Dover House, along with I those of the Secretary for Scotland and I the Lord Advocate; and it may be interesting to the Scottish Members to know that the number of the educational staff housed there is very nearly 50. There was recently some criticism of the expense of Dover House; but when it is I kept in view that there are throe Departments located there, and that the number in this Department alone is so considerable, I think it will be seen that any comparison between the cost of that Office and that of the Irish Secretary would be entirely misleading. In regard to the annual grants, it may be enough to say that the largest increase is in the amount which it is estimated will be earned by scholars in average attendance. This is partly caused by an increase of numbers, and I may quote one figure which I think will interest the House. In 1885 the increase on average attendance was as high as 5·12 per cent, being the highest increase from 1877 to 1883, down to which year large increases took place in consequence of the compulsory clause having only then come into full operation. It is not estimated that so high a rate of increase can be kept up during the current year—first, because it is higher than could be naturally expected to be kept up; and, secondly, because it is found by experience that there is a good deal of fluctuation. Taking the increase, then, not at 5·12, but at 3 per cent for the coming year, that would represent an increased attendance of 8,500 scholars.

  1751
  The Department would be glad to see a still larger increase; but it is satisfactory to find that the increase of average attendance is keeping very considerably ahead of the growth of the population, which is estimated at 1 per cent per annum. Not only has the average attendance increased, but each individual scholar has, year by year, earned increased grants, and the increase is expected during the coming year to amount to about 6d. In 1873 the grant per scholar was 9s. 10¾d., and that, recollect, was in voluntary schools, where presumably there were comparatively small numbers of the poorest class; but last year it rose to 18 s. 0½d., and for the coming year it is estimated at 18 s. 7d. The average attendance at evening schools has slightly decreased. Attention is being directed to the improvement of these schools, for the Department have recognized that they are capable of improvement, and in time it may be found that they can be useful on their present footing. We hope that the decrease will not be perpetual, and the Department have endeavoured to provide a remedy for any evils they see in these schools by the provisions of the new Code to which I shall hereafter shortly refer. Another item of increase results from the attempts which have been made to improve the attendance. About £600 of the grant is paid, in proportion to the average attendance at the public schools, directly in aid of the local rates. The Department expect, an increase on that item in certain parts of the Highlands where aid to local rates is most needed; and I may mention that a considerable portion of this increase results from the operation of a Minute which, it will be in the recollection of Scottish Members, was passed in 1885 as the result of a very interesting Report by a Commissioner sent down by the Department in compliance with a recommendation made by the Crofters Commission. The pressure of the education rate in some parts of the Highlands was found to be very heavy. The Department considered the best mode of meeting that difficulty, and they made provisions under which, instead of making a mere payment by way of money irrespective of attendance, and finding that irregularity of attendance was the great evil in these Highland parishes, they made the increase of grant proportionate to the increase of attendance.
  1752
  It was doubted in some quarters whether, considering the circumstances of the people and the conditions of distance and weather in these districts, it would be possible for much advantage to be taken of this arrangement; but by the increased efforts of the school boards to earn the grant, and the increased zeal to diffuse education, a very material addition has been awarded to these Highland schools, and so far as it has gone the results are very satisfactory. Additional grants have been earned under the Minute by 137 schools out of 201 inspected thus far. The total number of schools in these localities is 685, and 9,425 scholars have earned these extra grants, of whom nearly 4,000 have earned the highest rate that was possible, which I consider shows a very satisfactory state of things. The whole additional grant already paid on this head amounts to nearly £1,400, and it is anticipated that the total increase of grant on this head alone for the year will be about £4,000. The Minute also offered certain other advantages to schools in the Highland districts which give higher instruction. So far only two schools have availed themselves of these advantages, and they have earned the higher grant to the amount of £40. The Minute also gave an extra grant to outlying boards to enable them to give to the more promising pupils the opportunity of taking advantage of such higher teaching as would enable them to rise in life. As regards the teaching of Gaelic and the employment of Gaelic speaking pupil teachers, the Minute has not had sufficient time to show any results; but the necessity, of course, of this provision for Gaelic teaching must be tested by the results it produces. When we turn to the results of the examinations during the past year one very satisfactory feature that we find is the increasing number of children over 10 years of age who are presented in the Standards suitable to their age. In 1875 only 34 per cent of those over 10 years of age were presented in the fourth and higher Standards, the other 66 per cent being presented in the lower Standards. But we find that in the nine years since that time there has been a steady rise in this respect, and last year 74·01 per cent passed in the higher Standards of those whose age was suitable for those Standards. So that, on a comparison with the English Estimate,

  1753
  I may mention that we can boast of a very considerably higher passing in that grade than in England, where the percentage is only 61·09. There is, therefore, a very considerable difference in favour of Scotland in this matter; but, on the other hand, it is only right to say that about 44,000 children pass the third or a higher Standard before they are 10, and it is feared that this may hold out some temptation to put many children on half-time work before they otherwise would. It is these quicker children who derive most benefit from remaining at school; and the Department hope that any success in passing those higher Standards before the children reach the age of 10 will not be too largely used to remove the children from school, except in cases of pure necessity. In this connection it is hoped that a good deal of provision for higher education will be found in Scotland, as in England, in the endowments which are being put under schemes by the Educational Endowments Commission. There are one or two other points not so entirely satisfactory as we could desire, although not controlled by the Department. It may now be said that there is a complete equipment for educating all children of school age in Scotland, and there is a school place for every child in the country who ought to be in attendance. Of the children of school age about 84 per cent ought to be in attendance; but we find, in fact, that at present there are only about 60 per cent in attendance. Now, that difference is thought to be too large, and every effort on the part of those who are locally administering the Acts should be directed to bringing the actual attendance up to what it ought to be. The defective attendance is found chiefly among the younger children. That is, no doubt, greatly to be regretted, because they are just at the age when they would profit most by education and by the formation at school of habits which would stand them in the best stead in after-life. Experience proved that where proper advantage was taken of the provision for the teaching of the younger children the results were seen afterwards throughout their whole educational course, and also throughout their lives. An item of £300 appears for the inspection of higher schools. This has been placed on the Estimates for the first time to enable the Department to carry out the provision of the
  1754
  Act of 1878. The matter was strongly pressed by various school boards; but difficulties were felt until last year by the Treasury, and were only partially overcome then. The Department has now entered upon the work, and about 20 burgh schools and some voluntary schools will be inspected under the direction of the Department during the coming year. The Department anticipate much benefit from this scheme, especially as the scheme has been very cordially received, I think, in all quarters; and they hope that it will lead to a better organization and a more satisfactory arrangement of the existing resources for higher education in Scotland. The scheme is one to be carried out gradually, and, therefore, this very moderate sum of £300 has been placed in the Estimate this year. To summarize the results of the operations of the Department down to this time, I may say that, on the whole, over £3,000,000 have been spent in providing schools, of which the rates have paid £2,100,000, and Parliament about £700,000. The annual expenditure in public schools amounts to £2 2s. 2½d. per child, or £952,950 in all the schools, of which Parliament provides about £400,000, the rates about £206,000, and school fees about £267,000. That works out thus—Of the sum of £2 2s. 2½d., the rates provide 10 s. 11¾d.; the school fees 13 s. 0½d.; and the grant 18 s. ½d. In conclusion, I desire to make a very few observations upon the Code of 1886. The changes in the Code are as follows:—The first substitutes class for individual examinations in Standards I. and II. This will allow greater freedom of organization, and lessen an irksome pressure both on teachers and children. It covers about 40 per cent of all presented. The second change consists of extending the class subjects. This will give to the scholars generally a better chance of getting more than the elements merely, and it will be better than specific subjects which affect only a few. The third alteration is the offer of a special grant for needlework, which has certainly suffered in some districts from neglect. The fourth change has for its object the improvement of evening schools by giving an opportunity to those attending them of taking the higher subjects in these schools. And the fifth group of changes consists of certain detailed changes in the subjects for examination,

  1755
  especially as regards history, geography, and arithmetic—changes which seem calculated to make the school curriculum have a more direct bearing and effect upon practical life. All these changes have been very carefully considered, and seem likely to meet many of the complaints which have been made to the Department. In regard to the work of; the Educational Endowments Commission, that work has been proceeding rapidly and satisfactorily. Of all the schemes submitted by the Commissioners to, and approved of by, the Department, only three have been challenged, and none has been rejected by Parliament. In all, nearly 130 schemes have been approved by the Department down to the present time, and these schemes deal with an approximate annual income of more than £70,000. About 50 more schemes, dealing with an approximate annual income of about £26,000, have been submitted to the Department, and now await its approval.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that, on the whole, the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was satisfactory; but he thought that a great deal might be done for the advancement of education in Scotland if greater attention were paid to the infant schools. The attendance at these schools was small as compared with England. The Lord Advocate had observed that a great deal had been done for education in the Highlands. A great deal, however, remained to be done. A beginning had been made, and that being so, he trusted that the educational needs of that part of the country would be met. He was glad to hear that no bad effect on the education of the Highlands had arisen from the difficulty, of which so much had been made, with regard to the payment of the school rates.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that though the Scotch and English Departments were divided into two branches, under two heads, yet the fact of there being one head over both showed that there was room for effecting greater uniformity in the Reports to Parliament than had existed that evening. To that end he would suggest that the form of the detailed Tables used by the Vice President for the English, but not for the Scotch Reports, should be made similar to that of the English. He complained of the frequent change of school books, which entailed
  1756
  so much expense on the parents of the children, and hoped something would be done to remedy the grievance so greatly felt by the removal of children from one school to another. Further, that the marks gained at one school should be allowed to accompany children going to another school.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid, he did not think they would ever have infant education on so large a scale in Scotland as in England, because in the English manufacturing towns there were dense populations who were unfit to attend to the education of their young children, and the consequence was that the infants were sent to school, not merely to get education, but to be out of the house, and out of the way. In Scotland, the schools being widely apart, young children could not be sent to school so regularly, as in the populous towns of England; nor did he regret it much, because many of the children he had seen at school would be all the better for another year of play in the open air. The earlier loss would be compensated by the later gain. The Lord Advocate had made no reference to higher and scientific education; but in Scotland they did not require such education less than in England. He would like to see established in the large towns such well-equipped technical schools as would induce working lads and apprentices to attend them in the evening; and he hoped the Scotch Education Department would do all they could to stimulate that kind of education in Scotland.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 264.]
(Mr. T. H. Balton, Mr. Thorold Rogers, Mr. Borlase, Sir John Lubbock.)

COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
Clause 1 (Limitation of extraordinary charge).
MR. BERESFORD HOPE: I rise, Sir, to propose that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I do not wish to

1757
enter into a discussion of the provisions of the Bill at this moment—some of them are very important, and yet there is a very strong feeling that the measure is being rushed through the House. The Bill has evoked considerable discontent. It is likely to lead to confusion; and for that reason, and also because of the want of consideration which is shown in the treatment of interests so vast as those it affects, it does not appear desirable to press it on at present. I am as ready as any one to confess the desirability of settling this question—indeed, I am most willing and anxious to enter into a fair and durable compromise on this question of extraordinary tithes; but a Bill like this, instead of being hurried through the House in the way it is sought to hurry it through, should be well considered and threshed out all round before being passed into law.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I hope the Committee will not consent to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. This question has not been rushed upon the country, or upon the House. The whole subject was very fully considered by a Committee of the House in 1881, and a considerable amount of evidence was taken upon it, and it has been very exhaustively discussed throughout the counties of Kent and Sussex—the two counties mainly interested—ever since. There has been considerable agitation and a great amount of feeling exhibited on the subject. Hon. Members representing Kent in the Conservative interest concur with hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House in their desire to deal with the question. The Select Committee which was appointed was not at all unfairly constituted, so far as regards the interest the right hon. Gentleman is supposed particularly to take care of in the House. Conservative Members for Kent and Sussex sat on it, and I am glad to say there was on all sides a disposition displayed to deal with it in a sensible and practical way. The whole question was considered by the Select Committee, and the result is the Bill which I hope the House will now deal with, so that it may be sent to "another
1758
place" to be passed into practical legislation.
MR. GREGORY: As I have taken an interest in this subject for some years, I am bound to say that I differ from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) who has moved to report Progress. I very much doubt whether he is well advised in the Motion he has made, and I say this though the political connection between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is very strong, he being my Representative in the University of Cambridge, and one of my constituents in the county I represent. The subject is not a new one by any means. I myself sat on a Select Committee with regard to it several years ago; and, as the result of my experience and information upon it, I must say it is desirable to deal with it in the interests of the Church itself. There are some Amendments which should be made in the Bill, and which I hope will be made; but, subject to those Amendments, I really do think that the Church itself would be well advised if it agreed to the reasonable compromise contained within the four corners of the measure. The subject the Bill deals with has given rise to ill feeling between the clergy and their parishioners, who ought to be their best friends, and it is desirable to set that ill feeling at rest. The Church may have to make some small sacrifice, I admit; but I cannot help thinking that it would be well advised in making that sacrifice in order to put itself on a stronger footing with those whom it has under its special charge. I think the Select Committee which sat to consider this subject has dealt with it in a fair practical and spirit. There is not much difference between this Bill and that which was proposed by the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent (Mr. Norton), particularly since it has passed through the Select Committee. I think we should proceed with the Bill, and that it should be sent to "another place," where the Church is strongly represented, and where the details will, perhaps, be more fully discussed than they can be here. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Motion and further delay the progress of the Bill.
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR): I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.

1759
Beresford Hope) will not persist in his Motion to report Progress. I was Chairman of the Select Committee; and, as such, I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we sat for several days; that the matter was fully considered; that numerous Amendments were made in the measure; and that, as a matter of fact, the Bill left the Committee as a fair and reasonable compromise for the solution of the existing difficulties. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory), who was a Member of the Committee, has pointed out the care it took in investigating the subject. The Committee was composed of Members of all sections of the House; and I think that at the close of their proceedings there was very little substantial difference between those Members. I hope, therefore, the Committee will be allowed to proceed with the clauses of the Bill.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: Before this matter is finally disposed of I should like to make a few observations. We must all recognize the labours of the Select Committee over which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. H. Bolton) presided. The hon. Gentleman near me (Mr. Gregory) has stated that the Members of that Committee endeavoured, to the best of their ability, to arrive at a solution of the question. No doubt that was so; but I must say that the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) for delay is not an unreasonable one, though, probably, looking at the state of the Committee, he may not be well advised if he persists in it. There can be no doubt that this Bill affects a considerable amount of property, and that it will considerably reduce the incomes derived from many benefices in Kent and Sussex. I am not saying whether or not that reduction is equitable; but I would point out that at the fag end of a Session, prematurely brought to a close, to be asked to consider a Bill that interferes with the interests of a large number of Corporations is a very serious matter. I say "Corporations," because not only will individuals be affected, but the benefices of which the incumbents enjoy the benefits only for their lives. Under the circumstances, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the Committee to delay the taking of such an important measure into its consideration. The
1760
evidence before us shows how undesirable it is to deal hurriedly with such a question as this. I am not saying whether or not it is desirable to take the extreme step which would be recommended by my right hon. Friend; but what I say is that a measure of this kind cannot be said to have been sufficiently debated and considered by the Committee as composed at the period at which we have arrived. It is not fair to ask the Committee to go on with the matter now, because the other House would have to consider it at the beginning of next week, when affairs will be still more critical and unsatisfactory than they are at present, and when it could hardly be expected that the House of Lords would have a proper opportunity of considering it. If the Bill goes up to the House of Lords under these circumstances, I do not think there would be any ground for complaint if they took a course which, under the circumstances, I should be sorry to see them take—namely, of placing themselves in opposition to this House. I would ask the hon. Member in charge of this Bill (Mr. T. H. Bolton) whether he thinks he is best discharging his duty towards those whom he represents here in pressing on the Bill at this particular period of the Session? The Bill is one of a contentious character, no doubt. No one can say that the matter is not highly contentious. It has been a subject of great contention. It is only because the Bill happens to be in the hands of a private Member that the assurance given by the Government as to not pressing forward contentious matter does not apply. But having said so much, I must submit to the Committee that while it is useless to divide unless there is a strong feeling in support of the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, yet I maintain that this is not a fair way of dealing with the interests of which I have spoken.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I wish to say a word or two in support of the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope). I have several letters here bearing upon this question, and I will venture to quote one or two of them, because they show a sense of injustice on the part of those who write at the provisions of this Bill. The measure affects the pecuniary

1761
interests of the titheowners, lay and clerical, in Kent especially, and in that county alone the pecuniary amount involved is £40,000 a-year. That is a great deal of money in a county like Kent. Well, one of these gentlemen writes to me, and says—
"I forward you my protest on behalf of the clergy of the Deanery of Hastings, of which I am rural dean. Had time been allowed we should have been able to add a protest from the other Deanery in East Sussex."
This gentleman protests against property being taken away from him and from other clergy without their having had an opportunity of going through the Bill and seeing what its effect would be. Other letters are from two rural Deaneries in Sussex, where hops are largely grown, protesting against the Bill. I do appeal to the sense of justice of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government whether he ought, in a matter of a most highly contentious character, to allow the Bill to be proceeded with; because he must know very well that even if we pass the Bill through Committee now, and pass the third reading stage to-morrow, there will hardly be time to carry it through all its stages in the House of Lords—certainly not without indecent haste. It seems to me that if we go on with the Bill now we are simply wasting the time of the House with legislation that cannot come to maturity, and that, at the same time, we are making an attack upon a large body of gentlemen whose incomes will be all but confiscated. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill not to proceed with it any further.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): The state of the case is this. There has been for many years an internecine war between the owners of this particular form of tithe and the farmers who pay it. The dispute was first dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Eye (Mr. Inderwick) in 1881, and this year three or four Bills have been introduced dealing with the question. Her Majesty's Government did not treat it as a Government question; but they agreed, through me, to the appointment of a Select Committee. We took care that the Committee should be appointed, and that it should be fairly constituted, all the different interests being represented upon it.
1762
[Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Were the titheowners represented?] Yes; we took care that witnesses were examined on behalf of the titheowners, and that others were examined on the part of the tithepayers. This Bill is the result of the deliberations of the Committee—not the unanimous result, but practically unanimous. Considering the difficulty there has been in settling this question, and the disputes that have taken place, even in the course of the present year—some of which have come before me as Secretary of State—I think the best plan would be to attempt to settle the matter by passing this Bill. I should be extremely sorry if the Bill were defeated.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I am intimately acquainted with the district to which this Bill applies, and I should like to say a word in reply to the the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). Having for many years taken an interest in this question, I can assure the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman that there is a very general desire in the county of Kent to see this matter settled, now that a chance has presented itself. The Bill is a very fair one, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be content with the protest he has made, and will withdraw further opposition to the progress of the measure.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I was not in the House when this matter first came up; but I will avail myself of this opportunity of expressing a hope that the Bill will be proceeded with. In the county I represent there is a strong feeling in favour of something being done to settle the question. Great pains were taken to make the Select Committee of a representative character. As to the questions which came before it, the proceedings, if not of an absolutely unanimous character, were, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has pointed out, of a practically unanimous character. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is, no doubt, perfectly open to receive Amendments which may be made from all parts of the House; but I may say that the constituencies of the counties chiefly affected by the Bill are perfectly satisfied with its proposals.
SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: In confirmation of what has

1763
fallen from the last speaker, I wish to say that both Liberals and Conservatives in that part of Kent where I live are strongly in favour of this question being settled. The Select Committee discussed the question with great fairness on both sides, and this Bill is the result of a compromise between the two parties. I think the time has come when this very burning question in the county of Kent should be satisfactorily settled.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers) declared that the titheowners were represented on the Select Committee. Well, I wish to state, most positively, that there was not a single titheowner represented. The Members of the Committee were, if not all, at any rate almost all, if not tithepayers themselves, representative of the tithepayers. The Committee consisted mostly of tithepayers from the hop-growing counties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he has said as to the titheowners being represented, because I declare that we are now acting behind the backs of the titheowners, and that they have never had an opportunity of considering what it is now proposed to do. I assert that, if they had had such opportunity, the whole of them would have protested against it as strongly as the few who have seen and examined the Bill have done. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have a false idea that the Committee called witnessses. They did not call a single witness.
MR. CHILDERS: The hon. Gentleman himself represented the titheowners most thoroughly. They could not have been better represented, and I must protest against the hon. Member's depreciation of himself.
MR. BERESFORD HOPE: I am afraid it is useless in this matter to contend against the feeling of the Committee; therefore, I will withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: The first Amendment I have on the Paper is as to the date at which the extraordinary charge shall cease. The clause says no additional rent-charge by way of extraordinary charge shall be charged after the 1st October, 1886; but I propose to leave out 1886, in order to substitute
1764
1887. The matter seems to me to be one affecting such large interests, that we ought not to impose an undue limitation in point of time. I trust the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, leave out the words "eighty-six," and insert the words "eighty-seven,"—(Mr. J. G. Talbot,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words 'eighty-six' stand part of the Clause."
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I hope the Committee will not assent to this Amendment. The object of the clause is to prevent the extension of this tax to fresh land, and the sooner this unjust extension is stopped the better. But, apart from that, the effect of altering the date would be to disarrange all the other dates of the Bill. At present, the clauses are symmetrical as they stand, and I hope their symmetry will not be interfered with. I trust the Committee will not assent to this alteration.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. H. Bolton) talks about an "unjust extension." I do not know what he means by that; it is begging the whole question. This tax is not more unjust than any other tax. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that these extraordinary tithes exist, and that their origin is due to an arrangement made at the instance of the tithepayers.
MR. GREGORY: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Talbot) wishes to extend the time at which this Bill shall come into operation to 1887. I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill may well assent to it, for the point in question has reference to hops, and I do not think it would make much difference if the date were changed, looking at the prospects of the crop. In the interest of the Church, I think it only reasonable that the Amendment should be adopted.
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR): The effect of the Amendment would be to postpone the action of the clause limiting the extraordinary charge for a year after 1st October, 1886. Well, I fail to see any reason for the proposed postponement. The Select Committee which Mr. Inderwick obtained, and of which he was

1765
Chairman, recommended that the clause should come into operation immediately, and all the clause proposes is that this principle should commence on the 1st October this year. The object of the clause is to put a stop to a very grievous state of things in these two counties, and it surely is not unreasonable to ask that it should come into operation this year.
MR. KIMBER: The effect of the 1st October being inserted as the time at which an extraordinary rent-charge in respect of fresh land brought under this exceptional cultivation should cease to be made will be this—that the arbitrators who will have to determine the value of the rent-charge will have a new state of circumstances brought before them by the arbitrary action of this House. The House first annihilates the rent-charge, and then gets the Land Commission to estimate the value of that annihilated charge. If the value is to be ascertained by arbitration, it ought to be ascertained upon the existing state of the property. The rent-charge ought to go on under the existing law, and its value under the existing law ascertained; but if you first annihilate the rent-charge, and then by subsequent clauses say the Commissioners must fix what its value is, it is obvious that the conclusion they will come to is that the value of the rent-charge is nothing.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Kimber) cannot have road the clause, for, if he had, he would not have made that speech. This clause applies to "any hop ground, orchard, fruit plantation, or market garden, newly cultivated as such." It affects fresh land, and not the old land under exceptional cultivation.
MR. KIMBER: That is no answer to my observation. The existing law gives a right to tax the cultivators, in cases where land is brought under this exceptional cultivation. The titheowners were entitled to the tax, in prospect, at all events. That prospect you destroy, and then, in subsequent clauses, you inconsistently provide for the valuation of that prospect. You even use the word "prospect." In the 3rd clause, which deals with the manner in which the capital value is to be ascertained, you say the Commissioners shall take into consideration, amongst other things—
1766
"The prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation in respect of which the said charge is imposed."
I certainly think my argument holds good.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: The first division in the Select Committee took place on this clause, and it was a very close division—5 to 6, I think, or something like that; the hon. Gentleman opposite will correct me if I am wrong. It was opposed by an hon. Member with whom I do not often have much in common—an hon. Gentleman who represents the Liberation Society—the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Ulingworth), and by myself, representing the Church of England. The hon. Member for Bradford moved that this clause should be left out, for he said—"What right have you to take away from the people of England the national property which they possess and hand it over"—to whom? Why, "to the Kent landowners." This is a question of handing over £30,000 a-year from the pockets of the present titheowners—poor professional men—to the pockets of the landowners, who, according to the Doomsday Book, have £3,000,000 a-year in Kent alone. That is the long and the short of the proposal. It is not a proposal to make things easy for the occupier; on the contrary, it is a landlord's Bill. It is a proposal to take from these poor professional men property which, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford says, is public property—though I call it the property of the Church of England—and hand it over to the landowners. We divided on this clause; but by a narrow majority of Kent and Herefordshire landowners who filled the Committee—forming 8 out of 16 of a Committee which the right hon. Gentleman says was such an impartial Committee—the proposal to omit the clause was rejected. This Clause 1 repeals the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836, which went on the principle of estimating the value of the tithes, whether on hops or on other things, and striking an average of seven years, and then declaring—"That being the average which this tithe is likely to produce, that shall be the tithe-rent charge which the land shall pay in future." Certain Kent landowners, at the time of the commutation in 1836,

1767
induced the House of Commons, greatly against Lord John Russell's wish, to allow the tithe upon hops to be separated from other titheable property and be put in a separate category, if the landowners wished it. Some did wish it, and some did not. There is a large part of Kent where there is no division between ordinary and extraordinary tithes, and no difficulty or ill-feeling between the tithepayer and the titheowner. If we want to get rid of agitation and to settle this matter, the way to do it is to do away with the distinction between hop tithe and other tithe—in fact, to merge the hop tithe rent-charge into the ordinary tithe rent-charge. By this section we simply relieve land—not land in a new district, but any land not at the present moment under hop cultivation—from paying this hop to the rent-charge in future. Hop cultivation, as everyone who knows anything of the subject is aware, is a movable cultivation. It is moved from one area to another—from one part of the farm to another—in periods of 10 or 15 years. The life of a hop garden is about 16 years on the average all over England. A farm will always have a certain area under hop cultivation, but it will not always be the same area. If you pass this clause, and take away the right that now exists of the titheowners to receive tithe rent-charge in respect of new hop gardens substituted for old, you at one induce the hop grower to substitute for his present hop garden a new acreage where there is no tithe rent-charge. What will be the result of that? Why, you will transfer 90 per cent of the hop tithe rent-charge from the pockets of the clergy to the pockets of the landowners. Hops will go on being cultivated on a farm all the same, but by this section you will prevent their being taken into consideration in the valuation. How can the Commissioners form a standard or computation of what the hop tithe to the rent-charge ought in future to be, if they are only to take the life of the existing hop garden? The life of an existing hop garden in some cases will be only one year, and in other cases only four years, and in very few cases more than five years; and if you prevent the Commissioners from taking into consideration the fact that the hop gardens are moved from one part of a farm to another, by
1768
saying that no new acreage shall be subject to the tax, you will make it impossible for the Commissioners to take into consideration anything but the life of the existing hop garden, and the duration of that cultivation on the particular piece of land is to be the number of years' purchase at which the capital value is to be assessed. [Cries of "Divide!"] It is no use crying "Divide!" You have begun to consider this complex subject at this late hour of night. We told you it was a complex subject, and you should not have entered upon its discussion at this hour, in a dying Parliament. Hon. Members opposite will pardon me if I beg them not to interrupt whilst we are discussing a subject of which most of them know nothing. There is no necessity for hon. Members who take no interest in this subject to remain in the House. The result of the clause will be to put £40,000 a-year in Kent at five years' purchase, and then having capitalized that sum to allow 4 per cent on the capital amount, so that you "will reduce the amount the titheowners will receive to between £5,000 and £10,000. The whole of that difference is to be put in the pockets of the landowners of Kent. Where else is it to go to? It will not be lost. It will not go to the occupiers. It will go into the pockets of the landowners; and I ask what right have these rich men to put their hand into the pocket of the Church or into the national pocket? I am perfectly astounded when I find Radicals—Radicals of the Radicals—and Irish Members proposing to take away property from one set of individuals who represent Church property, and not private property, and to put it into the hands of landowners. I insist that the present Radical Government are handing over the property of the Church to the landowers. The landowners will be the gainers. I say that if the titheowner is to be robbed and his property confiscated, for Heaven's sake let the confiscated property go into the public purse, and not into the hands of the landowners. I thought the hon. Member for Bradford spoke very well on that point when the question was before the House on the second reading. He said that, as far as he was concerned, he would enter a caveat against the robbery or confiscation that the Bill proposed, because, although he was no

1769
friend of the Church, he did not think that the landlords ought to be the heirs of Church property. These are the general reasons why I think this section should be omitted; but I wish also to add that, for the purposes of the Bill, it is surplusage. Everything can be carried out with perfect ease by subsequent sections without this confiscatory preliminary section.
Amendment moved, in page 1, to leave out Clause 1.—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
MR. NORTON: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton) has entirely misappehended the matter. If he had reserved his argument for the 2nd clause, which deals with the fixing of capital value of extraordinary charge, it would have been to the point. This clause is taken from the Bill of the Chairman of the Committee of 1880; but the real principle the hon. Member deals with is in the 2nd clause. I should like to refer also to the remark which has come from the other side—that the Select Committee was composed of Kent landlords. I am sorry to say that I cannot claim to be a Kent landlord myself. I farm my own land; and the only Kent landowner we have here, I think, is the hon. Member for St. Pancras. I think the hon. Member's (Mr. Stanley Leighton's) observations are somewhat misleading. He should be made aware of the exact position of the case; and if it is not taking up too much of the time of the Committee, I should like to say how this extraordinary tithe was originally fixed. When Lord Russell introduced the Commutation Act in 1836, he was led to deal with the tithe on fruit in the same way that he was dealing with other classes of tithe; but it was on the representation of the Kent Members that he agreed to this form of extraordinary charge that we are now dealing with. The course he then took has been found to work unsatisfactorily, and there is a general feeling throughout Kent and Sussex that the time has come when this rent-charge should be removed. I believe the Bill will deal with the matter in a satisfactory manner; and as time presses I hope it will receive consideration to-night.
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: This clause embodies part of
1770
the Report of the Select Committee of 1881, and as I was a Member of the Committee, and signed that Report, I cannot support the present Motion. The question was most thoroughly gone into by the Committee. I am inclined to take issue with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton) when he says that the Committee was a landlord's Committee. I am as much interested in this question as anyone, as I live in the midst of the district in which the agitation prevails. I know the difficulties of the question, and I may say that I support the clause not only in the interest of the tenant farmers but in the interest of the Church itself.
Question put—[Cries of "Aye, aye!"]
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONchallenged a division.
MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman name a Teller?
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Yes, Sir; the hon. Member for Cambridge Borough (Mr. Fitzgerald).
The Committee divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 5: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 134.)
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (Fixing of capital value of extraordinary charge).
MR. T. H. BOLTON: The Amendment which stands in my name is merely a verbal Amendment suggested by the Land Commissioners. I have no doubt the alteration is desirable, for the Commissioners may not be able to inquire into the capital value of the extraordinary charge in each case before the date in the Bill—namely, 1st April, 1887.
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 24 leave out "inquire into, and shall, on or before the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven," and insert "ascertain in each parish in England and Wales, and."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I wish to move to leave out the word "capital," and insert the word "annual," in lieu thereof, in line 1 of page 2. The object of the Bill is to find out what the value

1771
of the hop tithe is. Why, then, should you estimate the "capital value?" We want to know what the annual value is, and then let those who know the fixed annual value redeem it, as they can, under the Tithe Acts. There are special Acts for redeeming tithe. Now, this Bill only settles what the annual value is by a roundabout process—that is to say, by first settling the capital value. If my Friends around me are determined to have a Land Court to deal with this matter, let them have it; but let them endeavour to place the Land Court in a position to deal not with the capital value, but with the annual value. I warn them that after a time they will find Land Courts dealing not with rent charges, but rents. This principle may be turned against them, so let them, for their own sakes, take heed. The titheowners have the oldest interest in the land in Kent; the present landowners in that county are but mere mushroom squatters, compared to them. Let them be careful not to place in the hands of a Land Court the power of capitalizing rent-charges, in order to reduce them. It will be quite easy to adopt the same principle with regard to rents. Capitalize present rents at 10 or 20 years' purchase, and declare the future rent to be 4 per cent on the capitalized amount, and you will ruin the landowners in the same way as this Bill will ruin the tithe rent-charge owners. I move, therefore, that "annual" be there inserted, in place of "capital."
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the word "capital," in order to insert the word "annual,"—(Mr. Stanley Leighton,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'capital,' stand part of the Clause."
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, which is altogether inconsistent with the whole scope of the Bill. I do not propose to trouble the House with any further statement upon that matter.
Question put, and agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 2, after "farm," insert "on each;" and in line 3, leave out "said," and insert "the."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Manner in which capital value is to be ascertained).
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I now desire, as an Amendment, to move to leave out "collection, rates," in page2, lines 7 and 8. It is proposed, in estimating the net annual value, to deduct from the gross annual value the cost of collection and cost of rates. Why, Sir, the commuted rent-charge will have to pay the cost of collection and the cost of rates. By the Tithe Commutation Act, the tithe rent-charge in lieu of tithe is liable to pay rates. How singularly absurd and unjust it is, first of all, to deduct that from the gross value you are about to capitalize, when the amount you intend to substitute for that amount is liable both to the cost of collection and the cost of rate. If what you are going to substitute for the present tithe rent-charge is to be subject to the cost of collection and the cost of rates, you should not in the first instance deduct from the gross value the cost of collection and the cost of rates. But supposing, by a subsequent clause, you declare the substituted charge shall not be liable to rates, then you take £40,000 a-year in that alone from the rateable value of the county.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words "collection, rates."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. T. H. BOLTON: It is very difficult to deal with the hon. Gentleman. All the Amendments he is proposing were proposed and fully considered in the Select Committee. He is now reopening the whole question. He is, so far as I can see, proposing Amendments for no other purpose than to embarrass the Committee. There is an Amendment to be proposed presently by the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent (Mr. Norton), which I shall be prepared to accept, and, as the hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton) will see, that will get rid of the difference between us.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he also opposed the Amendment.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: You deduct the charge for collecting, as though the commuted rent-charge would come into the pockets of its owners

1773
without the difficulty of collection. It is said it is all provided for, because later on in the Bill it is proposed that this rent-charge shall not be liable to rate. This will then become a ratepayers' question, for £40,000 will be taken out of the rateable value of the county. If this rent-charge is to be no longer rateable, as the hon. Member proposes, I should like him to meet the ratepayers' argument as to this £40,000 a-year being taken out of the rates; but he has left wholly unanswered the question of "collection."
Question put, and negatived.
MR. GREGORY: I wish to move the omission of words requiring the Commissioners, in estimating the capital value of the charge, to take into consideration—
"The right of the cultivator to discontinue such special cultivation at any time, and thereby to cause the suspension of the said charge."
The clause, when altered as I propose, will require the Commissioners to take into consideration, among other things, the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation in respect of which the charge is imposed. The words I propose to strike out are either surplusage or are mischievous to the titheowners, and the matter which the clause deals with is sufficiently provided for by other clauses.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 12, 13, and 14, to leave out the words—
"The right of the cultivator to discontinue such special cultivation at any time, and thereby to cause the suspension of the said charge."—(Mr. Gregory.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. T. H. BOLTON: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with me so fairly, that I should be anxious to meet any suggestion of his if I could possibly do so consistently with the interests of the Bill. But the hon. Gentleman is not quite correct in saying that the special fact which this clause deals with is sufficiently provided for by the other clause to which he has referred, directing the valuers to take into account the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of this special qualification, That
1774
portion of the Bill applies not to the power of the payer to suspend the charge at his will and pleasure, but to the reasonable prospects of the continuance of the crop, having regard to competition and many other local or other circumstances; but in regard to this rent-charge the payer has the arbitrary right to suspend the payment by ceasing for the time being this particular cultivation. When he resumes the cultivation, the charge again arises; and this is a very important element that materially affects the value of the property, and it is right that that element should be taken into account. It is taken into account by prudent persons when they buy this kind of property, and it should be taken into account by the valuers in estimating the value of it. I regret that I cannot accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman; but I may say that the Amendment the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Norton) has on the Paper, with special reference to the clause that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Gregory) objects to, will be inserted, so that all the circumstances will be considered by the valuers.
SIB RICHARD WEBSTER: I think there is a good deal in the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Gregory). If this clause remains as it is, the prospect of the cultivation will be a subject-matter distinct from
"The right of the cultivator to discontinue such special cultivation at any time, and thereby to cause the suspension of the said charge."
The view of the hon. Member who moves the Amendment is that, in valuing, the prospect of continuance or discontinunace should be taken into consideration, and in that there must be involved the question whether the cultivator is likely to discontinue it. If the valuer should be of opinion that, in the ordinary course, a particular mode of cultivation will be continued for, say, three or four years, it will be scarcely fair that the value should be further cut down, became of the abstract right of the cultivator to discontinue the special cultivation at any time. I think the Committee should assent to the Motion, and omit the words objected to by the hon. Member.
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I do not agree with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment (Mr. Gregory),

1775
that these words are surplusage. As to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Bolton), he stated that if the cultivation were discontinued, the charge would cease, and when resumed the charge would resume. Well, Clause 1 of the Bill destroys that position altogether.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: No; it does not destroy the right with reference to land actually in the special cultivation. It only destroys the potential charge with reference to land not in that cultivation. The grower can terminate the liability at his will, and that is a most vital and material element. I can instance a case that occurred near Sittingbourne, in which the tithepayer chose, by his own will and pleasure, though it inflicted on him a heavy loss, to grub up valuable hop gardens, and suspend the existence of the charge. Surely, in assessing the value of the land, the valuers should take that especially into account. All the evidence taken by Mr. Inderwick's Committee especially referred to that as a material element in ascertaining the value of extraordinary tithe, and to exclude that would be to induce an exaggerated and unfair value to be put on the property. The object is to put a fair value upon the tithe, having regard to its character and incidence and uncertainty—to fix the capital value, and put that value as a charge on the land, giving fixed interest thereon, as a rent-charge to the tithe receiver in lieu of the uncertain rent-charge that he at present receives. Unless that material element is particularly taken into account, I say that an unfair rate of compensation might be given that would be unfair to the tithe-payer and leave the grievance that we are endeavouring to redress more intense than it is at present. I consider this vital to the Bill. If it is surplusage, it cannot do any very great harm. If, as the hon. Member says, this is to be taken into account in another clause, surely it can do no harm to make the fact that it is to be taken into account clear and apparent. When the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Richard Webster) appeals to me to know whether these words have a special meaning, I admit that they have, and I say the special meaning ought to be clear in the section. This material incident connected
1776
with the value of this property ought to be taken into account.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Whether or not these words—
"The right of the cultivator to discontinue such special cultivation at any time, and thereby to cause the suspension of the said charge,"
are really included elsewhere, I put it to the Committee that it would be wise to adopt the special standard without calling attention to the abstract right.
MR. NORTON: It seems to me that the words of the clause requiring the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation to be taken into account cover the whole ground. I think if the hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras will be satisfied with them, all the requirements of the case will be met.
MR. KIMBER: The spirit and scope of the Bill is a very fair one, the endeavour being to arrive at a mode of determining what is the value of the extraordinary rent-charge as between the titheowner and landowner, or other person interested. We erect a tribunal called a Commission. Surely it would be sufficient to direct that Commission to take into consideration all the circumstances that it would be fair to have considered. But what is the animus of the machinery of the Bill? It starts with a one-sided consideration altogether. It directs the Commissioners to take into consideration a series of circumstances all on one side, and so excludes the consideration of other circumstances unless they can be brought forward under the general words—"and any other special circumstances applicable to the farm or parcel of land under consideration." The words, the excision of which the hon. Member for the East Grinstead Division of Sussex (Mr. Gregory) has moved, I agree, cover an important circumstance—that is, that the cultivator has the right to discontinue the cultivation that subjects him to the extraordinary rent-charge. No doubt, that is right; but the Commissioner can consider that circumstance without his attention being especially drawn to it. What is the Commissioner to think the meaning of an Act of Parliament drawing his special attention to a circumstance that is already the law of the land in the Act of 1836? He will think he has to give special weight to that circumstance,

1777
but is not to give weight to the right the titheowner would have had, had it not been for the confiscatory Clause 1, as against the right to charge extraordinary tithe on any land that might be brought under hop cultivation. This is a forcible illustration of the injustice I pointed out when speaking on Clause 1. If the Commissioners are to have, by solemn Act of Parliament, their special attention drawn to what is, in fact, an argument in favour of one side, they ought at least to have their attention drawn to the argument on the other side. That is only justice. We are not sitting here to look solely after the interests of those—to use the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. T. H. Bolton's) words—"in whose behalf he has brought forward this Bill," but to look after the interests of all those who are entitled to justice at the hands of the Committee in the matter. I ask the Committee whether they think it fair that they should, on the one side, tell the Commissioners to take into consideration the fact that the tenant may cease his cultivation, and not to bear in mind that he has lands which might be taken into cultivation to the benefit of the titheowner? If the one set of circumstances is taken into consideration and not the other, I cannot conceive a greater instance of onesided justice. We ought to leave the Commissioners free in the matter to consider both sides.
THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir EDWARD REED): I am surprised at the contention on the other side of the House in favour of this Amendment. I happen myself to be a fruit grower in Kent, and I can inform the Committee that the nuisance to which I have been subjected through this extraordinary tithe has been absolutely intolerable. I have actually put land out of cultivation to save myself the endless correspondence, worry, and trouble connected with this tithe. It is now said that, under this clause, the Commissioners shall not have their attention directed to my right to discontinue this special cultivation. The Bill has a right to provide for a distinct recognition of my absolute right over and above all other circumstances that the Commissioners may take into consideration—my absolute right to withdraw my land from cultivation and escape the trouble of this charge.
MR. KIMBER: The Bill provides for it in the words—
"The prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation in respect of which the said charge is imposed."
SIR EDWARD REED: If these words are left out of the Bill, a consideration of most vital importance will be lost sight of.
SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: I am sorry to hear what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman. I sincerely trust he has spoken as a Member of the House who happens to own some of these grounds, and not on behalf of the Government. No one can deny that there is, on the part of both sides of the House, an anxious desire to settle this question, and that without recrimination, so that when the Bill is passed everyone shall think that justice has been done. It has been pointed out, on the other side, that these words, "continuance or discontinuance," will cover everything that is possible; and I think that in the interests of peace, and to settle the matter without bitterness, it would be well to leave the words pointed to in the Amendment out of the Bill. You have the words "continuance or discontinuance," and they are all you want.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: As soon as the land of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) goes out of hop or fruit cultivation, there is no more tithe on it; but if you pass this Bill in its present form you will always have a tithe on it. That is what the Bill does—it confirms the extraordinary tithe on lands which may never again grow hops. As to what is said with regard to the right of the planter to transplant hops, the titheowners are willing to accept the chance of the farmers grubbing up their hop grounds. With regard to the alleged objectionable nature of this tithe, all experience proves that, notwithstanding the complaints made on the score of worry and trouble and hindrance, there has been of late years a considerable increase in the area of land under hop cultivation.
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR): The clause seta out a number of things which it says are to be taken into consideration. The clause does not deal with the "continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation," but with the "prospect of

1779
the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation." What is the meaning of that? Why, that the Commissioner will have to look at the crops, examine the land, and consider, from the competition in the neighbourhood and all the facts before him, the possibility or impossibility of the continuance of this special form of cultivation, and will have to consider whether it is likely to continue for a year, two years, or three years. From the look of the crops and the circumstances of the case, he will be able to say whether it is likely to be discontinued. What are the other words? They refer to a totally different thing—to the right possessed by the cultivator, of his own will, at any moment to discontinue this cultivation. These words, "the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance," do not include that right, because the prospect there set forth is that prospect which the Commissioner can see for himself and form an opinion on from the condition of the land and the circumstances of the case. The right of the cultivator is a thing the cultivator can prove. He can come to the Commissioner and tell him what his right is; and if he can show that the Commissioner ought to take it into account, it is obviously an additional element. I submit that this right of the cultivator to discontinue the cultivation is not included in the words "prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of such cultivation."
MR. GREGORY: We must consider what would be the position of the parties before an arbitrator. I venture to say that, with these words in the clause, the party claiming the tithe would be placed at great disadvantage. The payer would say to the arbitrator—"You have not only to take into consideration the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the cultivation, which involves every consideration of the right of continuance, but you have to take into consideration the right of the cultivator to discontinue if he chooses; you are especially directed in this Act to take that into consideration; that is immediately put before you by statute; that must be the basis of your award; you must find on that." That would be a strong argument. I should be very sorry to have to make a claim against a client of the hon. and learned Attorney General if
1780
the hon. and learned Gentleman had such a weapon as that in his hand.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): If this matter be reconsidered, I think the simpler plan would be to have a definite consideration of value for property at large. I would suggest, as a compromise, that the words should be left in, and that the word "including" should be inserted after the word "imposed," in line 12.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I am quite willing to accept that suggestion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) withdraw his Amendment?
MR. GREGORY: Yes. It is difficult to see the scope of the Amendment at present; but it seems to be the opinion of the Committee that this should be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, after the word "imposed," to insert the word "including."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."
MR. GREGORY: I do not object to this Amendment; but, if it stands, it should be followed up by something else.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I understand that my hon. Friend accepts the Amendment.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I submit to the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 14, after the word "charge," to insert the words "the prospect of the substitution of other land on the same farm for such cultivation."—(Mr. Norton.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. KIMBER: I beg to move, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 16, after the word "advised," the insertion of the words "or requested." The object of the Amendment is to provide that if any of the three parties—the landowner, the tithepayer, or the titheowner—desire to be heard, they ought to be heard; and it shall not be left to the Commissioners to decide, behind their backs, upon such advice as they have received, it does not matter from whom.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to insert, after the word "advised," the words "or requested."—(Mr. Kimber.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I think there are objections to this proposal. I do not see any necessity for it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Interest on capitalized value of extraordinary charge to be until redemption a first charge on land).
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I will merely move the Amendment, of which I have given Notice, because I think it is a proper way to deal with the matter. The tithe rent-charge on hops ought now to be merged in the ordinary tithe rent-charge, as was done in all those parishes where the landowners did not insist on a distinction being made at the time of the commutation. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 30, after the word "charges," to insert the words "the rent-charge in lieu of Extraordinary Tithe Rent-Charge as settled by the said Land Commissioners shall be apportioned by them over the land in every parish suitable to hop cultivation and merged in the Ordinary Tithe Kent-Charge."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: This proposal was discussed over and over again in Committee, and the hon. Member is aware that it was, as with many other matters that he brought before the Committee, absolutely impossible to do what he proposed. One of the most experienced lawyers in the House, the hon. Member for the East Grinstead Division of Sussex (Mr. Gregory), pointed out the difficulties which would arise. You would have to go on a rambling commission over a large area to find out what other land would be fitted for the cultivation of hops, and you would be landed in a very great difficulty. Some farms are situated in several parishes, so the consequence would be that you would confer the tithes belonging to one clergyman in one parish on two or three other clergymen who have nothing whatever to do with them. The hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton) seems to think it his duty to fire off all the
1782
speeches in this House which he delivered in the Committee. Happily, however, I can tell the House that this is the last of them.
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I have always objected strongly to what is termed the extraordinary tithe. I believe that if this Bill becomes the law of the land, the term will disappear altogether.
MR. NORTON: We have already passed Clause 2, and it is quite impossible to go back now.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: My next Amendment is a mere verbal alteration. The particular land is quite covered by the other words of the clause, as will be seen by reference to the ordinary language of an Act of Parliament.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the words "parcel of."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
MR. GREGORY: I have to propose an addition to the clause in respect to the mode of recovering the rent-charge. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 19, after the word "conditions," to insert the words "or by entry upon a perception of the rents and profits of the land subject to such rent-charge."—(Mr. Gregory.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. NORTON: I beg to move the insertion of my sub-section as an Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, after line 19, to insert—"6. The said rent-charge shall not be subject to any Parliamentary, parochial, county, or other rate-charge or assessment."—(Mr. Norton.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): That Amendment will hardly do. It would be better to leave out the word "Parliamentary."
MR. NORTON: The word "Parliamentary" was put in by the Land Commissioners.
Amendment proposed, to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "Parliamentary."—(Mr. Childers.)
Question, "That the word 'Parliamentary' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
Question, "That the words proposed, as amended, be added to the Clause," put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Redemption of charge).
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I propose my next Amendment, which is merely verbal.
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 41, to leave out the words "ex parte the persons paying it," in order to insert the words "in the matter of the landowner and the titheowner,"—(Mr. T. H. Bolton,)
—instead thereof.
Question, "That the words 'ex parte the persons paying it' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 42, leave out "him," and insert "them."
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I will now move my next Amendment, which is made at the suggestion of the Land Commissioners.
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 2, leave out from "section" to end of line 4, and insert "the Tithe Commutation Acts."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Redemption in case of settled land); and Clause 7 (Charge to be borne by landlord) separately agreed to.
Clause 8 (Expenses of Land Commissioners).
MR. T. H. BOLTON: The Amendments which I propose to this clause, at the suggestion of the Land Commissioners, would make the clause read thus—
"The Commissioners, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, may require the overseers of any parish to supply such information
1784
as to the extraordinary charge (if any) in such parish as they the said Commissioners may consider necessary."
On the Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 5, line 11, leave out "expenses of the;" and in line 12, leave out from "be paid out of any money applicable to the," and insert—
"Require the overseers of any parish to supply such information as to the extraordinary charge (if any) in such parish as they the said Commissioners may consider necessary."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 (Expenses of valuers).
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I propose that this clause should be amended in two particulars, at the suggestion of the Secretary to the Treasury. The Amendments fall into two portions. The omission of the word "land" is merely a verbal Amendment. The term "Commissioners" is used throughout the Bill in reference to the Land Commissioners. The first Amendment is the omission of the word "land."
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 14, to leave out the word "land."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
Question, "That the word 'land' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: The next Amendments are to provide for the expenses under the Act, so as to relieve the Treasury from any liability, and I move them at the request of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 14, after "may," insert "employ valuers and other persons to assist them in carrying out this Act, and may, with the approval of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, provide for all expenses incurred by the Land Commissioners in carrying out the provisions of this Act, and shall, with the approval of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, fix."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Has the hon. Member considered whether "shall" is the right word to use? Will not "may" be sufficient?
MR. T. H. BOLTON: The word has been selected by the Secretary to the Treasury, who impressed it on me that

1785
I should try and get the clause so amended.
Question put, and agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 5, line 18, leave out "between," and insert "by;" and in line 19, after "landowner," insert—
"And shall be recoverable in like manner as the expenses of and relating to an apportionment under 'The Tithe Commutation Acts.'"
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 (Filing of certificates of Commissioners); Clause 11 (Definitions); and Clause 12 (Short title) separately agreed to.
Preamble agreed, to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

SHOP HOURS REGULATION (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 216.]
(Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Burt, Mr. E. Macnaghten, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Rathbone.)

COMMITTEE ON RE-COMMITMENT.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I only wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask one or two questions of the Secretary of State (Mr. Childers). I do not wish to make a Motion to delay the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Lubbock) who is in charge of this measure. I wish to ask how is this Bill to be worked, because we are imposing certain restrictions upon all shops named in the Bill, and though the Secretary of State has certain powers vested in him, he has no officers by whom the powers will be exercised? I want to know whether it is intended to send out the Factory Inspectors to work the Bill, or what it is that is really meant to be done? There is no reference to the Factory and Workshop Inspectors in the Bill. There are very stringent regulations about shop hours; but there is one particular clause—the 2nd clause, I think—where it provides that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that in any parts
1786
of a shop it is necessary, owing to press of work, to grant relaxations, the Secretary of State may grant such relaxations. It is true that this is taken from the Factory and Workshop Act; but there the right hon. Gentleman had some vestige of a machinery provided by the Act, and I want to know how, under the Bill, is he to be guided in making a relaxation, or in enforcing it, because he is made responsible for the whole thing? Then I am quite sure that my hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock) will excuse me for saying that I find great fault with the Bill on another ground. The Bill, as drawn, is to be in force in every shop throughout the whole of London and elsewhere; but when the shopkeeper has brought it for a halfpenny or a penny, and has got, as he thinks, the whole of it in his hands, he is referred to a very large measure which costs much more money, and has to pick out a series of clauses from the Act of 1868 to find out whether he comes under them or not. I do think it is a very great pity that those sections of the larger Act which are involved have not been put into the Schedule of this Bill, so that anyone who bought the Bill might see at once how he stood. I do not think the Bill can go through its final stages now; and therefore I hope my hon. Friend will take this into his consideration before to-morrow, and will, on Report, specify in the Schedule those sections of the Act of 1868 which are referred to. It would be much better if that were done. It would not take five minutes to draft the Schedule, and I hope the hon. Member will not object to give some assurance that he will consider that question, at all events, before the next stage to-morrow. I desire to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he means to work this Bill?
THE SECERTARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): Mr. Speaker, Sir, when the Bill was read a second time I pointed out this Proviso in the clause, and said that, although we thought very highly of the object aimed at by the Bill, I certainly would not assent to that Proviso, because I saw that it was absolutely unworkable, and was one which would require the appointment of an army of Inspectors, and a very efficient machinery. That, I think,

1787
will be apparent to the House, if the whole of the shops are subject to inspection. What I will propose, therefore, is this. The Proviso in the 3rd clause is absolutely unworkable, and I should propose to omit it altogether, and to insert instead certain of the clauses in the Factory and Workshop Act. I think the suggestion to put the clauses in the Schedule might be done by tomorrow, and would do no harm. Then, Sir, I propose to adopt one or two of the Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), who defines, I think, more accurately than is here done, what the employment should be. In the Bill, the wording of the definition of the persons affected by the Act is—"Any person employed in or about or in connection with a shop." I am afraid that the words "in connection with a shop" are too wide, and might include a number whom we never intended should be included. I therefore propose to alter these words. The only other change I should propose that my hon. Friend should make is in the clause of all others to which I alluded on the second reading, the clause which would practically exclude public-houses from the operation of the Bill, and which would enable young people under 18 to be employed for an indefinite time in such establishments. In opposing that clause, I do so because I think we are justified in protecting all classes of young people in this matter. Therefore, in Clause 8, I shall propose to insert words which shall not exclude, as now, places where drink is sold on the premises. These are the only Amendments I would propose, and these, I think, will bring the Bill into workable shape. I am afraid I cannot assent to the additional clauses put on the Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). They would affect the entire Bill, and it would be impossible to pass a law compelling shopkeepers to shut their shops against their will at a particular hour; therefore I could not assent to that proposal of my hon. Friend. As to the question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), I think that persons coming within the operation of the Act must be left to the protection usually afforded to everyone against evil treatment. I certainly cannot for a moment consent to make the
1788
Home Office responsible for the inspection, or for the carrying out of every provision in this Bill. With these explanations I hope the House will agree to the Motion to go into Committee.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I will consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and, in the meantime, I shall be very glad if the House will allow the Bill to pass through Committee to-night.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I thought, when my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) rose, that he was going to object to our proceeding with this Bill altogether at this stage, and as he has not done so, and as my right hon. Friend who was to have done so (Sir James Fergusson) is not present, I intend to do so now. It seems to me that to legislate on this subject, at this period of the Session when the House is in extremis, is a positive absurdity. I do not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill at all. I believe the merits of the Bill to be extremely small; and so far as I am acquainted with the views of tradesmen in that part of England which I have the honour to represent, they are decidedly against this Bill. It does not apply in any way to those tradesmen who are in the habit of serving the upper classes; but it does apply to those tradesmen who serve a humbler class, and places these tyrannical, these absurd, restrictions upon them. It is almost incredible that anyone calling himself a Liberal, or a Member of the Liberal Party, should support these proposals in any shape whatever. Now, I said I was not going to take up the time of the House discussing the merits of the Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Very well, Sir, "Hear, hear!" But it is high time you did consider its merits, because it is such a Bill as should never have been brought before the House at all. It has been referred to a Select Committee, and I do not know that hon. Members opposite have ever read one word of the evidence taken by that Committee. The principal objection to the Bill has been stated by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and by the Home Secretary. What did they say? The Home Secretary admitted that the subject was encompassed with difficulties. My right

1789
hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) made certain suggestions to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary answered, these in a speech of such a confused nature, that I am quite sure no one could understand it. First of all, there was the question of Inspectors, and whether Inspectors were to be employed or not. The Home Secretary, who is a principal Leader of the Party of the "shirk and surrender" policy—[Cries of "Oh!"] Well, I did not give the Party that name. It was given to that Party by a distinguished Member of the Liberal Party—a late Member of this House—the Hon. Mr. Brett. It was he who gave the name of "shirk and surrender" to the policy pursued by the present Government. Well, on the suggestion being made, that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, the right hon. Gentleman immediately granted the Committee. The Bill was sent to the Committee, and witnesses were examined, and a Report was presented to the House which is now on the Table. And what does the right hon. Gentleman now say? He made a number of suggestions which he said he was about to carry out in Amendments to the Bill. But as we see these Amendments before us, how are we ever, now, at this late period, when the second reading of the Appropriation Bill has been before the House, and when I see hardly more hon. Members present than constitute a quorum, how are we ever now to decide on a question of this important nature, and particularly in the absence of my right hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson), whose claims and demands on his time he could not resist? Sir, I say it is an unfair advantage which the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) has taken, in bringing on this Bill at this time, and at this hour, when it is already five minutes to 12. I say it is an abuse of the Forms of this House that we should be asked to consider a question of this importance now. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Manchester—"That this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee."
MR. LEWISseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I had hoped we might have heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) some observations which would show that, in his belief at any rate, the Bill would have the benevolent effect which he anticipated when he introduced it to the House. Now, Sir, I do not go as far as my right hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) in his denunciation of this Bill—
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I do not denounce the Bill; I only deounce the inopportune time of bringing it no.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg pardon; I misunderstood my right hon. and learned Friend. But the hon. Member for the University of London introduced the Bill with an object with which all of us would agree—namely, that of rendering the work of assistants in shops, and especially of young persons, more in accordance with the dictates of humanity. Now, this Bill was read a second time, because the House was certainly in agreement with that principle, and desired as far as was possible to see it carried into effect. It has since been referred to a Select Committee, which Select Committee has taken a good deal of evidence on the subject; and so far as I can gather from the Report of that Select Committee, and from the speech of the Home Secretary, this Bill is now reduced merely to a kind of "counsel of perfection," which is to be put in force if the public opinion of those interested agrees that it shall be put in force. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has very properly said that it is not possible, seeing that this Bill applies practically to all shops all over the country, to appoint an army of Inspectors to see that its provisions are carried out. As that is not contemplated, the provisions of the Bill

1791
are practically left to be carried out by the goodwill of two sets of persons—because there will be no common informers—the shopkeepers and those employed by them. If the shopkeeper be cruel enough to transgress the provisions of the Bill, certainly he will not inform against himself; and if the shop assistant desired to do so, he dare not inform. And why? Because if he did he would be dismissed. Therefore, Sir, the benevolent object, as I fully admit it to be, of the hon. Member for the University of London will, I fear, be defeated, for the simple reason that there will be no one to see to the provisions of the Bill being carried out. Now, I do not wish to stop the progress of this Bill, and I should not advise my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to divide against it; but I must say that I think that considerable responsibility rests with the Government of the day in this matter. The Bill in its principle, as I have said, is a good Bill; but can the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department say that he has any real belief that its provisions will be carried out? If he has not, is it not the business of the Government, or of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) in charge of the Bill, to propose some means by which to ensure that these provisions will be carried out? If no such provisions are in the Bill, and if such provisions cannot be devised, is it not getting Parliament to legislate for a matter with which it really cannot deal, and leading the people to believe in the utility of a law with a most beneficent object, but which will not be carried into effect? That does not seem to me a satisfactory position in which to leave the question, and I should hope that the Home Secretary may be able to state to the House that it is not to be left as he seemed to leave it in his speech, and that there is some better reason to believe that the Bill will be carried into effect than the hope that the shopkeepers will inform against themselves, or that the assistants, at the peril of discharge, will inform.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Mr. Speaker—Sir, I do not propose inspection, or the appointment of an army of Government Inspectors. But I think we may look to the Early Closing Associations, and that we may partly rely upon the great competition among shopkeepers themselves,
1792
and that they may be expected to keep an eye upon one another. The great majority of shopkeepers regret very much that a small minority keep open, and thus compel them to keep open also, very much longer than they would themselves desire; and the opinion expressed by witness after witness before the Select Committee was that the shopkeepers who closed early would themselves see that the others conformed to the law. At present, there are many cases in which young persons are apprenticed to shopkeepers, who then keep them working for a great number of hours. Now, as the law stands, the parent has no power of interfering in these cases; but this Bill would give him that power, and there was a general opinion that the very existence of an Act of this kind would, like the Bank Holiday and some other Acts, have a considerable effect on public opinion. The result of the whole evidence was summed up by the Committee to be that, while admitting there would be a certain amount of difficulty, still the Bill would have a beneficial effect. With the single exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson), who admitted the evil, but was afraid that the Bill would not have the whole effect which the Committee desired, the whole of the rest of the Committee agreed in their Report, in which they stated that the Bill would have a considerable effect. I trust, Sir, that under these circumstances the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) will withdraw his opposition.
MR. LEWIS: Sir, I oppose proceeding with this Bill on two or three grounds; and, first, I do so on the ground stated by my right hon. and learned Friend below me (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). In all my experience of the practice of this House it is entirely without precedent that the course now pursued should have been taken by the Government on this occasion. In the first instance, they have laid down a self-denying ordinance absolutely necessary in the present circumstances of the House—namely, that they would not only not press any contentious legislation of their own, but would discourage contentious legislation on the part of non-official Members. It is an à fortiori case. If it be wrong for the Government

1793
to force contentious Business on the House, Business which is only partly completed, it is still less decent for any private Member to do so. It is not right, under our present difficult circumstances, that those who remain here to assist in carrying out Parliamentary duties during the few remaining days or hours of the Session, should be asked to consider contentious measures brought forward by non-official Members. We find that although the House has been crowded until a few days ago, we have now a very sparse attendance. It is already past 12 o'clock, and yet, in these circumstances, at the close of this Parliament, we are called upon to push this very curious Bill through the House. It seems to me that the ground my right hon. and learned Friend took up was very much amplified and fortified by what was said from the Front Bench opposite, for the Home Secretary gave us the most abounding reasons why this Bill, above all other Bills, ought not to be taken into consideration. I shall have to draw the attention of the House to the ridiculous position in which the Bill would be placed if the suggestions of the Home Secretary were carried out. What did it come to? It came to this—that this is one of those well-meant, humanitarian pieces of legislation, very good if successful, but needlessly irritating if unsuccessful. Well, it seems to me that this Bill is one which should be in the charge and responsible care of the Government. We should hesitate before we consent to any extension of what is becoming a perfect nuisance—namely, interference with individual action, interference in private trade and private affairs—in fact, that grandmotherly legislation which for years has been increasing the expenses of the country and the cost of the Civil Service, and which has added enormously to the number of Inspectors and officials which the Government have from time to time had to appoint. It is another species of that legislation which begins by interfering with this and that action of a man's life, and which goes on to look into his whole proceedings whether as a private resident or as a trader. Now, as an illustration, Sir, of the sort of legislation which seems to me to be evinced by the character of this Bill, allow me to call attention to the 9th clause. It is not
1794
the only clause; but it appears to me to be very important to be referred to, because it is one that shows the extraordinary character of the legislation. The 9th clause says that—"Nothing in this Act shall apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home." According to this, it would seem as if those who framed this Bill thought that a cruel father should be allowed to work his children to death. That is a proposition which is embodied in this clause. If you have a cruel father or mother who are disposed to overwork their wretched children, this Bill is a protection to them. I do not suppose that is what is meant by those who promote this Bill; but it only shows the difficulties into which people will get when they set to work and propose to carry out legislative impossibilities. [Sir JOHN LUBBOCK: Will the hon. Member explain how it affects them?] My observation was this, that under this clause a cruel father or mother could oppress their children in a way they could not oppress strangers. It seems to me that this Act would not apply to parents in the case I have mentioned. But what is the gist of the clause? It is not to apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home—that is to say, members of the same family. But is not a servant in the same relation to her employer if she lives in the house, as a member of the family? Or is that case to be an exception? Is that the style of legislation we can approve? Surely it is a very loose way of drawing clauses that will affect various relations of life. It seems to me that this is really reductio ad absurdum legislation, and this measure abundantly proves that legislation of this kind ought not to be in the hands of a private Member, but should be in the hands of the Government who should have the responsibility of seeing that there are proper clauses. But let me ask the attention of the House to what the position would be supposing the suggestion of the Home Secretary were carried out. It would be that the Bill would be perfectly emasculated and worth nothing. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is this—that the whole of the Proviso in Clause 3 is to come out. Well, then, why was it ever put in? That is the first question. It was put in, because the proposers and supporters of

1795
this Bill, and the Committee that considered the Bill, knew that without some such Proviso, or some equivalent machinery to it, the Bill would be utterly worthless and would not be executed at all. Why should we have a clause of two and a-half lines, and a Proviso of 15, except that the Proviso is the more important part of the clause. The effect of the Proviso is that the Secretary of State shall have the responsibility put upon him of giving a dispensing ordinance to do away with the whole operations of this Act in a certain class of cases where it is necessary by reason of press of work arising at certain recurring seasons of the year. According to that definition, the press of work would require to be de anno in annum, so that if it were a press of work for one year only, the dispensation would not be granted. It must be a succession of years. But, for my part, I do not understand why there should be that distinction. If there is a bonâ fide exception in order to take a particular class of cases out of the Act, surely it would be good to make the exception when it arises in only one year as well as in three "recurring seasons of the year"—that is to say, a kind of annual epidemic of seasons. That was the first class of cases in which the Home Secretary was at liberty to interfere. Then we have the second, which is more quaint still, and if anybody can give a reasonable construction of it so as to justify the Home Secretary from a legal point of view, I shall be surprised. It is—"or by reason of the liability of the business to a sudden press of orders arising from unforeseen events." I suppose that means that if a Liberal or Conservative demonstration were got up at which a large display of fireworks were wanted which put a great stress on the firework makers, these firework makers would be allowed extra labour for a week or 14 days. That is the sort of legislation we are asked to adopt within a few days or hours before being sent about our business. Why was this Proviso put in? Why, it was because it was thought that, without it, the Bill would be so aggressive that it would be absolutely unworkable. Then, again, the promoters have to find a tribunal for giving this dispensing power. Is the Home Secretary to go and see whether a young person's health is being
1796
endangered, or to go personally and ascertain about the press of orders which the shopkeeper is not able to overtake? Is he to undertake that in person, and ascertain whether the "recurring season of the year" has arrived again, or when it is likely to happen again, so as to call for his intervention? No, of course not; but if the Home Secretary were ever asked to exercise this dispensing power, it would mean this—that Colonel This, or Captain That, or Mr. Barrister So-and-so, of some years' standing and without any practice, would have to be sent to inquire and report. Experience has shown that the Home Secretary will have no time to look about for cases under the Act, for on a late occasion when rioting was taking place in London he knew nothing about it. He will be unable to give time to inquire into the circumstances, to ascertain when he can give dispensations to allow children to be employed for a few hours more in a week, unless he has a staff of Inspectors; and how many is he to have for the business? He must have machinery with which to exercise interference with the operations of the Act. An hon. Friend reminds me that the common informer will be left to do his part. Are a race of common informers to make the shops of small tradesmen their field of operations for picking up a shilling or two out of cases arising under the Act? If there is to be this miserable interference with the details of business there should be some responsibility about it, not that worrying and tormenting of tradesmen which will arise from the action of the common informer. There is abundant reason why the Bill should not be allowed to be re-committed. I frequently hear of the unwillingness of the other House of the Legislature to do its work. All I can say is, that to send them a Bill such as this at the very end of the Session and then expect them do any good with it, is not fair play to the other House. No one has given a greater blow to the Bill than has the Home Secretary, for his suggestion has shown that the Bill is not justified, and the alteration he proposes will make the Bill unworkable in the best sense of the term. I shall support the Motion against the Bill, if a division is taken. The House is entitled to some further explanation as to what the Government

1797
mean to do; whether they think the Bill is workable with the Proviso in Clause 3 taken out, and whether Clause 9 is in such a shape as will justify the House in passing the Bill.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I will only intervene for a moment between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the House; but I must ask another question, in consequence of the reply which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the striking out of provisions which would entirely alter the character of the Bill. I have had practical experience of the working of the Factory and Workshop Act, and I know that to insert the provisions of that Act, without the means of working them, would render the Bill absolutely unworkable; and I am quite sure it will have to be repealed in 12 months. Without a staff, I do not see how the Secretary of State could work the provisions; but then, if the provisions are struck out, I do not see how the Bill can stand. I, therefore, strongly press upon the Government that they should take the matter into their own hands. The Bill will deal practically with the mode of living of a vast number of people, and with occupations that should not be interfered with until the Government have inquired into the matter, which it is clear from the answer of the Home Secretary has not been done. The Government should be responsible for legislation of this kind, and the proper course will be for them to say they will take the matter up, and bring it before the House upon their responsibility. The answer of the Home Secretary shows how difficult the subject is. The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to strike out one of the most vital points of the Bill, without which the Bill cannot possibly work; and I, therefore, think the Government ought to undertake the responsibility, in another Session, of giving the matter their consideration, in order to submit a Bill which they have convinced themselves would work. I wish to call attention for a moment to a clause which I know the Home Secretary objects to; but it only shows how far the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) is prepared to go. That hon. Member was going to propose a clause, to the effect that the Local Authorities may close all shops, whether carried on by members of a family or
1798
not, at a certain hour—8, or 10, or 12, or any other hour not named in the Bill.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: That will only be in case two-thirds wish it.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I do not care whether it is two-thirds or nine-tenths; it is an unwarrantable interference with the freedom of shopkeepers. If I were to open a shop I should expect to be allowed to work it night and day, as I might think it would afford the best chance of getting a livelihood, in my own way; and it is absolute tyranny to prevent it, or restrict the time of carrying on business. I only mention this as an illustration, to show how desirable it is that a responsible Government should undertake legislation of this kind, and I hope to hear a statement that the Government are prepared to take the matter into their own hands, and to bring forward a workable measure in another Session.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I have no authority to make any statement of that kind. It is scarcely necessary to make any reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who has indulged himself in giving names to his political opponents——
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I rise to Order. I called no names. I merely repeated a criticism on the Government passed by a Member of their Party.
MR. CHILDERS: That is merely an evasion; the right hon. and learned Gentleman did call names, and I regret that he should have gone out of his way to do so. But I do not desire to make any reference to that. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), they are in the nature of a performance which may be called "flogging a dead horse." I have said I cannot accept the clause inserted by the Committee; and, therefore, the lash of his criticism falls upon those who adopted the wording from another Act. I do not blame them; I think they were good; but I am not responsible for the words. The hon. Gentleman tried to show that this was a Party question, and that the Bill was due to the action of Members of the Liberal Party; but, on looking on the back of

1799
the Bill, I observe that it is supported by the names of two Conservative Members. The hon. Member repudiated the Bill as a monstrous piece of Liberal legislation; but it is nothing of the kind; it is a question in which Members on both sides take an interest, and, as such, I accept the Bill, not as a Party proposal. I have been asked whether, with the omissions proposed, the Bill will be a workable measure, and, in my humble judgment, it will. Of course, should an army of Inspectors be appointed, the working machinery will be more complete; but Inspectors will have to be appointed, not by the dozen, not by the hundred, but by the thousand, if they are to visit every shop in the country. The real fact is, the Bill is urged and strongly supported by the trading community. Small shopkeepers are themselves strongly in favour of the Bill, and they have not asked for inspection; without such provision, they say, it will be of great advantage to a large number of young persons. The mere passing of the Bill will do much to effect the desired object—the limitation of the long hours of employment; and the little shopkeepers in each town will see that those who offend against the Act shall, in due time, be brought to justice. Those are the grounds upon which the Committee reported that the passing of the Bill, without an army of Inspectors, would do a great deal of good; and, on that ground, I thought it my duty to support the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) also indulged in the exercise of "flogging a dead horse," in his criticism of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), an Amendment to restrain people where there was no question of the employment of young persons under 18—to restrain adults from keeping their shops open certain hours. But that proposal is not in the Bill, and I have stated that I should object to it; and that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms. I hope now the House will go into Committee upon the clauses, when I will give reasons for the Amendments I propose to introduce.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered one question with regard to the provision struck out which allowed an extension
1800
of time for certain purposes. Will the Bill work under such circumstances? It seems to me, unless there is some power of dispensation, the Bill is too stringent.
MR. CHILDERS: I would rather leave the Bill as it is, not allowing more than 74 hours, rather than leave an uncertain margin in some cases.
MR. JOHN WILSON: The debate thus far has shown clearly to the House that the time is not ripe for passing a measure like this. No doubt, a large amount of information has been collected by the Committee, and I believe there is room for legislation in this direction; but the Bill does not adequately deal with the matter. The Home Secretary now proposes to strike out Clause 3, and I must, therefore, oppose the Bill. Without that provision, the Bill would be most tyrannical, and practically unworkable. If the Bill applied to retail shops exclusively, that would not be so much the case; but I observe, from Clause 8, that it includes wholesale shops and warehouses. In wholesale, trades, there are certain seasons when dealers find themselves full of an exceptionally heavy amount of business every year. In the seed trade, for instance, there are two months in which the traders find themselves flooded with orders; and if the House passes the Bill, checking the outflow of seed to meet requirements, farmers and others will be deprived of their supply at the very time they require it. Again, take the fruit trade, a very large trade in London. In November and December there is a very large demand for dried fruits—so great that, by force of business, wholesale dealers are compelled to keep their warehouses open to an unusually late hour for their employés to get ready the supplies. And the same thing happens in other trades. Now, if there is no relaxation, no latitude, no elbow-room for the wholesale trades, the business of the country will be stifled and almost destroyed. Clause 3 requires very careful consideration; and the Proviso therein should not hastily be struck out. Suppose it was not struck out, and an application to the Secretary of State was provided. The Secretary of State resides in London, but the Bill applies to the Three Kingdoms generally. Suppose an emergency arises, and a trader in Dublin, Belfast, or Glasgow, receives a large

1801
cargo of fruit, he will have to wait while he makes application to the Secretary of State for a relaxation of hours, before he can get his cargo handled and placed. He will, at a critical juncture, have to wait, perhaps, four or five days, with a considerable amount of annoyance and expense. Unless an authority is appointed in Ireland and Scotland to receive applications for relaxation of hours, the Bill will be practically unworkable, and an obstruction to the business of the country. Clause 4 is another illustration of the unworkable character of the measure. The clause requires that the hours within which young persons are to be employed shall be exhibited in the shop. What does it mean? The whole pressure of orders may come on at noon, and young persons may, perhaps, not be able to leave the warehouse until after the usual hour. The time cannot, in some instances, be put up in the morning; it will depend upon the time when the work is finished. This clause requires alteration, and, in fact, the whole Bill requires reconstruction; and I would respectfully suggest that it should be withdrawn, and, perhaps, in the next Session of Parliament, that it be re-introduced in such a form that, with the general assent of the House, it might be passed, without doing injury to the interests of the trade of the country.
MR. W. H. SMITH: The observations which have fallen from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh are worthy of serious consideration. The withdrawal of the Proviso giving power to the Home Secretary does very materially affect the whole character of the Bill. It certainly will be impossible to carry out the Bill without some relaxing power. If it is to be set at naught altogether, if provision is made that no young person shall work longer than 74 hours, with the knowledge the whole time, that this provision will be set at naught, by reason that necessity will, in some cases, compel them to work longer, then it appears to me that licence will be given for a breach of the Act which will result in the Act being of no effect practically. There is another provision that seems to me to require very serious consideration. It is provided, by Section 4, that the hours within which young persons are to be employed in the shop or warehouse are to be conspicuously exhibited
1802
therein. I venture to think that anyone accustomed to the ways of business in London and in large towns will agree that such a rule is impracticable. There are in very many cases no hours within which young persons are regularly employed; they are employed according to the necessities of the trade or business carried on in the shop. In many cases, shops or warehouses will close at 6 o'clock in the evening; but it may be necessary to continue business to 7, 8, or 9 o'clock, and it will be necessary that a portion of those employed should remain to that hour, though the majority may leave earlier. Those who conduct such business do so with great regard to those young persons in their employ, and do continue to find a way to release them at the earlier hour; but the rules are made to accommodate business arrangements, and, as far as possible, for the advantage of those employed; but there is often no fixed hour for closing in a great many of the large and most important businesses in the Metropolis. Even in banks it is no uncommon thing for clerks to be detained to 7, 8, 9, or 10 o'clock at night, under circumstances of great pressure. I am afraid that the Bill is a well-meant attempt—an admirable attempt—to improve the conditions existing in offices and businesses in the Metropolis, but without fully realizing all the difficulties that have to be met in effecting the object. Certainly, if the Government refuse their assistance, it cannot be carried out generally or successfully. If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, it is to be left to rival shopkeepers to inform against each other, a condition of things will arise anything but satisfactory. Considering the period of the Session, and the fact that full consideration cannot be given to the Bill in "another place," it will be far better to withdraw the Bill now, and re-introduce it next Session, with the hope that by the support and assistance of the Government it will be carried through.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST): As a Member of the Committee upon this Bill, I can bear testimony to the fact that the Committee had submitted to them no evidence that was really against the Bill, except in one case. They had witnesses from all

1803
parts of the country—from London, and from Provincial towns—some were hostile to the measure, as originally proposed; but they did ultimately agree to the proposals in the Bill—
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: With the Proviso?
MR. BROADHURST: Yes.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: But it is struck out.
MR. BROADHURST: I will come to that presently. I wish to call attention to the remarkable views expressed from the opposite Benches. From those it may be imagined that this House is, for the first time, legislating upon the hours of labour. But what the House is asked to do has been done by Parliament over and over again. As to the argument that the Bill should not be proceeded with in the last days of an expiring Parliament, I will say that I cannot imagine more humane, more proper work for Parliament to engage in, than that of giving relief to overworked young persons of both sexes.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Will the Bill do that?
MR. BROADHURST: I believe it will. In the Factory and Workshop Act, the House declared that young persons and females shall not work more than 54 hours per week; but many shop assistants are employed under conditions of labour far more injurious to health than those in factories and workshops whom the Legislature has protected. Most distinctly that is borne out by evidence before the Committee. I sincerely hope the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) will not withdraw his Bill at this stage; but that, if necessary, he will take a division, and test the opinion of the House. With regard to the withdrawal of the Proviso, what does it amount to? Simply to this—not that adults should be prevented from disposing of extra business connected with the distribution of fruit and vegetables, and to meet all the requirements of seed time and harvest, as to which the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. John Wilson) was so alarmed—it simply amounts to saying that young children of either sex—
MR. LEWIS: Eighteen years of age.
MR. BROADHURST: Young persons under that age shall not be employed more than 74 hours in the week.
1804
Is there any Member of the House prepared to stand up and, on his responsibility, say that it is right, or just, or necessary, to the trade and commerce of the country, that mere children should be engaged in labour for an unlimited number of hours? Yet complaints are made of the withdrawal of the power of extension that will only apply to young persons under 18, which is tantamount to saying that it is right and necessary for young persons to work more than 74 hours in the week, while it has been agreed that, in factories and workshops, which are usually well-ventilated, and in a much more healthy state for work than are most retail shops and warehouses, work shall only occupy 54 hours. Where is the distinction that 70 or 80 hours shall be allowed in retail shops, and only 54 in factories and workshops? There is no logic in the position taken up by hon. Members opposite. I cannot imagine for a moment how any hon. Member who has agreed to the Factory and Workshop Act can now oppose a Bill, innocent in itself, that will cost the country nothing, and will enable people to protect themselves, giving power to shopkeepers they themselves asked for. I cannot imagine for a moment why they should hesitate to give this little power to these hard-worked people, a class of people who work longer hours for smaller wages and under greater difficulties than the members of any other working community in the Kingdom.
MR. KIMBER: The hon. Member has set up an imaginary argument for us on this side of the House for the purpose of knocking it down again. He says the proposition maintained here is that it is right and proper that young persons should be employed for a number of hours in the week exceeding 74. No such proposition has ever been put forward or contended for here. What we contend is that employers of labour and persons who wish to be employed should be able to do as they please, and make free contracts, and that in the severe industrial competition which is taking place between this and foreign countries, all these artificial restrictions on labour that we adopt are detrimental to us and advantageous to our rivals. We shall find ourselves distanced in the race, the real test of which will be who can get out the largest amount of work in the

1805
shortest time. That being the test, I maintain that to put restrictions in the way of the making of free contracts between employer and employed will be an impediment to work and to the well-being of the workpeople. The hon. Gentleman evoked a sentiment that all, I think, will concur in—a sentiment in favour of the protection of young people from over-work. On this matter I took a great deal of trouble to ascertain the opinion of my constituents—and I represent a constituency containing within its borders a population equal to those of five or six suburban towns put together. The hon. Baronet says the small shopkeepers are in favour of the Bill. I speak with great diffidence upon this matter, knowing the accuracy the hon. Baronet invariably brings to bear upon all questions that he touches, and it is with diffidence, also, that I criticize the Committee; but what I say, as the result of my inquiries, is that the small shopkeepers do not want any such Bill as this. The general opinion amongst these people is that it would be well to have all the shops closed at a certain hour; and many of them say—"We should be glad to close, but we cannot close unless all do the same." That is a different question; and what I ask is, if the shopkeepers are really in favour of limiting the hours of opening, do they want an Act of Parliament to enable them to do it? Why cannot they do it themselves without? A. deputation waited upon me from a Provincial town, in which I happen to have property interests, not long ago—a deputation consisting of persons taking a leading part in the trade of the town. They represented to me that this Bill would be inimical to the interests of the shopkeepers. They showed that large numbers of these people who work in shops are family servants and reside on the premises, and would not come under Clause 9, which says—
"Nothing in this Act shall apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home, that is to say, are members of the same family dwelling there, or to members of the employers' family dwelling in a house to which the shop is attached."
These person rise at 7, or half-past, and their business is to come down in the early morning and get the place into something like form by dusting, and so on. They then retire and put on their
1806
shop-dress; but there are no definite regulations by which it can be ascertained whether they make more or less than 74 hours work a-week. These young women, remain on the premises all day and all night, except during certain hours for recreation. I ask the hon. Baronet how he has devised in this Bill any mode of ascertaining the number of hours during which these young women are to be employed? He includes, and, I agree, very properly, the meal-times; but does he include the time they are engaged in laying shop windows and counters, dressing, and preparing for the work of the day? Is all that to be included? The thing is full of practical impossibilities. I submit that to be guided by the evidence of the shop attendants themselves is out of the question. The Report of the Select Committee has not yet reached me, so that I am not able to speak as to what this evidence is. It has not been laid before us, and I understand that it is not to be laid before us in the course of I this debate. But what will the evidence of these young people be, and what weight is to be attached to it? It seems to me that young people of 17 years of age are able to judge for themselves as to the labour they should or should not undertake. Bear in mind it is not the labour of the factories. The Bill does not apply to those places. In the case of factories, before the Factory Acts were passed, the young operatives could not help themselves. Very often the whole population of the town worked in a certain factory, and it was a matter of either taking the work or starving. There there was good cause for interfering. But the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Broadhurst) says—even if the Factory Acts do not form a sufficient precedent—that we have interfered with labour over and over again. Well, I venture to say that 20 blunders will not make one good Bill. What the shopkeepers tell me is this. They say—"If we are to have regulations as to the; hours during which we are to employ labour, that means that we shall be obliged to close our shops at certain hours whether we like it or not, and that will give an advantage to some trades over others. At least," they say, "if we are to have trade regulations set over us, let us agree to them ourselves."

1807
They do not want regulations of this kind forced down their throats whether they like them or not. The regulations which would please the trades would be voluntary; and I maintain that the opinion of tradesmen should be consulted in a matter so vitally affecting their interests, and that a Bill should not be forced on them to throw difficulties in the way of their earning their livelihoods, or properly maintaining and developing their businesses. I think the hon. Baronet would do well to consider whether he could not make the Bill a voluntary instead of a compulsory one.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 23: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Hours of employment in shops).
On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Childers) (Edinburgh, S), for Mr. F. S. POWELL (Wigan), the following Amendments made:—Page 1, line 13, after "in," insert "or;" line 26, leave out "the same," and insert "any one."
MR. LEWIS: As the clause stands, it seems to me that an employer might be punished for an act unwittingly performed. Sub-section 2 says—
"A young person shall not be employed in a shop who has been previously on the same day employed in any factory or workshop, as defined by the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, for the number of hours permitted by the said Act, for a longer period than will complete such number of hours."
It states, as a matter of fact, that a young person "shall not be employed in a shop who has been, &c," and does not say that a young person shall not be so employed "with the consent or knowledge" of the employer. So that a person might be committing an offence against the Act without knowing it, and might be fined for that of which he really had not been guilty. Something should be put in the clause to imply wilfulness, knowledge, or consent on the part of the employer. Before proposing anything myself, I shall wait to hear
1808
what the Government have to say in the matter, for apparently they have taken up the Bill. I assume they have taken it up by the fact of the Government Tellers telling in the division.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The difficulty experienced by the hon. Gentleman is fully met by the provision which deals with the power of the occupier to exempt himself from fine on conviction of the offender.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: This provision the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) complains of is a very necessary one. We had much evidence before the Committee to show that a great many young persons were employed in factories and workshops as long as the law permitted, and when that time had expired were sent down into shops. Such a course as that is against the spirit of the Act, and should be stopped. I think, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General points out, the case the hon. Member has raised is sufficiently met in the 6th section.
MR. LEWIS: I do not think it is at all met. A tradesman should not be liable to be summoned for that which is no offence—for an imaginary offence.
MR. KIMBER: It must be remembered that Clause 6 will only give the employer relief on his proving that someone else is guilty of the offence.
MR. LEWIS: I move, after the words "shall not," and before the words "be employed," to insert "with the knowledge of his employer."
Amendment proposed, in page2, line 4, after the word "not," to insert the words "with the knowledge of his employer."—(Mr. Lewis.)
Amendment agreed to.
On Motion of Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, the following Amendment made:—Page 2, line 4, after "in," insert "or about."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Notice of hours to be given).
On Motion of Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, the following Amendment made:—Page 2, line 9, after "in," insert "or."
MR. KIMBER: The clause wants something at the end to

1809
make it clear what is meant. I do not know what is meant by the hours young persons are employed being "conspicuously exhibited therein."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): These are the words in the other Acts.
MR. JOHN WILSON: The clause says—"The hours within which young persons are employed" are to be conspicuously exhibited. What hours? Is it the hours they have been employed to-day, or the hours they were employed yesterday? If it is to be the hours they are employed to-day, it will be impossible to define them in the early part of the forenoon.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: It will be possible to say whether it is intended to keep the shop open until 6, 8, or 9 o'clock in the evening.
MR. JOHN WILSON: It is sometimes impossible for the shopkeeper to indicate up to what hour he will keep open. In watering places, for instance, the shops are kept open longer some nights than others, owing to fine weather bringing an influx of visitors, or greater demands being made by the families who are served. How, I ask, in such cases, can the shopkeepers comply with the requirements of this Act unless their businesses are to be interrupted and orders left unattended to?
MR. LEWIS: What is the ordinary incidence of business? We are not now dealing with factories where there are recognized hours for beginning and closing, and it seems to me that the confusion in the minds of those who framed the measure was in reference to this dealing with a totally different matter to the Factory Acts. You must not, under this Bill, employ a young person more than 74 hours a-week, but this is not to be equal days of service. It may be exigencies may suddenly arise which will require one or two persons to be kept in a shop later than usual. What is to be done in such a case as that? Is the shopkeeper to keep open his shop when the exigencies arise, or not? If the hours for a week should be from 10 to 8, is the shopkeeper to adhere strictly to those hours, whatever happens, and never on any day keep open later than 8? If that is not intended, it will be absolutely
1810
meaningless to require this notice to be stuck up. If you insert "ordinary" hours or "intended" hours, the thing will be much more reasonable. I must say that if we do not get from the Government some undertaking which will render this clause less objectionable, we shall have to move to report Progress. This sort of thing cannot be carried out—we cannot dragoon people in the case of their private businesses. Take the case of a book-keeper. It is obvious that on occasions it may be found necessary to keep him an hour or two longer at work than usual—an hour or two after 8 o'clock. Is the employer to be allowed to do that, or not? It may be necessary that it should be done even though the 74 hours are thereby exceeded. Unless we get some reasonable and practical solution of this matter from the hon. Baronet or the Government, we shall have to move to report Progress. If we report Progress, probably by to-morrow the hon. Baronet, having thought out the matter in the meantime, will be able to tell us the best course to take.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Pressure must be exerted so as to get the work done by a certain hour in our shops. In this Bill 20 hours are allowed more than are permitted in the Factory Acts. We cannot employ women who are adults beyond the prescribed time under the Factory Acts; but under this Bill we cannot employ them under 18, and that is as it should be. No one can say that 74 hours a-week is not an outrageous length of time for young people to work. The requirement to put up a notice showing the hours may involve some difficulty, and I do not think the section is necessary for the working of the measure. The young people themselves, I think, will be careful to keep a record of the hours they are employed. The hours fixed for work have to be kept in the case of factories, and I do not imagine that much practical difficulty will be experienced in doing the same thing with regard to shops.
COMMANDER BETHELL: I hope we shall be told what this 4th clause really does mean, for at the present moment no one seems to understand it. It seems to me absurd to stick up the hours, if it is likely to interfere with the course of business.
MR. LEWIS: One is bound to get up to say a word in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esalemont). Some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to delight in charging upon us on this side of the House that we want to see 74 hours exceeded. Nothing of the kind has been suggested by us on this side. What I desire to see hon. Gentlemen appreciate is that this is a different thing from dealing with factories where there are stated hours which can be kept. In the case of retail shops it is impossible to know whether a man will be in a position to close his premises at 7, 8, or 9, or even later, because emergencies may arise which may render it necessary for him to keep one or two employés at work beyond the ordinary time. If emergencies of that kind do arise, what is to be done? Is the employer to shut at the stated hour or not? If he is, what is the good of this provision? And if he is not, I say that the clause is perfect tyranny. I venture to suggest that the Government ought to get the hon. Gentleman out of the difficulty. They know that this clause does not represent practical business experience; and unless they are prepared to put the measure into such a shape that they feel they can be responsible for it when it goes to "another place," I am afraid it will not proceed much further.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST): This was altered in Committee upstairs to suit the wants and wishes of the retail traders.
MR. LEWIS: I do not know that—I have not seen the evidence.
MR. BROADHURST: But I am giving the hon. Member information on the point, and am pointing out that there will be no difficulty in working the clause. The original draft provided that no young person should be employed in a shop for a longer period than 12 hours in one day, or 72 hours in a-week, but the present measure allows a total of 74 hours, in order to suit the requirements of different districts. Under this Bill, the shopkeeper who knows his late night is on Friday can work longer hours on that night and shorter hours on Saturday. The Bill gives the shopkeeper power to keep his shop open 8 hours on Monday, 12 on Tuesday,
1812
14 on Thursday, and so on, so long as in the aggregate he does not work the young persons more than 74 hours in the week. There will be no difficulty at all about his putting up a notice as required by this clause. The attention of the Committee upstairs was, of course, repeatedly drawn to the fact, say, that in Preston the market day is on Wednesday, in Burnley on Tuesday, in some other town on some other day, so that a uniform code of hours for all parts of the country would be inconvenient to all concerned—both to the purchaser and shopkeeper. There will be no difficulty in working this Bill out without inconvenience to anyone. As to the exhibition of notice, about which some hon. Members seem inclined to make a difficulty, there will be no difficulty at all in the matter. If the shopkeeper is engaged in a business in which there is more pressure on a certain day or on certain days than on others, he can work longer hours on his busiest days and shorter ones on the others. It cannot possibly be an inconvenience to him to put up the arrangement in the form of a notice in his window, or in some conspicuous place, in accordance with the requirements of the Bill. There will not, or need not, be the least difficulty in the world in it. I should like to point out one objection to the suggestion that has been made. It is suggested that a shopkeeper, instead of exhibiting the notice as required by the Bill, should keep a record of the number of hours worked, and that record should be open to inspection. Yes; but what would the shopkeeper say to that? You would be imposing upon him the intolerable burden of keeping a record of the number of hours worked each day by different young persons, to be totalled up at the end of the week. He would require an extra cashier or clerk to do the book-keeping or time-keeping. The Bill as originally drawn was altered to suit the convenience and desires of the shopkeepers, and I am sure that changes in the direction proposed would impose great trouble and annoyance upon these persons.
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I am one of those who, far from wishing the hours of labour to be extended, would be glad to see them reduced. I should like to see the hours in this Bill reduced; therefore, when

1813
the hon. Gentleman opposite turns round on us and says—"You want to see the hours of labour extended," he must exclude me from the number of those he accuses. I say that to clear the situation. Well, I now wish to point out that this clause is inconsistent with Clause 3. That clause says that a young person—
"Shall not be employed in, about, or in connection with a shop for a longer period than seventy-four hours, including meal times, in any one week."
And it says that the hours per day may vary to suit the exigencies of certain businesses. The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department said that on Monday it might be eight hours' work, on Tuesday 12, and on Wednesday 14. Well, if the hours are varied in that way, according to the fluctuations of trade, it is clearly requisite that some record should be kept of the past employment of these young persons, so that the employer may know from time to time how much of the 74 hours is used up, The way to arrange the matter would be to insert in the section; some such words as these—
"The hours within which young persons are employed in, about, or in connection with any shop shall be conspicuously exhibited therein from day to day."
That would imply that it must be exhibited day by day, so that from time to time those interested may know how much time is left.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I voted against the Committee stage, not because I objected to the measure on account of the 74 hours' principle, but because I was opposed to the exhibition of this notice. I have explained that at some seasons of the year the shopkeepers cannot tell at what hour their shops will close. I wish to know where this notice is to be exhibited? Is it not to be exhibited until the hour for closing? If so, what good can that do? If it is to be exhibited on the following day, will it be fair to a shopkeeper to have to advertize the fact to his customers—"I kept my people working 14 hours yesterday," and so on? Would it be fair to have him quoted in the newspapers, and pointed at as a tyrant who used his servants like slaves? I say the clause is unfair in its incidence, and it ought to be withdrawn.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The criticism of the hon. Member is of a very minute character. As to adding at the end of the clause the words "from day to day," such an addition would be altogether unnecessary. The clause means as much already as it would after the alteration. The clause was not in the original Bill, but was inserted by the Committee.
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I voted for the hon. Baronet on the principle that 74 hours was quite long enough to ask these young persons to work. I must say I think the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Broadhurst), whose Department the Bill affects, explained the difficulties of it very well: As to this clause, I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wilson) that it will be found nuworkable. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Broadhurst) says it would be a great inconvenience to keep a record of the number of hours worked; but I must say I cannot see the inconvenience of it myself. I think that 10 minutes at the end of the day would suffice to enable the employer to make up the list. No doubt, the inconvenience of having to put up a notice would be very great.
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Would the hon. Baronet opposite mind putting in the words "from day to day?" If they were put in, it seems to me that the difficulty would be mot in nearly every case.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir. CHILDERS): I would suggest to the hon. Baronet that he would do well to accept these words, "from day to day."
COMMANDER BETHELL: Would that mean the entire hours for a week, or the hours during each day?
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Each day.
COMMANDER BETHELL: That they are going to be employed?
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Yes.
MR. LEWIS: That improves the clause, but does not dispose of the difficulty. What is the moaning of the words "are employed?" Do they refer to the future, or point to the past? It seems to me that the terms of the section are so ambiguous that an employer would be satisfying them if he put up a notice showing how many hours

1815
the young persons had been employed the day before. But there is another difficulty. The clause supposes that all the young persons—that is to say, under 18 years of age, whatever their department may be, or the character of the work they will have to do—will be sent out of the place at the same hour. We know that that is not done, according to our experience. Some have to go later, and some earlier. The hours in which young persons are employed will be conspicuously exhibited if this clause be satisfied—would it be satisfied by putting up a notice as to how many hours young persons under 18 had been employed in the course of the day?
MR. KIMBER: The words should be so framed as to cover such a case as when a customer gives shortly before closing time a special order, perhaps, for a wedding or some such occasion that does not admit of delay. Could not a tradesman take the order, if the execution of it necessitated keeping open somewhat longer, though in the aggregate the 74 hours in the week were not exceeded?
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: If it is provided that a register shall be kept of the hours in which each young person has been employed, that will meet the case.
MR. KIMBER: To make the Bill consistent with its professed objects, there should be a Proviso compelling the keeping of such a register.
Words "from day to day" added.
Motion made, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. LEWIS: I will now move that Progress be reported. The clause is worthless as it is, and there is no penalty if it is not observed. The Bill deals with matters of the greatest practical importance, and it is now a Government measure. The effect of the clause, as amended, is that there is no penalty for an offence if the hours are exceeded.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member speaking to the adjournment?
MR. LEWIS: I have not yet made the Motion. The Government have undertaken the responsibility, and I desired to put a question as to the working of the clause. I will assume that a notice is fixed up on which the hours are
1816
mentioned. But if those hours are not kept it is not an offence under the clause.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I rise to Order. What clause is the hon. Member speaking of? I understand the clause is settled.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. LEWIS: If the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention to the business upon which the Committee are engaged he would not raise these frivolous objections, and I must protest against these interruptions. I was pointing out that if the hours are exceeded, the effect of the clause, if passed in its present form, is that there is no suggestion that it is an offence under the Act. Unless the Attorney General can give a satisfactory answer, I shall move that Progress be reported.
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I hope that time will not be wasted with such a Motion.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying the clause does not constitute an offence, because it does not state these were the hours of employment. All that is intended is that the sum of 74 hours in the week shall not be exceeded.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Would it not be wise to amend the clause in the sense I have suggested?
THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir EDWARD REED): The object is to insure that attention shall be drawn to any departure from an understanding arrived at, so that the sense of the community may be brought to bear against those disposed to overwork their employés.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The object of the Bill is to prevent young people being worked more than 74 hours, and the Committee were of opinion that unless a record is kept it would be difficult to prove whether they were so employed or not. The Committee came to the conclusion that this was the form in which the record could be kept with the least inconvenience to those concerned.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes51; Noes 20: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
Clause 5 (Fine for employing persons contrary to the Act).
On Motion of Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, the following Amendments made:—Page 2, line 12, after "any," insert "young;" lines 5 and 6, leave out "or in connection with."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 (Interpretation, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 16).
Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 40 and 41, to leave out "does not include," and insert "includes."—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. LEWIS: I do not quite appreciate the alteration. As I understand the Amendment, it distinctly reverses the meaning of the clause.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I explained my intention earlier, and understood it was accepted, that young persons employed in public-houses and refreshment-rooms shall not be excepted from the Bill.
MR. LEWIS: I should like to know from the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill originally on what grounds he consented to the complete reversal of his first proposal?
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Certainly. I did not include them at first, thinking it was rather beyond the power of a private Member to do so.
MR. LEWIS: Why should not they fall under the general description? Why should public-houses be specially in-eluded?
MR. CHILDERS: It is simply to make the intention quite clear.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Does it not strike the right hon. Gentleman that there are many public-houses and refreshment-rooms where the work is not continuous through the day, where the business comes only at particular periods of the day, and where, if the hands are detained an hour or two, it does not much matter?
MR. CHILDERS: Under the Factory Acts only 54 hours are allowed, and, in my view, to allow young persons to be
1818
employed for 20 hours more than that in public-houses is quite long enough.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The evidence before the Committee strongly corroborated that view.
Amendment agreed to.
On Motion of Mr. Secretary GUILDERS, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 41, leave out "or," and insert "and."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. LEWIS: I should like to ask the Government if they have deliberately considered the limit of age? I should have thought that the limit of 18 is rather excessive.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes; this has been well considered, and the age, I think, has been wisely fixed at 18.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: In my opinion, 18 is an excessive limit. Soldiers are enlisted at 18 or 19—it used to be 18—and they are considered young men, and they are capable of doing a man's work. It is a great mistake to treat young men of 18 as children. A young fellow of 18 is as capable of performing a good day's work as a man of 23 or 24. The age might be drawn at a lower limit than 18, Young fellows are paid men's wages at that age.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The limit of 18 for young persons was adopted from the Factory Acts for Young Persons, and I understand the point was considered by the Committee at some length, with the result that the almost unanimous decision was in favour of keeping to that limit.
Motion agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 (Exemption of members of the same family).
MR. LEWIS: I will draw attention to the fact that many persons not actually members of the family are resident with, and to all intents and purposes treated as, members of the family. The clause appears a little defective on that point.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL)The

1819
explanation seems to be that natural affection would be a better protection in those cases.
MR. LEWIS: Not much reliance can be placed on natural affection as a substitute, and I am afraid there has been singular instances to show that. But the Government have accepted the responsibility for the Bill.
COMMANDER BETHELL: There are many young persons not actually but practically members of the family. Will they come under the clause?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST): There will be no real difficulty. It would be impossible to deal with every case of the kind, and it was felt by the Committee that there might be great hardship in making no exceptions.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: There are some shopkeepers who obtain the aid of assistance by means of the Poor Law system, the assistants dining at the same board. Would they be considered members of the family? It would be hard if employers were obliged to treat boarders different to members of their own family. I am anxious to know whether the hon. Gentleman has investigated that part of the case? There are many instances in which children are adopted into families—many in which the adoption actually takes place by law. I may be answered by the hon. Baronet that in most of these cases the foster parents are allowed something for the maintenance of the children by the Boards of Guardians; still they are members of the family.
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: Would it not be well to have a clear definition of the family, so that we may know what it consists of? I would ask the Attorney General whether you could have families consisting of nephews and neices and more distant relatives?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): I should say that persons connected by ties of marriage are in blood relationship.
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: Fourth cousins?
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 286.]
(Sir Henry James.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred till To-morrow."
COLONEL NOLAN: I would appeal to the hon. Member in charge of this Bill to put off the Committe stage for a week. It is blocked by no fewer than seven Members, and the result of keeping the Order on the Paper from day to day is to keep a large number of Members down here waiting on the chance of its being reached by half-past 12. Either let him move that the Order be discharged, or put the Committee stage off for a week.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The Government are anxious to pass this Bill. There is a general consensus of opinion in favour of it. ["No, no!"] Well, of course, I do not include those Gentlemen who have put down Notice of opposition; but, apart from these, there is a consensus of opinion in favour of the measure. Amongst the public generally there is a strong feeling in favour of the amendment of the law in direction of this Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member in charge of the Bill has himself put it off till this day. It is by his direction that is is being deferred.
MR. BIGGAR: I desire to point out that this Bill is of a peculiar nature. It came down from the Lords on the 2nd of April, but no attempt was made to get on with it here until Friday night last. The Prime Minister, in his statement the other day, intimated that it was not intended that contested legislation which had not gone considerable length in this House should be pushed on. Well, what did the Government do? They have resolutely adhered to this Bill. So far as we know they are the only parties who have anything to do with it. They introduced it last Friday, and put down the second reading for to-day. There are some of my hon. Friends who have a strong objection to the Bill. I do not know what the objection is, but that it is strong is plain from the fact that my hon. and

1821
learned Friend the Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) requested me to telegraph to him if any attempt was made to push the Bill on in his absence, and that he would come over specially to oppose it. That looks something very different from what the the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General told us—that there was something like a general consensus of opinion in favour of the measure. It is a Bill of a contentious character. Many hon. Gentleman object to its principle. There may be many in favour of it; still, it is obvious that it is not a Bill which comes within the category of Bills that the Prime Minister says are not really of a contentious character. I would appeal to the Government in this matter not to give assistance to some Gentleman or other behind the scenes whom I do not know. Who it is that gives instructions to the Clerks at the Table to keep Bills alive from day to day and give us the trouble of coming here to watch them, I do not know. I think we are justified in moving that the Order be discharged.
MR. SPEAKER: I should not think it my duty to put that from the Chair, inasmuch as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) has notified that he desires it put down for to-day.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): My right hon. and learned Friend communicated with me on the subject, and asked me to take charge of it between this and to-morrow. I will represent to him what has been said, and it will be for him to consider whether, by restricting the operation of the Bill to England and Scotland, the objections taken by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite may not be removed.
MR. SEXTON: There can be very little use in putting this Bill off. The appearance of the Order Paper shows the feeling of the Irish Members on the matter, and the statement of my hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) as to the feeling of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) affords a strong corroboration, if one were needed.
Motion agreed to.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE TO CHILDREN) BILL.— [BILL 157.]
(Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Theodore Fry, Mr. Cossham, Mr. Valentine., Mr. Allison, Mr. O. V. Morgan, Mr. Channing.)

CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. EVERETT: With the indulgence of the House, I would move that the Bill be now read the third time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Everett.)
MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to explain my position in regard to this Bill, though, before doing so, I must apologize for my unavoidable absence yesterday when the measure came on. With reference to that, I will only say that, had I been here yesterday, I should have taken a division on Amendments that appear to have been agreed to. The Amendments were, in the first place, substituting "supply" for "sell," which, it is said, was to make the measure conform to the Scotch law. Well, we all know that the Scotch law has been interpreted so as to limit the scope of the operation of the Act that exists there. But the principal Amendment agreed to was as to "consumption." All I can say with regard to the alteration which was effected is that all the good which was in the Bill has been taken out of it, and that the measure, as it now stands, in the opinion of its promotors, is hardly worth the paper it is printed on. So far as I am concerned, though I do not propose to offer opposition to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Suffolk, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I wash my hands of the measure completely. I cannot be a party to this legislation that is little more than a sham, because everyone knows perfectly well that there is not one child in 10,000 who ever goes to get liquor for his or her consumption, under the age of 13 at any rate. I am acting in this matter not from a desire to be obstructive, but in the interests of those who asked me to bring forward the measure. It is the strong feeling of those who promoted this measure that rather than sanction its passing—that rather than

1823
give their approval to it in the ridiculously limited scope to which it has been reduced by the introduction of these words—they should allow it to slide this Session, and wait for next Session, when we hope to have public opinion inside as well as outside Parliament in our favour. We may expect, I think, to see a change of feeling on this matter, and may look forward to having the Bill passed as we originally intended it. The other Amendment I should like to comment upon is as to Section 3. I understand that, contrary to the understanding that was arrived at with Gentlemen on the other side of the House as to Ireland, the measure has been extended so as to affect Ireland. At an earlier stage of the Bill I expressed my desire to meet the wishes of the Irish Members, thinking that the subject was one which would be better dealt with from a Home Rule point of view. However, to that Amendment I do not intend to offer resistance by opposing the third reading of the Bill. In case it should be said that there has been no strong feeling in favour of this measure in its original form outside this House, I may say that only this evening I received a numerously-signed Petition in support of it, and that hardly a post passes without bringing me letters from every part of the United Kingdom, containing most urgent appeals to me that I should in no case depart from the principle of the Bill as originally laid down. In view of the numerous Petitions I have received, signed not only by individuals, but by public bodies and public meetings in the most important centres of the country—after these strong representations, I should consider it a dereliction of duty were I to be any party to the passing of this Bill in such an emasculated form as was sanctioned by the House yesterday afternoon. I hold in my hand a letter—I will not read it—the effect of which is as I have stated. I am willing that the measure should go up to "another place;" and all I can say is, that if noble Lords there can see their way to improve it and make it more worth passing than it is, it will be one of the few instances in which, in my knowledge, Gentlemen in "another place" have done anything in the way of improving a Bill.
MR. CHANNING: "Without agreeing in all that has been
1824
said by the hon. Member, I wish, with the indulgence of the House, to draw attention to the real motive of this Bill, which I think has been falsified by the Amendments accepted. The motive of the Bill, which has been indorsed by a large number of Petitions, signed by 70,000 persons in the country, is to defend children from being exposed to immorality and temptation. It deals a blow at one of the great curses of this country—hereditary intemperance. I should have much preferred if the House had attempted to deal with the Bill in that spirit. I cannot, agree, however, with my hon. Friend (Mr. Conybeare) that we have nothing in the Bill. We must be content with the result. Perhaps in "another place" some noble Lords who are interested in the question may deal with it in that spirit. I regret that I was not in the House yesterday to protest against the passing of these Amendments, which have defeated the main object of the Bill.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I agree with the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Bill that, if it is to be passed at all, it should be in a shape in which it will be effective for the purposes intended; and I believe that the measure as originally drafted would have been effective to meet the object in view. But I desire emphatically to repudiate any desire to emasculate the Bill. It was only because we thought, as the Bill stood, it was inapplicable to Ireland, and not required by the state of the case there, that we pressed on the Amendment to which reference has been made. If Ireland had been exempted, we should not have pressed on any alteration in the clause; and I desire, for my own part, to repudiate all wish or inclination to damage, or, as the hon. Member puts it, "emasculate" the measure. No doubt, as the hon. Member says, it has been emasculated by other Amendments, and for that reason I quite endorse his proposal to withdraw the Bill. In the event of its being withdrawn, if it should again come before us at some future time, I should be glad to give it every support in my power—that is to say, in the original form in which it made its appearance here and in which it is proposed to apply it to England only, where these dangers seem to exist and where there seems to be some necessity for it. If, however, it is to apply

1825
to Ireland, I should like to see it recast.
MR. BIGGAR: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw his Bill. I was not here yesterday, or I should have objected to its being emasculated, and I should have objected to having Ireland excluded from its provisions. I think the hon. Gentleman must see that there will not be time to move that the Bill be recommitted to have these Amendments reconsidered; and I would suggest to him the desirability of sending the measure up to "another place," where it is very possible their Lordships will put it into its original shape. We shall then have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter in a practical manner some day next week. It is, no doubt, desirable to bring the Bill to a third reading, even though it may not come up to the hon. Gentleman's idea of what the Bill ought to be. It would be a pity to lose the result of all the labour that has taken place on the Bill. I would suggest that it should be sent to "another place," and then, if they improve it there as hon. Members here desire to see it improved, we shall be able to come to an agreement with the Lords' Amendments, and the Bill will then serve the purpose for which it was intended.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

REVISING BARRISTERS (IRELAND) [REMUNERATION].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Remuneration to additional Revising Barristers and persons who may be appointed to perform the duties of Clerks of the Peace, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the appointment of Revising Barristers in Ireland.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

REVISING BARRISTERS [REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the remuneration of additional Revising Barristers, and of their travelling and other expenses, which may become payable
1826
under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to the appointment of Revising Barristers in England.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1884–5.
Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented upon the 6th and 18th days of February last respectively, be referred to the Committee.

ACCOUNTS considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
1. Resolved, That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1885, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £140,176 11 s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure far other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £125,095 11 s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services exceeded the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £15,081 0s. 5d.;

(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £55,213 10 s. 3d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £12,455 9s. 3d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £42,758 1s.;

(c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

103,809

1

2

Total Deficits

161,648

2

7

2. Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services towards meeting the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
3. Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

SCHEDULE.

Navy Services, 1884–5, Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Number of Vote.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as comprd. with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as comprd. with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines

..

4,207

2

2

9,330

8

7

2

Victuals and Clothing for ditto

..

20,442

8

3

22,787

14

9

42

9

6

3

Admiralty Office

..

769

16

3

..

4

Coast Guard Service and Naval Reserves, &c.

..

5,178

17

5

..

63

7

2

5

Scientific Branch

..

4,680

17

11

..

2,020

0

7

6

Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad

31,133

5

0

..

..

80

11

8

7

Victualling Yards, &c.

..

715

17

1

..

96

7

10

8

Medical Establishments, &c.

..

790

3

9

..

6

7

10

9

Marine Divisions

..

1,777

15

1

10

2

1

10

Sec. 1

Naval Stores

11,029

10

8

21,542

9

5

Sec. 2

Machinery, Ships built by Contract, &c.

..

47,785

11

11

..

5

8

9

11

New Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, &c.

..

10,759

10

4

..

2,623

17

11

12

Medicines and Medical Stores

5,487

6

8

..

..

3,397

13

11

13

Martial Law, &c.

..

2,352

17

0

..

0

4

6

14

Miscellaneous Services

..

14,633

9

9

1,490

4

7

15

Half Pay, &c.

..

8,774

15

9

..

8

15

0

16

Sec. 1

Military Pensions and Allowance

..

2,226

8

8

3

12

2

Sec. 2

Civil Pensions and Allowances

435

5

1

..

48

18

8

17

Army Department—Conveyance of Troops

90,688

17

5

..

..

4,110

4

7

Amount written off as irrecoverable

1,402

6

11

140,176

11

9

125,095

11

4

55,213

10

3

12,465

9

3

Net Deficit, £15,081 0 5

Net Deficit,£42,758 1 0

4. Resolved, That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1885, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £338,543 17 s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the Estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £941,807 13 s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £603,263 16 s. 7d.;

(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £76,751 15 s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £33,686 12 s. 6d.,

SCHEDULE.

No. of Vote.

Army Services, 1884–5, Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay of the General Staff, Regimental Pay, &c.

..

347,491

15

4

14,272

16

8

2

Divine Service

2,985

1

3

..

62

6

6

3

Administration of Military Law

..

945

18

2

..

195

9

6

4

Medical Establishment and Services

..

1,376

18

2

..

390

0

10

5

Militia Pay and Allowances

..

1,030

16

2

..

2,094

3

9

6

Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances

2,500

5

9

..

..

7,034

10

9

7

Volunteer Corps Pay and Allowances

1,451

3

5

..

..

225

14

11

8

Army Reserve Force Pay and Allowances, &c.

..

387

10

9

..

108

10

11

9

Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments

21,863

4

3

..

142

7

11

10

Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport, and other Services

..

345,217

5

11

13,032

1

5

11

Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies

22,241

11

11

..

..

20,135

11

7

12

Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores

278,595

4

3

..

40,804

10

11

13

Superintending Establishments of and Expenditure for Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home
and Abroad

..

126,577

14

2

3,141

19

11

..

Carried forward

329,636

10

10

823,027

18

8

71,456

3

4

30,184

2

3

as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in
aid of the Grants for Army Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the net sum
of £43,065 3s.;
(c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the
net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

920,289

12

7

Total Deficits

360,090

19

0

5. Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the sums received in excess of the estimated appropriations in aid, in respect of the same Services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
6. Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

No. of Vote.

Army Services, 1884–5, Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Brought forward

329,636

10

10

823,027

18

8

71,456

3

4

30,184

2

3

14

Establishments for Military Education

..

1,736

3

11

5,263

12

2

15

Miscellaneous Effective Services

..

6,308

13

2

..

1,750

4

11

16

Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office

1,216

8

8

..

..

47

11

3

17

Rewards for Distinguished Services, &c.

2,791

16

11

..

..

112

8

3

18

Half Pay

..

4,177

6

11

..

1

5

0

19

Retired Pay, &c.

..

68,980

17

5

..

1,038

19

4

20

Widows' Pensions, &c.

1,578

7

7

..

10

0

0

21

Pensions for Wounds

244

15

7

..

22

0

0

22

Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals

..

224

15

3

..

84

7

7

23

Out-Pensions

..

30,638

12

5

..

392

9

9

24

Superannuation Allowances

..

4,901

10

8

..

75

4

2

25

Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Forces, Retired Pay

..

1,811

14

9

Balance irrecoverable

3,076

17

7

338,543

17

2

941,807

13

9

76,751

15

6

33,686

12

6

Net Surplus, £603,263 16 7

Net Deficit, £43,065 3 0

Sum to be surrendered to the Exchequer

£560,198 13 7

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  Resolved, That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital for the year 1886–7, presented to Parliament pursuant to Act 48 and 49 Vic. c. 42, be approved.—(Mr. Hibbert.)

  MERCHANDISE (FRAUDULENT MARKING) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Mundella, Bill to amend and consolidate the Law relating to the Fraudulent Marking of Merchandise, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mundella and Mr. Acland. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 291.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.