Commons Sitting of 15 March 1889

QUESTIONS.

  THE ORDERS OF THE DAY—POINT OF ORDER.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask you, Sir, as a point of order, if there are any official means of accounting for the fact that two Notices of Motion in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury, one suspending the Standing Order as to time and the other shutting out Notices of Motion on Friday appear in the Times newspaper this morning and do not appear in the Orders of the Day?
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot give any account of it. I saw them in the journal to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I did not see them on the paper.
  MR. SEXTON: Thank you, Sir; I shall recur to the matter at the close of the questions.

  POSTAL CHARGES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General whether he was aware that making ample allowance for the difference in exchange, the merchant in Austria can post 120 letters for £1 to England, whereas the merchant in England can only post 96 letters to Austria for the same money; and, whether he could state, since these countries are in the Postal Union, when the next Postal Union Conference will be held?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I am quite aware of the fact brought to my notice by the hon. Member. The explanation is that, according to the Postal Union Convention, 25 centimes is fixed as the initial rate of postage; but, as only a few countries use the decimal currency, each State of the Union collects its postage in its own currency, avoiding fractions in calculating the equivalent to 25 centimes. In Austria 10 kreutzer is the equivalent adopted; and in this country 2½d. is the nearest equivalent. I do not see the logical

  1787
  connection of the hon. Member's second question, and I cannot say when the next Postal Union Congress will be held. No precise date has yet been fixed.

  IRISH EVICTIONS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Solicitor General for Ireland if he could state the exact number of actual evictions from agricultural holdings in Ireland during the year 1888 at the suit of the landlord; and how many of the number took place on estates under the Plan of Campaign?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The number of actual evictions of the class referred to in the first paragraph was 655 tenants and 118 sub-tenants. Of these, 129 tenants and 14 sub-tenants were evicted on estates under the Plan of Campaign.
  MR. SEXTON: How many tenants have been deprived of the legal estate in their holdings by means of eviction notices?
  MR. MADDEN: I have not the figures at hand.

  THE VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked whether, if, during the temporary absence on leave of the officer commanding a brigade of Volunteers, the charge of the Brigade devolves on the next senior officer of the brigade?
  SIR H. E. MAXWELL (Wigton), on behalf of Mr. E. STANHOPE, said: If a Volunteer brigade should be assembled in a brigade camp and the brigadier should be absent, the senior Volunteer commanding officer present would assume command; but on other occasions there would be no necessity to replace the brigadier during his temporary absence.

  MR. J. E. BLAKENEY.
  MR. LANEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether Mr. J. E. Blakeney was still a magistrate for the county of Cork; whether Mr. Blakeney's sole qualification for being appointed a magistrate for the County of Cork was the fact of having been appointed agent on the Ponsonby Estate; whether it is a fact that Mr. Blakeney owns no property, and never even rented a house within
  1788
  the county of Cork; whether he has long since been dismissed from the agency, and left the district and county of Cork; and, whether, under these circumstances, it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to continue him in the Commission of the Peace for the county of Cork?
  MR. MADDEN: I understand that the gentleman referred to is no longer a Magistrate for the County Cork, as upon resigning the agency of the Ponsonby Estate he likewise resigned the Commission of the Peace, his connection with the county having ceased.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTRATES IN YOUGHAL.
  MR. LANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any Roman Catholic Justice of the Peace resident in the Petty Sessions district of Youghal; and, if not, whether he will take steps to remedy such a state of affairs in a district chiefly inhabited by Roman Catholics?
  MR. MADDEN: I am informed that there does not appear to be any Roman Catholic Magistrate in the Youghal Petty Sessions district. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland is ready to consider the names of any properly qualified Roman Catholics that may be submitted to him by the Lieutenant of the County, who is always glad to be in a position to submit such names.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the boycotting of Protestants in Youghal has ceased?
  MR. LANE: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say by what means the people of the locality can bring the name of suitable Roman Catholics under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that the Lord Lieutenant of the County is the Master of an Orange Lodge, and would certainly not recommend a Roman Catholic for the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DOUBLE INQUESTS.
  MR. MONTAGUasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report in the Star of the 4th instant, of

  1789
  the double inquest in Whitechapel, from which it appears that Louisa Ellesden died suddenly in Spitalfields; that an inquest was held in that locality by the Coroner for North East Middlesex; and that, when the body was subsequently removed to the Whitechapel mortuary, which serves the entire district, Mr. Baxter, Coroner for the South East Division, held a second inquest; and whether he will take steps to prevent the unnecessary repetition of inquests, entailing inconvenience to the relatives of the deceased, and additional cost to the ratepayers in Whitechapel?
  MR. MATTHEWS: (1) The facts are correctly stated. (2) Mr. Baxter has written me a letter, in which he contends that the Statute of 1887 left him no option but to hold a second inquest. I cannot admit the soundness of this contention, and I consider that holding a second inquest was improper. If such a case occurs again, I shall consider it my duty to represent the matter to the Lord Chancellor, in order to prevent the occurrence of any such clashing of jurisdiction.

  LORD LURGAN'S AGENT.
  MR. BLANEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland if at Lurgan (county Armagh) Petty Sessions, held on the 5th instant, James McAleese brought an ejectment against a cottier tenant named Sarah Poland, of Derrytagh North, on Lord Lurgan's estate, and decree granted; if Mr. James Fford obtained an ejectment against a cottier tenant named Cairns, of Derryadd, and decree granted; if same farmer obtained a decree of ejectment against a cottier tenant named James Scullion, of Derryadd, both on Lord Lurgan's estate; if Mr. C. Brownlow, agent for Lord Lurgan, adjudicated in the cases; if the cottier tenants mentioned will lose the benefits of the 4th section of the Land Purchase Act of 1887; and if he will communicate with the Irish Land Commission, with reference to those ejectments, when arranging the proposed sale of Lord Lurgan's estate?
  MR. MADDENsaid, that the tenants referred to all held under weekly agreements, but none of them were on the estate of Lord Lurgan. Mr. Brownlow was one of eight magistrates who adjudicated on the occasion; but as he had no connection with the estates
  1790
  involved, there was no reason why he should not do so.
  MR. BLANE: Is the same gentleman the estate agent of Lord Lurgan?
  MR. MADDEN: He had no connection with the estates on which the evictions took place. The hon. Member has been misinformed.

  LETTERS TO ZANZIBAR.
  MR. JOHN TALBOTasked the Postmaster General whether there is any reason for a charge of 5d. per half-ounce being imposed upon letters from England to Zanzibar, whilst letters from Zanzibar to England are only charged half that rate; and whether the inequality can be redressed?
  MR. RAIKES: Letters posted at the Indian Postal Agency at Zanzibar are charged 4½ annas per half-ounce, which is about the equivalent of the 5d. charged in this country on letters sent to Zanzibar. The French Post Office has recently set up an agency at Zanzibar, and I believe that, in accordance with French practice in other parts of the world, the initial Postal Union rate of 25 centimes the 15 grammes (about 2½d. the halfounce) is accepted in prepayment of postage on such letters as may be posted at the French Agency. So far as the mails are conveyed by British packet, the French Post Office incurs no loss, as the postage more than covers the payment made by them to us for sea conveyance under the Postal Union regulations. As to the French mail lines, they are maintained more for political than for postal purposes, and the loss on the mails is apparently disregarded.

  ARREARS OF RENT.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the Land Sessions, held at Listowel, county Kerry, on the 7th inst., the Commissioners reduced an aggregate rental (Messrs. Browne and Mulling landlords) of £403 3s. 2d. to £244 5s. 0d.; whether it is a fact that the presentment for the maintenance of extra police at the March Assizes in Kerry was £5,825; whether this cost for extra police is due to the fact that the land-lords in many instances proceed for the recovery of the arrears of the rack rent

  1791
  after the judicial rent has been fixed; and, whether, in cases similar to the above, he will refuse the forces of the Crown for the recovery of arrears of rent which a legal tribunal has declared to be 65 per cent in excess of a fair rent?
  MR. MADDEN: I believe the facts are as stated in the question.
  MR. KILBRIDE: If the hon. and learned Gentleman finds that the rent has been declared by a legal tribunal to be 65 per cent above a fair rent, will the forces of the Crown be lent to assist in its recovery?
  MR. MADDEN: I cannot answer such a question.

  SEA BOARD COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could forward a Circular to the Sea Board County Councils, directing their attention to the first section of the Sea Fisheries Act, having reference to the formation of fishing districts, for the purpose of prohibiting the discharge of any substance detrimental to sea-fishing?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,): The Board of Trade are about to issue the Rules which they have drawn up for the guidance of those applying to them for Fishery Orders. These Rules will be published very widely, and will be accompanied by a circular calling attention, amongst other matters, to the point referred to by the hon. Member.

  LOCH GOIL AND LOCH LONG.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the pollution of the waters of Loch Long and Loch Goil, by the deposit of dredgings by the Clyde Trust, is still persistently continued, such deposits amounting to many thousand tons per month; whether these deposits were first made with the consent of the Admiralty, under the view of the right of the Crown to the soil of these inland seas; whether, since the scientific Report on the pollution of these lochs, made in 1887, the Admiralty consent has been withdrawn; and whether the Government will take steps on behalf of the public to abate the nuisance now continuing in waters legally under Crown control?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I regret to find that the Clyde Trustees continue the deposit of dredgings in Loch Long, without any diminution of the amount. The consent of the Admiralty, which was given in 1862 to the deposit of certain dredgings, expired long ago, and did not apply to the present operations. The present deposits are entirely without the sanction of any Department of Government. While the action of this body of Statutory Trustees is open to grave observation, the persons with whom the remedy primarily lies are those who are directly injured. I pointed out in February last to a deputation of proprietors and inhabitants of the district that if a nuisance has been created they have their action at Common Law, that it would be difficult to justify the institution of legal proceedings at the cost of taxpayers in the interests of a comparatively small number of persons affected by a local nuisance, where there is no active injury to Crown property. I by no means imply, however, that the Government renounce their intention, if need be, to take measures for stopping what cannot be regarded as a proper exercise of statutory powers.

  BUSBYHEAD PIT.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the inspector obtained his information anent the dispute at Busby-head Pit from the workmen or the manager; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made by some independent party into the facts of the case, since the men allege that they have documentary and oral evidence to prove the inspector's statement to be untrue?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the inspector that he obtained his information from the manager, as none of the miners were at the pit at the time when he made his visit. I consider the inspector to be an independent party, and I have requested him to make full inquiry from the men, and to report further to me on the matter.

  MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state, or if

  1793
  he would consent to a Return, showing what amounts have been paid to the Treasury annually, by way of royalties for minerals raised on the Crown lands of Wales, from the year 1860 up to the present time, and for what metals and minerals have such royalties been paid; what amounts have been received by the Treasury as royalty from "mines royal" on freehold lands during the same period, and what amount for gold and what for silver; what has been the approximate cost per annum of administering this department of the public service, and of collecting these royalties; and whether the Government intends in future to charge any royalty upon gold and silver obtained from mines royal on freehold property when such gold and silver is not being obtained at a profit to the adventurers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I cannot state the particulars asked for in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question without a Return; and a Return distinguishing the royalties received for each mineral for 28 years would be a long and costly business. As the total amount derived from these royalties has been less than £8,000 a year on the average for the last eight years, I do not think I should be justified in authorizing the expenditure of time and money necessary to obtain such a Return. As to royalties received by the Treasury from "mines Royal" on freehold lands during the same period, they were quite insignificant till the present financial year, when they amounted to £832. The cost of administering the Crown mineral property in Wales cannot be separately stated. The cost of collection and local supervision somewhat exceeds 8 per cent. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests will be willing to consider the claim of adventurers working "mines Royal" without profit to be exempt from royalties; but it must depend upon the circumstances of each case. I think the hon. Member can call to mind the case of a mine being sold to a company for, in shares and cash, £190,000, not so long ago. If the company in question were, in consequence of paying such a price, to make no profit, I should not consider that a reason for remitting the royalty due to the Crown. Until a
  1794
  few years ago, the Crown would have received one-fourth of the profits of the sale in question, and I am sorry that the Exchequer does not get such a share now.

  CRIMINAL CHARGES.
  MR. A. L. BROWNasked the Lord Advocate whether it was the case that, on the 24th day of October last, Peter Robertson, gamekeeper, Galashiels, was convicted by the Sheriff Substitute, at Selkirk, of an assault upon one James Brown, a convicted poacher, against whom he had himself lodged a charge of assault with the district constable; whether the Chief Constable of Selkirkshire, to whom the district constable had communicated the charge, did not transmit the same to the Procurator Fiscal of the county, who was thereby kept in ignorance of material facts; whether he will state whether the police are required to forward to the Public Prosecutor all essential information bearing upon a criminal charge undergoing investigation; and, if so, why the Chief Constable failed in his duty in this case; and whether he has declined to give Mr. Robertson's solicitor the information now asked for?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The statements of fact in the first part of the question are correct. The Procurator Fiscal was informed of the counter charge by the Chief Constable; and, on the information given, the Procurator Fiscal made inquiries and considered that there was no ground for such a charge. It is certainly the duty of the police to supply all essential information, and I am not aware that he failed in his duty in this case. The Secretary for Scotland has not declined to give the information now asked for. Robertson's solicitor, in reply to a request to know what the information was that influenced his decision not to interfere, was informed by the Secretary for Scotland that his judgment was formed on consideration of the case as submitted by the Solicitor himself, and after due inquiry.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  GENERAL SIR WILLIAM GROSSMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, with reference to the recent investments of the sums of

  1795
  £130,000 and £200,000 on mortgage of freehold estates from Greenwich Hospital Funds, referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his Report on the Capital and Income Accounts of Greenwich Hospital for the year ending 31st March, 1888, he will state what is the rate of interest to be paid on these mortgages, and what margin of security the Admiralty consider necessary in investments of this kind?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,), who replied, said: The rate of interest to be paid on each of these mortgages is 3¾ per cent per annum, and the margin of security is over 300 per cent in the first case and over 200 per cent in the second. The margin of security considered necessary in investments of this kind is about 200 per cent.

  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  MR. RICHARD POWERasked the Home Secretary how often the Inspector of Factories had visited Waterford within the last three years; and, if he has made any Report as to the condition of the working classes in that town?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Inspector of the district has visited the factories and workshops in Waterford seven times in the last three years. No special Report has been made on the condition of the working classes there.

  KING LO BENGULA.
  MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Envoys from King Lo Bengula, now in London, are charged with any special mission; and whether the Government will avail themselves of this opportunity afforded by the presence of the deputation in London to impress upon the King their views with regard to the concessions recently made by him to Mr. Rudd and others?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Lo Bengula's Envoys say that they were sent in order that they might report to him about the Queen and her country, and request her protection against foreign invasions and aggres-
  1796
  sions; Lo Bengula has also asked for advice about the white men who came into his country to dig for gold, and he will be recommended not to grant concessions without careful consideration and advice, and not to give to any individuals a monopoly of enter-prize in his country.

  SCOTCH LEGAL PROCEDURE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of Alexander Murray, of Tarbert, Harris, tried at Lochmaddy on Friday last on a charge of reset and discharged; whether it is true, as stated in the Scottish newspapers, that Murray, having been apprehended at Tarbert, was brought to Lochmaddy, committed to prison, liberated on bail, and had again to travel from Tarbert to Lochmaddy to tender a formal plea of not guilty; that he was then cited to take his trial before the sheriff and jury at Inverness, and on arriving there found that, without any notice, the Procurator Fiscal had deserted the diet; that after returning to Tarbert he was again cited for summary trial at Lochmaddy; and that he had in all to travel about 400 miles at his own expense to meet the charge against him, which finally broke down; and whether he will recommend the Treasury to recoup Murray for the needless expense to which he was subjected by the abandonment without notice of the diet against him at Inverness?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My attention has been called to this case. The facts as to the preliminary proceedings at Lochmaddy are accurately stated. Lochmaddy is the Court nearest to Tarbert, the distance those places being 8 hours, sailing, and the fare 1s. 6d. The trial at Inverness was countermanded, as it was considered that, the principal delinquent having been already convicted on his own plea, Murray might be tried summarily at Lochmaddy so as to avoid expense. Notice was duly sent for Murray's information, but it was found that he had already left home for Inverness two days sooner than was necessary. The inconveniences suffered are, to a large extent, inseparable from the geographical conditions of the country; and for the long journey to Inverness the accused was himself

  1797
  responsible. As I stated to the hon. Gentleman yesterday I shall see whether any modification of the arrangement of pleading diets can be made, so as to mitigate the difficulties of the district.

  SHANNON DRAINAGE BILL.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIENasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he has received from the Shannon or Limerick Board of Conservators, more than three months ago, a Petition in reference to the proposed Shannon Drainage Bill, and the serious injury that would accrue to the valuable salmon, trout, and eel fisheries of the river in the event of said Bill being passed; whether the only reply the Board of Conservators have received was a printed acknowledgment of the Petition; and whether, having regard to the great importance of the subject, he will cause a satisfactory and speedy answer to be returned to the body referred to?
  MR. MADDENsaid, that the Memorial in question had been received, and was duly acknowledged. The prayer of the Memorial was that the Bill, before it became law, might be referred to a Select Committee. This would be the natural course after the Bill had passed a Second Reading, and the Memorialists would be so informed.

  BURGLARS AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  MR. JEFFREYSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the following presentment lately made by the Grand Jury of Hampshire, with the approval of Mr. Justice Hawkins—
  "That, owing to the increase of the crime of burglary, we would suggest that when burglars are found in possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons, the law should provide that such persons should be liable to corporal punishment, and that this punishment should also be inflicted on persons convicted of brutal violence towards women and children;"
  and, if the Government will take any steps to carry out this presentment of the Grand Jury?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have received such a presentment. The infliction of corporal punishment is contrary to the spirit of recent legislation, and the Government would not propose to
  1798
  revert to this system of punishment unless there were strong grounds for supposing that the present law is not sufficiently deterrent in the case of the crimes referred to. There may, however, be cases where the violence is exceptionally brutal, and where the evidence of identity is beyond question. In such cases the application of corporal punishment might have a useful effect. I will consult the Lord Chancellor whether any amendment of the existing law is desirable or necessary.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board whether gentlemen in Government employ, and in receipt of salaries from the State, are eligible for County Councillors or Aldermen?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The fact that a person is in Government employ, and in receipt of salary from the State, does not render him legally ineligible for the office of County Councillor or County Alderman. With regard to the view of the Government on the question whether members of the Civil Service should be permitted to become candidates for County Councillors, I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given by the First Lord of the Treasury to a question on this subject on the 6th of December last.

  THE COASTGUARD.
  MR. BONDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Coastguard will participate in the proposed increase of pay to the signalmen of the Royal Navy whilst serving afloat for anuual exercise?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Not under existing regulations, but a proposal has been put forward, and is now under the consideration of the Board, to give the Coastguard signalmen, when embarked, an increase of pay.

  COUNTY COUNCILLORS.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEasked the President of the

  1799
  Local Government Board, whether, having regard to the state of the law, which permits clergymen and ministers of religion to become members of county but not of municipal councils, he will deal with this question in the Local Government Bill of this Session, or give facilities for the passing of a short Bill removing the anomaly?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is not proposed by the Government to introduce a Bill this Session altering the law as regards existing disqualifications for the office of Town Councillor, and I cannot undertake that, if any such Bill should be introduced by a private Member, facilities would be given for the consideration of the measure in preference to that of other Bills.

  PROTECTION OF RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Circular Letter of the 19th December last as to the regulations for the protection of platelayers and fogmen, and the replies of the railway companies to that Circular Letter, and any other communication from the railway companies since the issue of the Circular, stating what they propose to do by way of amending their regulations, as suggested in Major Marindin's Report on the Syston accident, or otherwise to prevent risk?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS): I think I shall probably be able to lay some papers on this subject on the Table when the correspondence is complete.

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that counsel for the Times have not produced before the Special Commission certain prisoners who allege that temptations have been held out to them by Mr. Andrews, Governor of Downpatrick Prison, policemen, and other persons acting for the Times, to induce them to concoct evidence against Members of this House and others, he will now consent to afford some means for inquiring into the truth of those allegations, seriously affecting the honour of the
  1800
  Government on the one part, and those charged before the Special Commission on the other part—namely, by a public investigation on oath?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine the means for inquiring into the truth of the allegations which the hon. Member desires is already provided by the Special Commission, before whom it is in the power of any of the defendants to call M'Nulty and Mullet and examine them upon oath.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioners have decided that their function is simply to inquire into certain charges and allegations made against Members of Parliament and others in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter"; whether they have declared that it is not in their power to extend the scope of their inquiry; and whether it is in the power of the House to ascertain whether officials in the service of the Government have been employed to suborn perjury?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe it is in the power of the Commissioners to call any of these persons before them.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen in the report of the proceedings before the Royal Commission on Tuesday last that Timothy Coffey, a witness for the Times, swore that a member of the Irish Constabulary asked him to make certain statements before the Royal Commission, and assured him that he would be remunerated if he gave valuable information, and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the truth of these allegations; whether the solicitor of those who are charged by the Times before the Commission will be allowed access to all official information in regard to the charges made against his clients which, as stated by the Times on Thursday, was placed at the disposal of the solicitor of that journal, and whether, as in the case of the Times, Mr. Anderson will place at his disposal any reports that he has received in regard to the actions of Mr. Lewis's clients; and whether the names of the police constables and the magistrates who furnish the Times with tabulated information will be given on application to Mr. Lewis in order that he may apply for all or any of that tabulated informa-

  1801
  tion that he may deem if in the interests of his clients to possess?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the proceedings; but I understand that the witness referred to is the one whom the Commission committed for contempt on the ground that, by his own showing, he was utterly untrustworthy. I have more than once stated in the House the desire of the Government to furnish all legitimate information either to the Commission or to parties charged before the Commission, and I have further stated that the proper method of obtaining such information is the ordinary one of writing a letter to the Irish Government, asking for the information which is required. Any application of that kind from Messrs. Lewis will be dealt with without unnecessary delay.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Government place in the hands of our solicitors all the information at present placed at the disposal of the Times?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall wait until the application is made before I answer it.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as the case of the Times before the Special Commission has closed without Mr. Robert Anderson having been called as a witness, he will now answer the questions which were put to him by the hon. Member for the Rugby Division on March 5th?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed that Mr. Anderson did hand to a witness named Le Caron, certain letters which had been written by Le Caron himself confidentially to Mr. Anderson under a pledge that they should be given to no one but Le Caron himself. Mr. Anderson did give Le Caron a letter of introduction to Mr. Houston, after having unsuccessfully advised him not to come forward as a witness. Mr. Anderson culled out from letters he had received from Le Caron those which related to private matters, and were not necessary for the purpose of giving evidence. Mr. Anderson is not aware whether the documents remained in Mr. Houston's custody. I have not been able, from such reports as I have seen, to verify the whole of the hon. Member's account of Le Caron's evidence, but I must decline to ascertain or to express any
  1802
  opinion whether Le Caron's evidence is true. That is a matter for the Special Commission to determine. Although Mr. Anderson acted without my knowledge or sanction, I think he acted properly in handing to Le Caron documents which had come from Le Caron, and which were necessary to enable him to give full evidence on any matter that the Commission deemed material.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: May I ask why Mr. Anderson was not called before the Commission to explain his conduct, according to the pledge given in the House by the Home Secretary?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I gave no pledge on the subject. I stated what Mr. Anderson informed me—that he had been summoned—but I cannot give an explanation why the counsel representing the Times has not called upon him. It is probable that Mr. Anderson will still be called at a later stage.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Did those papers of Major Le Caron belong to Mr. Anderson or to the Government?
  MR. COBB: Did Mr. Anderson tell Major Le Caron, "that Mr. Houston was a gentleman upon whom he could rely implicitly, and that Houston had been selected as representing the interests of the prosecution?"
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware. I have given all the information in my power. I apprehend that the documents belonged to Le Caron.
  MR. SEXTON: Was Mr. Anderson authorized to hand over to Le Caron documents necessary for his evidence in Court, and what has become of the portions of the documents handed over to Houston which were not used by Le Caron in Court?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I informed the hon. Member that Mr. Anderson acted without my knowledge and without my sanction. If he wishes for further information he must put a question on the Paper.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman said that he approved Mr. Anderson's action in handing the papers to Le Caron. Does he also approve of allowing those papers to be further committed to Houston, and what has become of the portion of the papers handed over to him which were not used by Le Caron in Court?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have stated that I thought that Mr. Anderson acted

  1803
  rightly in giving to Le Caron documents which had emanated from him and which were legitimate ones for him to refer to in order to give fuller and more accurate information to the Commission. To that expression of opinion I adhere. The hon. Gentleman asks about certain other documents, and of those I know nothing.
  MR. SEXTON: Was Le Caron authorized—[Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"]—perhaps you would like the adjournment of the House? Was Le Caron authorized by Mr. Anderson to hand to Houston documents given to Le Caron because they were necessary to his evidence; and what has Houston done with the remainder of the documents handed to him which were not used in Court in his evidence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have given all the information in my power. The documents were handed to him for the purpose of being used in evidence, and have been published to all the world.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: If these were private documents of Le Caron's, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers that the documents which Le Caron swore had been sent, over a period of years, to the Government, and for which he had received money from the Government, remained the property of Le Caron after the payment of the money?
  MR. MATTHEWS: When I stated that the letters remained the property of Le Caron I stated the ordinary rule of law—that the writer of a letter does not part with the property in it. As for the rest of the hon. Member's question, I must decline to answer it.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether all the documents were used in the Commission, or whether any of them remained in the hands of Houston?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member must put a Question on the Paper, and I will then consider whether I can answer it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: In view of the answers which have been given in connection with Mr. Anderson, I beg leave to give notice that on the Vote on Account relating to the Metropolitan Police I shall call attention to the conduct of Mr. Anderson in handing over confidential documents without leave from the Secretary of State, and its
  1804
  bearing upon his position as Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Metropolitan Police.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to an allegation in the first leader of the Times of the 14th of March that, while the case for the Times was proceeding before the Special Commission, official information was placed by the Government at the disposal of Mr. Soames; whether the official information has been imparted at the request of the Times, or spontaneously offered; and, if the latter, by whom it has been offered; whether his attention has been directed to the following statement in the article in question:—
  "We have no doubt similar information will be in like manner at the disposal of Mr. Lewis if he thinks he can make any use of it;"
  and has such information been supplied?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer the Question. The information to which the hon. Member alludes was imparted at the request of Mr. Soames. I have observed in the House more than once that the Government desire so far as is possible to deal equally by all parties appearing before the Commission. Some information has been supplied to Mr. Lewis in the manner suggested.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Was the information supplied to Mr. Soames supplied by the advice of the first law officer of the Crown?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information has nothing to do with the first law officer of the Crown. The Government acted in accordance with what they conceived to be their duty.

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, what are the intentions of the Government with respect to legislation against corrupt practices at municipal elections in Scotland.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Definite proposals upon this important matter have been under consideration; but, having regard to the other legislative

  1805
  engagements of the Government, I cannot at present give any undertaking on the subject.

  POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, pending the investigation into the rules observed in Irish prisons, he will use his influence with the Lord Lieutenant to induce him to issue a Prisons Order in Council to suspend the rules which require that a prisoner having himself clean clothes and being a cleanly person should be clothed in prison dress and have his hair cut, and his beard (if any) shaved off; to allow prisoners to be furnished with books; to provide prisoners who are accustomed to a generous diet with such additions to the prison dietary as may be advantageous to their health; and to separate those who are imprisoned for offences, the motive of which was political rather than personal, from hardened and habitual criminals?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member's Question refers to more than one kind of modification of existing prison rules. He desires, in the first place, to make prison more comfortable; in the second place, to draw a distinction between prisoners according to the motives which have actuated them; and in the third place, to carry out certain, alterations which I myself suggested on Wednesday last. As the object of all imprisonment is to deter offenders, I do not see that there is any adequate grounds for adopting the first of his proposals. As regards the second, I believe all efforts at classifying prisoners according to the motives of their offences have hitherto proved ineffectual, and I certainly cannot embark upon any undertaking of the kind, except under the advice of competent authorities. As regards the third suggestion, however, I am considering whether it would be expedient to advise the Lord Lieutenant to carry out, without unnecessary delay, the ideas which I laid before the House the day before yesterday.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to understand that the provisions of the Prisons' Act of 1877, classifying prisoners according to their offences have proved ineffectual?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I made no comment as to whether they were right or wrong. I intended to indicate that the elaborate classification according to motive has hitherto proved impossible to carry out.

  THE PONSONBY ESTATE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Freeman's Journal, of 13th March, in which Mr. H. H. Townsend, agent for the syndicate which has bought the Ponsonby estate, declared it is the intention of the syndicate to evict all the tenants who do not purchase their holdings or otherwise settle on terms proposed by the Syndicate; and whether he will draw the attention of the Land Purchase Commissioners to the pressure thus brought to bear upon the tenants, and suggest to the Commissioners any steps which may protect the tenants from practical compulsion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have seen the letter to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. It in no way conveys the meaning which he appears to attribute to it. I have no doubt the Land Commission will take note of any circumstances which may render a sale under the Ashbourne Act inexpedient or illegal.

  YOUGHAL.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any informations were sworn indicating a probable disturbance of the peace in the town of Youghal upon any one of the anniversaries of the death of O'Hanlon; if there were, would he lay them upon the Table of the House; and, if not, would he state upon whose application those large bodies of extra police were sent to Youghal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not had time to obtain a report on the subject, but the hon. Member must be aware that the police do not require a sworn information before taking precautions they may think necessary for the preservation of the public peace.

  PEMBA AND ZANZIBAR.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under

  1807
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's Government have consented to unite with the German Government in a blockade of the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar, in substitution of a blockade of the coast?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): I shall be much obliged if my hon. Friend will postpone his Question until Monday.

  FATHER M'FADDEN.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, during the confinement of Father M'Fadden, who is at present a prisoner in Derry Gaol, one warder is specially told off to guard the prisoner; and, if so, from what motive; and was the same course taken when Father Stephens was in confinement in the same prison, at the same time as Father M'Fadden, awaiting his trial before the resident magistrates?
  MR. A. J. BALFFOUR: The Prisons Board inform me that they have no official knowledge as to the disposal of the prison officers by the governor of any prison for the safe keeping of those committed to his charge. The governor is solely responsible for the custody of his prisoners, and is bound to take such steps as he may consider necessary.

  THE BAMFORD POST OFFICE.
  MR. HOYLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, if the vacancy at the Post Office, Bamford, near Rochdale, has been filled; and, if so, whether the appointment has been made in accordance with the wishes of the principal inhabitants, as expressed in a memorial forwarded in the usual way?
  MR. RAIKES: Mrs. Grindrod, who is, I understand, the person on whose behalf the inhabitants petitioned, has been nominated Sub-Postmistress at Bamford and, if eligible and able to perform the duties of the office in a satifactory manner, she will in due course be appointed.

  THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the hon. Mem-
  1808
  ber for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, whether tenders for the construction of a portion of the Blackwall Tunnel scheme have been, or were to be, opened by the Metropolitan Board of Works on this day; and, whether, in view of the fact that this Board will cease to exist in a few days' time, it is their intention to take any action which will commit the County Council with reference to such tenders?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: In answer to the Question I have to inform the hon. Member that the Board have, after a discussion of two hours and a half, opened tenders for the Blackwall Tunnel, and have approved the lowest. They have so informed the contractor. The contract will come up for sealing at the next meeting of the Board.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: May I ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the fact—and notwithstanding his strong expression of opinion yesterday—that the Metropolitan Board of Works have proceeded to consider tenders for this project and have accepted one of them, he is prepared, as President of the Local Government Board, to intimate either to the County Council or to the ratepayers of the Metropolis any measures which may be open to them to take to render absolutely nugatory what appears to be a very gross abuse of authority?
  MR. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Motion in favour of the acceptance of this tender was first negatived, but that by some strange ruling it was put by the chairman and carried; whether the tender accepted is £38,000 over the estimate formed by the chief engineer; whether the contract is to be confirmed next week; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will exercise his powers under the Act to arrest this shameless action.
  MR. RITCHIE: After what took place last night I at once caused a letter to be written to the Metropolitan Board of Works. It is to the effect that the President of the Local Government Board wished his opinion to be conveyed to the Metropolitan Board of Works that action, such as that suggested, would, in the circumstances, be very inexpedient, and expressing a strong hope that the Board would not proceed

  1809
  to bind their successors in a matter of so much importance; but that they would leave the matter open for the consideration of the London County Council on their resumption of office. I have no knowledge of what took place other than that of which the House has been informed by the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire. I would point out, in reply to my noble Friend, that section 109 (1) of the Local Government Act is as follows—
  "Subject as in this Act mentioned, the appointed day for the purposes of this shall, in each county, be the 1st day of April next after the passing thereof, or such other day, earlier or later as the Local Government Board (but after the election of County Councillors for such county on the application of the Provisional Council or County Council) may appoint, either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, whether contained in the same section or in different sections or for different counties."
  In the circumstances of this case, I think, if the Local Government Board were to receive from the Provisional Council of the County of London an application to advance the appointed day, either with reference to this particular power of entering into contracts or generally, prior to the contract being sealed—which I understand is to take place on Friday next—it would be the duty of the Local Government Board to give such application their most careful consideration.
  MR. LAWSON: To elicit the truth, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Knutsford Division of Cheshire whether the tender accepted by the Board was for £318,000, and that the estimate of the Chief Engineer was £280,000, thus making a difference of £38,000 between the estimate and the tender?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: The hon. Member's figures are perfectly correct. But I should like to remind the House that the estimates of the Engineer did not include the liability which the contractor has to undertake of any accident taking place in the works, which are unprecedented and which have never been tried on so large a scale before.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Did the Metropolitan Board of Works receive from the County Council a request not to accept the tender?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: Yes, it is so.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, whether the Board will postpone the consideration of any further grants of pensions to officers of the Board, and leave the question to be decided by the London County Council?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: The Board of Works have no further applications for pensions beyond those which are on the Board's agenda paper to-day, and which have been recommended for approval.

  FIRST-CLASS MISDEMEANANTS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to bring in a Bill to provide that persons convicted of offences under the Vaccination Acts, or of obstructing the highway by religious services, or of other offences of similar character, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, should be treated as first-class misdemeanants?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I should have been better able to answer the Question if the hon. Member had specified "the other offences" which he considers to be of a "similar character" to offences under the Vaccination Acts and the Highway Acts. The magistrates have already the power of largely mitigating the punishments inflicted on summary conviction of substituting a fine for any imprisonment, and possibly (although this is a matter of doubt) of ordering the offender to be treated as a first-class misdemeanant; and I wish they would use those powers more freely in some of the cases which the hon. Member has in view. But I have known cases under the Vaccination Acts where a parent is guilty of cruelty to his children and selfish disregard of the public welfare, with no good motive whatever; and cases under the Highway Acts, accompanied by riotous conduct and serious public nuisance, which are not deserving of lenient treatment; and I should not be prepared to bring in a Bill of the sweeping character described by the hon. Gentleman making imprisonment as a first-class misdemeanant in all cases the only penalty for offences of that kind.

  FLOGGING IN THE BAHAMAS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, by the law prevailing in the Bahamas, a person convicted upon indictment of an assault upon a Judge can be punished with flogging, and, if so, whether he will state the authority?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. E. WEBSTER,): By Section 23 of the Bahamas Statute, 4 Will. IV., c. 25, as amended by the 63rd Section of the Bahamas Statute, 28 Vict., c. 3, a person committing a felony after a previous conviction can, upon conviction for such second offence, be whipped. The person in question committed such an assault upon the learned Judge that it undoubtedly amounted to an attempt to murder. It was, I believe, under the Statute to which I have referred that the Chief Justice purported to order the whipping. As I have already stated in this House, that punishment was, in my opinion, illegal.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Were steps taken for the removal of the Chief Justice?
  SIR R. E. WEBSTER: The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies has already stated that the Chief Justice was removable by the Governor and Council of the Colony, subject to an appeal to the Home Authorities.

  THE TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is correctly reported in Hansard, vol. 322, page 1,456, on the Debate upon the Rule of Procedure respecting the right of a Minister of the Crown to move the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule—
  "The object in view was to afford the opportunity of closing a great Debate in a manner which would conduce to the proper conclusion of very grave and important Questions. It would he obviously improper that the Minister, or the Member of the Opposition, who had to wind up a very important Debate should be exposed to the necessity of crowding his observations into a few minutes:"
  and whether he is prepared to assure the House that the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule will only be moved on such occasions during the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I have already dealt
  1812
  with the Question of the hon. Gentleman in debate, and in answer to questions put to me last Session; but I repeat, if the hon. Member desires me to do so, that I entirely deny I entered into any engagement with the House so restrictive as that which he would put into my mouth. I referred to a great debate by way of illustration of the use of the provision of the Standing Order, and it would obviously have been absurd for a Minister to deny to himself the power to move to suspend the order with regard to supply, which, under present conditions, is frequently the most urgent business the House has to consider.

  ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
  MR. T. ROBINSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session to amend the law and practice in regard to the administration of estates in the Court of Chancery, with the view of preventing the great delay, and diminishing the heavy cost so frequently attending such administration in that Court; and whether he will consider the desirability of having a yearly official Return made of all estates in course of administration in the Court of Chancery, and of taking power to transfer the administration of any such estates as may be found to be insolvent into the Bankruptcy Court, to be wound up according to the practice of that Court and in sight of the public.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government intend to deal with the subject of the first part of the Question by carrying out as far as possible the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the Master of the Rolls, whose Report is on the Table of the House; but we are not at present able to say whether legislation will become necessary to give full effect to those recommendations. With regard to the second part of the Question, which requires much consideration, the Lord Chancellor will be communicated with.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. SEXTON: With reference to the Business of the House, I wish to call attention to the following announcement in the Times:—

  1813
  "Parliamentary Notices, House of Commons,
  Friday, March 15.
  Notices of Motions.
  At half-past 3 o'clock.
  "Mr. W. H. Smith,—That the proceedings of the Committee of Supply, if the Committee be sitting at 12 o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House'
  "Mr. W. H. Smith,—That so much of Standing Order 11 as requires that the question shall be proposed 'that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair' be suspended this day; and that the provisions of Standing Order 66 be extended to this day's sitting of the Committee of Supply."
  As there is no Notice of the Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, either upon the notice of proceedings circulated to hon. Members or on the Orders of the Day now in our possession, I beg to ask whether those notices are mere inventions of the Times, or whether there is any reason to believe that any intermediary between the Government and the Times has forged them.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not responsible for anything except that which appears on the Papers of the House. I have no idea how these notices appeared in the Times newspaper.

  THE MURDER OF INSPECTOR MARTIN.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he will fulfil the promise given yesterday, and say how many persons have been arrested in connection with the murder of District Inspector Martin?
  MR. MADDEN: Thirty-eight persons were arrested, and either 20 or 21 were subsequently discharged. Of those discharged one has since been re-arrested, having since been identified as one of the assailants of Mr. Martin. These figures include all arrests.

  CAPTAIN SEGRAVE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary what has become of Captain Segrave, the hero of Mitchelstown, who has been absent from iris duties ever since I brought his con-
  1814
  duct before the consideration of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Captain Segrave has been on leave, and he will not be called upon to perform his magisterial duties again until we have received information from the Cape on the point raised by the hon. Member.
  DR. TANNER: Could not a wire be sent to the Cape to find if Captain Segrave was not dismissed from his post there?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Documents cannot be transferred by wire, and it would not be fair to Captain Segrave to take any final action without such documents.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I have before called attention to the fact that these documents can be found at No. 25, Victoria Street, Westminster, the office of the Agent-General for Cape Colony in London.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the columns of the Cape Gazette will be placed at my disposal in order that I may point out to the Chief Secretary the date of Captain Segrave's dismissal?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of his Question.

  NAVY (EFFECTIVE SHIPS OF WAR).
  Returns ordered, "arranged under the following Classes, showing for each Class the number, tonnage, and cost of the Effective Ships of the Royal Navy—

  1. Afloat on the 1st day of January, 1889;

  2. Standard of strength of Navy decided upon;

  3. Required to bring present numbe up to proposed standard;

  4. Required in five years to replace loss by depreciation, &c.;

  and, assuming that financial provision for deficiency be spread over a period of years, the number, tonnage, and estimated cost of ships to be built between the 1st day of April, 1889, and the 31st day of March, 1894.

  RETURN No. 1.

  Class.

  Effective Ships afloat 1st January, 1889.*

  Proposed standard in 1894.

  Required to complete standard.

  Expenditure required to complete Ships building.

  Expenditure on Ships to be built.

  Annual depreciation, as shown in the Estimates 1889–90.

  Difference between expenditure proposed and depreciation as estimated.

  Remarks.

  Number.

  Tonnage.

  Cast.

  Number.

  Tonnage.

  Number.

  Cost.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Armoured:

  Battle Ships, 1st Class

  …

  …

  Battle Ships, 2nd Class

  …

  …

  Battle Ships, Others

  …

  …

  Cruisers, 1st Class

  …

  …

  Cruisers, 2nd Class

  …

  …

  Cruisers, Others

  …

  …

  Total armoured

  …

  …

  Protected:

  Cruisers, 1st Class

  …

  …

  Cruisers, 2nd Class

  …

  …

  Cruisers, 3rd Class

  …

  …

  Cruisers, Others

  …

  …

  Torpedo Depôt Ships

  …

  …

  Total protected

  …

  …

  Unprotected:

  …

  …

  Corvettes

  …

  …

  Sloops

  …

  …

  Gun Vessels

  …

  …

  Torpedo Cruisers

  …

  …

  Torpedo Gun Boats

  …

  …

  Gun Boats

  …

  …

  Torpedo Boats, 1st Class

  …

  …

  Torpedo Boats, 2nd Class

  …

  …

  Despatch Vessels

  …

  …

  Miscellaneous

  …

  …

  Total unprotected

  …

  …

  Grand total

  …

  …

  * Effective Ships are understood to comprise all Ships afloat, except those which will probably be removed from the List of the Navy as obsolete, and not worth repair, in the period between the 1st day of April 1889 and the 1st day of April 1894.

  Note.—The Columns to be totalled for Classes as shown for Return No. 1.

  Return No. 3.

  Names, guns, tonnage, and speed of the Ships afloat in the Royal Navy on the 1st day of January, 1889, but which, being obsolete in type or speed, are not included in the "effective" Ships shown in Returns Nos. 1 and 2:—

  Name.

  Class.

  Tonnage.

  Speed.

  When launched.

  How now employed.

  Where stationed

  Remarks.

  Note.—To be arranged under the classification adopted in Return No. 1.

  RETURN No. 4.

  Statement of the Naval Expenditure on Shipbuilding and Repairs, &c, in the five years ending on the 31st day of March 1879 and the four years ending on the 31st day of March 1889, compared with the proposed Expenditure for the five years ending on the 31st day of March 1893:—

  Nature of expenditure.

  1876

  1877

  1878

  1879

  For four years.

  1886

  1887

  1888

  1889 estimated.

  For four years.

  1890

  1891

  1892

  1893

  For four years.

  Total.

  Average.

  Total

  Average.

  Total.

  Average.

  New Constructions

  Repairs, &c

  Armaments

  Total of Shipbuilding Expenditure from Naval and Army Funds.

  —(Lord Randolph Churchill).

MOTIONS

  ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Harry Davenport, Bill for the amendment of the Law relating to Ecclesiastical Dilapidations, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Davenport, Mr. Salt, Baron Dimsdale, and Mr. Gurdon.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 159].

  ROYALTIES AND FORESHORE RIGHTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On the motion of Mr. Murphy, Bill to provide for vesting in the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland Royalties, Foreshore Rights, and Water Rights connected with lands sold under the Purchase of Lands (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Murphy, Mr. Parnell, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, and Mr. Clancy.
  Bill presented and read first time. [Bill 160.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think, Sir, I am at liberty to express a hope that the discussion on to going into Committee of Supply to-night may be so far restricted as to permit the House considering in Committee the Supplementary Estimates. I believe that it is the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite that the Vote on Account should be taken on Monday next, but it is impossible to do that unless the Supplementary Estimates are first disposed of. I appeal, therefore, to the House to endeavour as far as possible to give the facilities which are necessary in order to enable us to comply with the wishes of hon. Gentlemen.

  SALARIES OF CABINET MINISTERS.
  MR. RATHBONE: At a time when it is proposed to largely increase the expenditure of the country, it is necessary that we should examine seriously how far our system of administration is such as to secure that the enormous sums voted by Parliament are not wasted, but that the country has value received for its expenditure, whether military, naval, or domestic. I contend that a system which, in two changes of Ministry, one
  1820
  Liberal and one Conservative, placed only one Minister besides the Prime Minister in the position they previously occupied, gives no such security; that when first introduced into new Departments the Minister has to learn his work, and that our Departments are therefore during most of the time under the charge not of duly trained administrators, but of apprentices. It is government by apprentices not by statesmen, and, as I shall show, the results are most unsatisfactory and discreditable, and in the present state of European politics may any day prove fatally disastrous. Under present conditions of war, large armaments, improved engines of destruction, and rapid transit, we shall not be allowed time, as we were in the Crimean war, to amend our system and to correct its blunders. I have not brought forward this question from any love of abstract principles or desire of theoretical uniformity, but simply because, having for twenty years closely watched the practical results of our present strange system of constituting the Parliamentary Executive of this great Empire, I have become convinced that they are as pernicious as the system, or rather want of system, is absurd and indefensible. When we consider that an apprenticeship is required to-make a mason, or a carpenter, or a blacksmith, it seems to me strange to suppose that the duties of a statesman conducting the affairs of Ireland, of our Colonies, of India, of the Army or of the Navy, or of presiding over those departments which have the charge of the health and local government of our country, its poor and its education, may be taken up by anyone without previous knowledge or experience, nay, that the same man without any training for the posts, may be able to manage any number or variety of these departments in rapid succession with success and advantage to the country. It would, indeed, almost appear as if it were supposed that previous ignorance of the work of the department which a man was asked to conduct was the best qualification for success in it. The consequence, I venture to say, has been, and must be, that, with an amount of ability and devotion to the Public Service on the part of our statesmen on both sides of the House of which it is not easy to speak too highly, and

  1821
  freedom from that corruption that pervades the administration of autocratic Russia, and democratic America and France, the most serious blunders are constantly committed and repeated—blunders which would have been impossible if our ministers possessed any thorough knowledge of the history and experience of the departments over which they were called upon to preside. It is surprising, and only due to the admirable permanent officials which the country has the happiness to possess, that the blunders have not been even more numerous. My contention is, that ministers are changed about from one office of the State to another apparently without due regard to their previous qualifications or experience, and that the relative estimation in which these offices are held and treated is absurd in the extreme. For instance, the Secretary for War, of the Colonies, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, are considered to be officers of first-class importance, while the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the President of the Local Government Board, or of Trade, or the Minister of Education, ministers on whom the health and welfare and the character of our people depend, are held to occupy offices of second-class in importance and emolument, not necessarily held by Cabinet Ministers; and if a man shows any ability in these Home Departments, so important to the interests of the United Kingdom, he is on the first opportunity removed as promotion to the external or to the spending and defensive offices of the State. I will give a few instances to show how wretchedly this system works; and I will take one from each side of the House. In both cases not a word can be said against the zeal, ability, and patriotism with which the men in question did their work. It was the system, and the system alone, which was to blame for the results, or want of results, which have ensued. I will take an instance from the Liberal side first, and from that department of the State in the work of which I have long felt especial interest, and know most about, I mean that of the Local Government Board. When the health of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, broke down owing to his labours, in attempting to cleanse the then Augean stables
  1822
  of the Admiralty, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the head of the Poor Law Board, and had shown such ability in that position, and such a determination to get to the bottom of things, that he had won the confidence of both sides of the House, and great expectations were formed of what he would be able to do in carrying out those reforms which he advocated, and which for 17 years we have since been annually told were to be the first objects of the exertions of the Ministry, whether Conservative or Liberal. It was only last year we made a serious beginning with these reforms, but most of the work then contemplated still remains to be done. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Halifax, was Secretary to the Treasury, and had been Secretary to the Admiralty, and had shown in the latter department very great ability. What was done? The present Chancellor of the Exchequer being first in turn for promotion was taken from the Department which he was beginning to understand, and where he had given great promises of reform, and placed at the head of the Navy, of which he knew nothing, and my right hon. Friend, the Member for Halifax, who had been a great success at the Admiralty, and had paid no special attention to the question of Local Government and expenditure, was placed at the head of the Local Government Board. The consequence was just what might have been expected. The reforms in Local Government have still to be carried out, and in the meantime the debts of the local authorities have risen from £41,000,000 to£147,234,000; and though much of the money has no doubt been well spent, it is notorious that considerable sums, especially in the smaller local districts, have been wasted, and we are still without a reasonably effective system of local government. On the other hand, in the Navy, the reforms commenced by my right hon. Friend the the Member for Edinburgh have never been followed up by further necessary improvements, and we have had recently very disagreeable disclosures necessitating the appointment of a Committee of inquiry. From all sides come complaints or admissions that, while the country has spent enormous sums on her Navy, it is not in a state which the

  1823
  country has a right to expect from her efforts and sacrifices. But how under such a system can we expect to escape what the First Lord of the Admiralty himself described as the scandal of recent disclosures of mismanagement? The First Lord said rightly that the responsibility of undertaking expenditure must be with the Government, but of course, the Government must rely to a large extent on their subordinate and permanent officers. No one has been dismissed for the recent scandals that have occurred, and it is said that you cannot dismiss these permanent men because you gave them more to do than they could possibly accomplish. Whose fault was that unreasonable expectation? And who ought to have set it right? Why, of course, the head of the Department. But you cannot reasonably blame him, as you never gave him time to become thoroughly acquainted with the work of the Department and with its officials. He cannot judge what his men can do, or the fitness of those under him to do certain work. The country has never grudged the necessary payment for a good Navy, but it does grudge the large sums which are admitted on all hands to be absolutely wasted, admittedly without giving us satisfactory results. If the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had been allowed in 1871 to carry out those reforms in local government which he had got his hands upon, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, who already knew the details and ropes of the Admiralty, had been allowed to carry on and carry forward the reforms initiated by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, it is not unreasonable to suppose that we should not have been kept waiting 18 years afterwards for the necessary reforms in both those Departments. I do not want to depreciate the improvement which those statesmen effected in their respective Departments; indeed, in that which I understand best, my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax laid the foundation for future reforms in the local government of the country, but it stands to reason that he would have been able to carry matters much further had he not been forced to commence by studying the details of what to him was an entirely new Department. But, alas for the country's interests, the present
  1824
  Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the Cabinet in order of promotion before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax; and the management of our Navy was considered a Department of greater dignity with higher emolument than the Local Government Board. Therefore, in justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was placed in the department of which he was comparatively ignorant, and the right hon. Gentleman for Halifax was placed in a Department of which he was comparatively ignorant, because the Department on which the health and good government of the country depend is considered of secondary dignity, importance, and emolument to the Navy, Army, &c. I repeat, it was in personal justice to an individual that that transfer was made. But where was justice to the country in this transfer, and is not the system pernicious which places personal justice to the individual in conflict with justice to the interests of the nation? Well now, to take a case from the Conservative side. I had the honour of sitting for three years in the 1874 Parliament under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, on a Committee to enquire into the Local Government and taxation of towns in Ireland. We soon found that the question could not be considered without taking the question of the whole Local Government of Ireland into consideration, and the different areas and duties of Local Government were so confused and overlapping that it was impossible to consider the urban apart from the rural side of the question. We sat for three sessions, the then Chief Secretary for Irelan showing as chairman patience, impartiality, and a thorough devotion to the work, which won for him the esteem and confidence of both sides of the Committee. The evidence showed an unexpected amount of scope and capacity for Local Government in Ireland, and led to a report upon which, undoubtedly, the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to found a Bill at once liberal and safe for the Local Government of Ireland, which might if adopted then have done much to engage the attention of the active spirits in Ireland in Local Government, given them an opportunity of representing effectually their interests and opinions without tumult or disturbance, and

  1825
  would thus have gone very far, I believe, in training them for self-government and in preserving order. But Lord Carnarvon retired just then from the Colonial office; and the Chief Secretaryship for Ireland, which probably has been for many years the most important and difficult office in the ministry, was, as it constantly has been, treated as an office of secondary dignity and importance. The very fact of the right hon. Gentleman having shown great ability and devotion to the office marked him out for promotion, as it is considered, from the Government of Ireland to the Government of our distant Colonies. He was transferred therefore to the Colonial office as a matter of justice to him, and Mr. James Lowther was appointed to succeed him at the Irish office, and nothing came of the labours of that important Committee. But where, I ask again, was the justice to the interests of the nation in that transfer? Did it produce compensating benefits in the Colonies? It became my duty subsequently, in order to support an Amendment which I carried against the right hon. Gentleman, to read up thoroughly papers connected with our African policy and the initiation of the Zulu War. For that policy, as Colonial Secretary at the time it commenced, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, the right hon. Member for West Bristol was officially responsible. It was perfectly evident from his despatches that the right hon. Gentleman's instinct was that that War would be a mistake; but being new in his office, he contented himself with strongly and repeatedly cautioning Sir Bartle Frere; but, new and inexperienced in his office, he did not feel sufficient confidence in his own judgment to restrain Sir Bartle, and, after strong and repeated cautions, gave him a free hand. Sir Bartle Frere, no doubt, thought that the Government at home did not feel confidence in themselves, but, as he always did feel absolutely confident in his own views, he went to war. No one now believes in the wisdom of the Zulu War, and to it may be traced all the trouble which followed in South Africa and which continues to trouble us there now. I firmly believe that these troubles in South Africa, as well as those in Ireland, from both of which we are still Buffering, might have been averted by a
  1826
  consistent policy, had not the affairs of the two departments been in the hands of Ministers new to them. I refer any Member who wishes to convince himself of the truth of what I have stated to the Official Despatches of 1878–79 on South Africa. I will not detain the House by further instances, but I will appeal to any man who has watched the course of appointments and promotion on our Parliamentary Executive on both sides during the last 20 years, whether he could not point to instance after instance in which appointments to office or promotion have been fettered, and consequently injudicious, under the present system. Of course I know that it may be argued in reply to what I have said that it is very important to prevent the Public Departments of this country getting into a groove, and that a fresh hand coming into a Department from time to time introduces fresh life into it. But I may point out that the experience of late years shows that under a democratic constitution, such as we enjoy, changes of Government will be quite sufficiently frequent not only to ensure the infusion of fresh energy, but to make it very difficult to secure statesmen in the different Departments with sufficient Parliamentary experience and knowledge of the work of our public offices as Ministers of State. It would be, of course, absurd to contend that Ministers must be always confined to or have a vested interest in the Department in which they began official life. The talents developed by men in office, and the needs of the public service, will frequently require such changes, particularly in men of exceptional brilliancy, who may become Prime Ministers, but it should not be the rule to move men about from place to place without ever a chance of acquiring thorough knowledge of the work of the Departments and of the men under them who have to carry out the work, and whose work and promotion they have to apportion and direct. Surely such is not work to be entrusted to men inexperienced and ignorant—to mere apprentices in the department. I think it will astonish anyone who will take out as I have done, in the paper which I hold in my hand, the changes that have taken place in the occupants of the different offices when the same party is in power, to see how men have been moved about

  1827
  from office to office, hardly any of them having been allowed to retain the same office long enough to become thoroughly acquainted with and exercised in the duties they have to perform. The Conservatives quitted office in 1868, and returned in 1874. We find only five offices were filled by the same men in 1874 as in 1868, while 13 had new chiefs, and in 8 cases there had been more than one change of office during the same time. The Liberals left office in 1874 and returned in 1880. Only two Ministers, including the Premier, returned to their former offices, while 16 offices had new chiefs, and in no less than 16 cases had there been more than one change of office during these few years. The Conservatives left office in 1880, and returned in 1885. Here again, only two men returned to their previous offices, while 16 offices had new chiefs, and in 4 cases there had been more than one change of office in the period. The Liberals left office in 1885, and returned the very next year; yet, after that short interval, only three returned to their old offices, and 15 had new chiefs. The Conservatives left office and returned to it in the same year, 1886, but only six of them returned to their previous offices, while in one year 12 out of 18 offices were placed under new chiefs. Is it possible to conceive that the affairs of even an ordinary business—let alone the vast and complicated concerns of this great Empire—could be successfully managed with so little of that thoroughness of training or completeness of knowledge as can alone be possessed by men who serve some time, instead of being thus rapidly moved from one office to another, apparently hardly ever placed again in the same office, hardly ever having any chance of understanding their work thoroughly? Is it to be wondered at that our legislation is the constant theme of contemptuous comment by our Judges, or that the country is constantly exposed to dangers and difficulties which nothing but the tenacity, energy, and spirit of her people have succeeded in fighting her through, not under the wise guidance of, but in spite of the superficial, hasty, incomplete legislation and administration of, the Government of this country. It may seem somewhat presumptuous in one who has not been a Minister, and who,
  1828
  not having entered Parliament till he was 50, has never considered himself fit to be a Minister, to venture to criticize the formation of the Executive, and the conditions under which they are expected to work; but it is, according to the old proverb, the lookers-on who often see more of the play than the actors themselves, and those who have felt how very superficial and imperfect our present system is, are naturally led to study the cause of those defects. I do not wish to detain the House, or I could give other instances of the strange way in which Ministers are by both parties placed in the offices of which they have least experience, thus throwing away all the advantages of their knowledge and training previously acquired. Informer days, when men came very young into the House and were put young into under-Secretaryships, there might be an advantage in giving men of exceptional ability and genius the experience of several Departments; but now that the affairs of the country have become vast and complicated, and when, unfortunately, few men are taken into the Executive sufficiently young to give time to serve an apprenticeship to one Executive office after another, the practical result, I do not hesitate to say, is a most superficial and inefficient way of carrying on the business of the country and of its dependencies. The opinions I have expressed are not confined to men like myself, who have never held, or sought to hold, office. I have discussed the subject frequently with men on both the front Benches, and I have rarely found any who have defended the present system of moving men about so rapidly and putting the round peg into the square hole and the square peg into the round hole. On the contrary, I have found those men who are most anxious to serve their country and to do their work thoroughly, complain bitterly of the injury to the country and to their chances of serving it with credit to themselves, owing to their having been moved so rapidly, even where it was nominally promotion, and just when they were beginning to feel that they were learning the work of their department and saw their opportunity of doing good work in it. Many Members of this House will remember the satirical reply of Mr. Disraeli (who could not

  1829
  resist a good hit at even his own acts), when remonstrated with by a man who understood Local Government, but knew nothing of trade, and whom he offered to make President of the Board of Trade. "Well, I suppose you know as much about trade as the First Lord does about ships." By the Resolution I am about to move I maintain that it is desirable at any rate to remove difficulties arising out of personal claims for promotion, from the path of the Minister who has to decide who is to be placed at the head of any vacant department. With this object I contend that all the great departments of State except those held by the Lord Chancellor and Prime Minister, should, as regards salary and dignity, be put on an equal footing, and that we should remove the most absurd anomaly of all, that of treating such offices as that of the Education Department, the President of the Local Government Board, upon whom depend the internal good government of England, or that of the Chief Secretary of Ireland, upon whose devoted head most of the important departments of Irish Administration are concentrated, as secondary departments of the State, only to be held by men till they have tried their 'prentice hand upon them, and shown sufficient ability to be transferred to some more dignified and higher-paid office, and their places supplied by some raw hand who has to practise upon them as the corpus vile of the Constitution. I do not, for a moment, suggest or believe that it is the difference in the pecuniary value of the different offices that produces the evil I complain of. I have no doubt that our Statesmen would prefer an office of higher dignity and importance at a sacrifice of pecuniary emolument. But the difference of salary is held to denote a difference of dignity and importance in the several offices; and it is that difference of dignity and importance that causes the supposed necessity for what is considered due promotion from one to the other. I will just sum up the present position of the twelve most important State Departments as they have been handed down from time immemorial, without material change. There are five Secretaries of State, a First Lord of the Treasury, and a Chancellor of the Exchequer, each receiving £5,000 a year; the First Lord of the
  1830
  Admiralty, £4,500.[Sir G. TREVELYAN: And a house.]—The Chief Secretary for Ireland, £4,425. [Sir G. TREVELYAN: He has a house also.] And the Presidents of the Board of Trade, of the Local Government Board, and Education—who do not have houses—each with salaries of £2,000 a year. It cannot be for a moment contended that, in this commercial country, with its dense population, vast and complicated interests and problems, the Ministers who are to direct the Boards of Trade, of Local Government, and of Education are of less importance than the Secretaries of the Colonies, &c., or that the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, who is at once Home Secretary, President of the Local Board, and chief of a number of important offices all rolled into one, requires a less able man at the head of it, or is of less importance than the office of Home. Secretary or Secretary of the Admiralty or the Navy; and, again, no one will contend that for England the management of the Navy is a less difficult or less important department than the management of the Army. To equalize all, leaving present total cost the same, would reduce them to an average of £4,160 a year, while to level up and give each £5,000 a year would add only £10,000 to the payment of those who are responsible for the economical and efficient expenditure of about £60,000,000 a year. We ought to do one or other, to make it more easy than it is now to place in each Department the best man for it, and to keep him there so long as he is the best man for it, and no longer. The payment of the heads of our great Departments has been hitherto liberal, but not excessive, as compared with the payment for work requiring similar ability elsewhere. The manager of a great railroad and of other large establishments gets about the same salary permanently that the Minister at the head of the Navy gets temporarily; but it should be borne in mind that in autocratic Russia and in democratic France and America, you have men growing rich in office and by office, notoriously, from corruption and connection with the Stock Exchange, and any one who knows the frightful waste of public money and mismanagement and disaster which have in those countries arisen from their system will be most anxious to avoid anything of

  1831
  the same nature here. As a man of business, if the business were my own, I can only say that I should consider undue parsimony in these matters as waste and not true economy. I wish to repeat that I do not pretend to find fault with the Prime Ministers of great ability, Conservative as well an Liberal, who have during the last 20 years presided over the Government of this country. The blame attaches to the system which they have inherited, and which has interfered with the free exercise of their discretion and judgment, to an extent of which they and other men brought up under this system are perhaps themselves hardly aware. Of course it is not desirable that the House of Commons should interfere with the discretion of the Prime Minister in the appointments of the several departments, but what we can do, and ought to do, is to remove from his path personal difficulties in the way of his selecting for a particular appointment the best man. We may facilitate this by putting all the higher Executive Offices of the State, except of course those of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, on the same level as to standing and emolument. But there is another evil and a growing one in the condition under which the duties of Ministerial Offices are now discharged. I need only say a single word, for everyone admits the evil, but almost everyone submits to it. I mean the great and growing evil of expecting that Ministers are not only to attend to the increasingly heavy duties which are placed upon them as the Executive of this country, but also to undertake out-of-doors an immense and increasing amount of public speaking, absolutely incompatible with the proper discharge of their departmental and Parliamentary work. The talents and genius of our first-class statesmen are a national treasure, and too valuable to be wasted by this absurd practice. When Ministers and Members of Parliament made only one speech a year to their constituents, they put all they had to say about their department or about politics carefully into it. The speeches were worth reading, and were read, and were the source of most of the political education of the country; but who can read, does read, or would be profited by reading, all the voluminous and superfiical talk and violent abuse that have taken the
  1832
  place of these valuable political speeches? Of course, every place likes to have a great man come and talk to it; but this, their amusement, is at the expense of the political education of the country, which is becoming as superficial and impoverished as the administration of the country is becoming enfeebled by this severe drain on the power of our statesmen. It is not a question that this House can legislate upon; we cannot give a Minister or a Member of Parliament a month's imprisonment, even as a first-class misdemeanant, for neglecting his duties to go on the stump; but we can protest—and I think it is a duty to protest—against a practice which demoralises and weakens the efficiency of the administrative and legislative powers of the Executive and Parliament.
  MR. HOWORTH: I rise with great pleasure to second the Resolution which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), and I do so with more pleasure, because he has carefully, as he always does, avoided any party or political controversy, and has divested the question of everything except those matters which are interesting to us all. It seems to me that any one who reads carefully the history of the changes of Ministry in this country since the great French war can come to no other conclusion than that my hon. Friend has made out his case most completely against a system which inevitably leaves the choice of men to fill great posts to be made, not on account of the aptitude or special knowledge of the persons selected, but simply because there has been arranged a heirarchy of offices which renders it necessary to give a man a particular amount of prestige when he is asked to join a government. Under such a condition of things you cannot avoid, and you inevitably have in many cases, the appointment of men who are neither fitted by their antecedents, or by special gifts, to fill the posts to which they are appointed. Now it seems to me that it requires a peculiarly elastic Parliamentary conscience to justify the putting, in this way, of the round men into square holes. There is no doubt that a round man may be put into a square hole and that he is put into one very frequently, but it can only be done, to use the

  1833
  words of a worthy neighbour of mine, on the condition that he is a very soft man. A man of ordinary spirit and knowledge would refuse to be bound by the conditions of such a choice, which in reality must be intolerable and irksome to him beyond measure. Moreover, it seems to me that the remedy suggested is one that is easy in form and perfectly applicable in practice, and that it has other advantages besides those referred to by my hon. Friend. I cannot help thinking that one of the great evils in this country at the present moment is that the permanent officials have necessarily imposed upon them a greater weight than they ought to have in shaping the policy of the country. Of course, that is necessary under a system by which men are appointed to posts with regard to which they have no direct or special knowledge. It is obvious that in such cases they must depend upon the permanent officials. It is inconvenient and not Democratic in the best sense of the word, that Ministers in many instances should for a long period after their appointment be under the necessity of shaping their views not in accordance with the opinion they may have formed themselves after a study of the subject, but rather upon the conventional views which are held by the permanent officials. If we can emancipate Ministers from this influence, it seems to me that we should have a much more speedy response than we often have now to the demands which are made for economy and those other virtues which I am afraid are spoken about in this House a good deal more than they are put in practice. Then again, it appears to me that, in choosing a Cabinet, the Prime Minister very often has to make a selection of men upon principles which are not altogether desirable. Men are put into the Cabinet very frequently because they have filled posts of considerable prestige in connection with former Governments, and not because they are specially followed to discharge the particular duties of a Cabinet Minister, which are not merely administrative, but duties that require a good councillor and a man of broad views in shaping a general policy. Because a man is an able administrator, and fit to control a great Department in which expenditure takes place, it does not follow that he is
  1834
  better than or even as good as some other Member of the Government who is called upon to fill a post of smaller prestige.These are some of the reasons why, it appears to me, that it would be a great gain if we could destroy the artificial heirarchy of offices, and put all men, more or less, on the same footing and the same level, so that in appointing a man his distinct acquirements and aptitude for the work he has to do should be the first consideration, while the very last consideration should be his prestige and the necessity of appointing a man to a particular post because he might feel slighted if he were passed over. For these reasons I consider that my hon. Friend has made out his case, and very completely, and I have great pleasure in seconding his Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "it is desirable that the Offices held by Members of the Cabinet (except those of Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor) should, as far as possible, be made equal in position and salary, so that, in making or changing appointments, no consideration of position or salary may interfere with or influence the selection of the Minister."—(Mr. Rathbone,)
  —instead thereof.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I should have been glad if some hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite had thought it right to rise in support of the Motion of my hon. Friend. I think it would have been, upon the whole, more satisfactory if those who are the natural successors of right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench had expressed an opinion upon the subject. I do not desire in the slightest degree to underrate the importance of the Question, which has been raised by my hon. Friend in a speech which was moderate and fair and not directed against any party in this House. On the contrary it was simply an endeavour to review the practice of Governments in years past with the hope of suggesting some improvement in the system which has prevailed. But I must remind my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution that if we go to the very bottom of his complaint it would be found that it is directed against the Parliamentary system of government which prevails in this country rather than against the

  1835
  differences in salaries which exist between posts filled by Members of the Government and certain other posts. The hon. Member complains of the fact that in the formation of Governments men are not appointed to posts which they have filled in previous Governments, but to other offices. That is true, no doubt, to a very considerable extent, but I am not certain that the country has sustained very grievous loss because a man of proved ability in one post has been advanced to another where his abilities would prove of value to the country. I think that the country would lose rather than gain from the enforcement of the doctrine which the hon. Gentleman desires to lay down. The greatest duties they have to perform are those which belong to the head of a great Department. The practice at present is the result of the system under which the Government of this country is carried on, and unless the House or the country is prepared to substitute another system for it which will be quite independent of Parliament, it occurs to me that there would be the greatest possible difficuly in arriving at the accomplishment of the object which the hon. Gentleman desires. In ordinary occupations it is necessary for men to pass through a stage of apprenticeship, and similarly Ministers require training. There are numerous instances of men who have served in subordinate positions, and there shown abilities that have led to their subsequent promotion to higher places. It is desirable in considering this question to exclude all personal questions and to merely consider how the country could best be served. Under the present system, which gives the House of Commons power to dismiss any Government, the services of the most competent men on either side of the House are available. The hon. Gentleman desires to obtain men to fill the positions of head of each Department who are specially fitted. That is, no doubt, desirable, but it must not be forgotten that it is desirable that Ministers should have experience outside the Department over which they preside. It would be a very great misfortune if a Member of the Government was the only man who had any knowledge of the duties and business of his own particular Department, and if his judgement and opinion were not to be called
  1836
  in question by his colleagues. It is very desirable that the other Members of a Cabinet should be able to control and check any one Minister. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the question of salary, but this does not really affect the matter. A Minister who receives a lower salary does not necessarily occupy a lower position. There are frequent cases in which Ministers have, owing to their services being required in another Department, resigned one office and accepted another at a lower salary. This has been the case more than once in regard to the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the same thing had recently occurred in the case of the present President of the Board of Trade—an able and accomplished Statesman. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Howorth) asks for absolute equality of salary, but there is no such equality in the responsibilities and duties of the respective offices. The work of some Departments is so onerous that any remuneration within reason would not be excessive, while there are other Departments which do not make by any means the same demands upon the health and strength of the Ministers at their head. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the permanent officials, who, he says, frequently under the present system, shape the policy of the normal head of the Department, and he referred to the getting of round men into round, and square men into square holes. I hope when he is called upon to form a Government, he will find the absolutely round men in the round holes. Sir, I trust that the House will not accept the motion of my hon. Friend, though I admit that the moderation and good feeling with which he brought it forward. I should be glad, indeed if we could have in our Ministers as heads of departments, that special knowledge which would enable them at once to take command and control, but we must make a very considerable change before anything of that kind can be done. All I can say is, in reference to the permanent officials, that no country is better served by its permanent officials than is ours, no matter what Party is in office. They lay the facts before us in the most correct and straightforward way, and then it rests with the Head of the Department to shape the policy on the full and complete information which he has got.

  1837
  Unless we had greater permanence and continuity of policy in our system, I admit I do not see how the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is to be carried out; and I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman would suggest a vital alteration of our Constitution. I do not believe that the change in remuneration even would have any material effect. I believe that the men who are appointed to these offices are appointed as a rule on the ground of their fitness. It is the interest of the Prime Minister to constitute the best Government he can have, and he selects his ministers from experience of the qualifications of those appointed, and so the object of securing the best administration to carry on the business of the country, and to that task the present inequality of salaries proves our hindrance.
  MR. RATHBONE: I have no object in putting the House to the trouble of a division. I have brought the matter forward and I know that it can only be dealt with by the Government. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  The withdrawal being objected to,
  The Question was put and agreed to
  Main Question again proposed.

  EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  MR. S. SMITHhad upon the Notice Paper the following Amendment—
  "That it is desirable to establish a national system of evening continuation schools where children who leave elementary day schools at a very early age may continue their education."
  The Amendment however, could not be put.
  The hon. Member said: I am sure that I have with me the sympathy of the great majority of the Members of this House, and that, if it had been possible to have taken a division, I should have had almost unanimous support. As it is I trust the expression of sympathy will have almost as much weight and authority as could be expressed by means of a division. For several years I have sought to bring this matter before the House and to take a division upon it, and, although I have been disappointed, the cause has ripened out of doors so rapidly that a much more favourable judgment can be
  1838
  hoped for now than would have been given a year or two ago. We have now the Report of the Royal Commission on Education which took a large amount of evidence on evening schools, and almost unanimously recommended the establishment of a national system of such schools. I will call attention to one or two paragraphs in the majority report as follows:—
  "That the necessity of having some form of evening school for the purpose of fixing and making permanent the day school instruction is almost self-evident; and that it would be worth the while of the State to spend more money on such schools."
  "That the evening school system should be thoroughly revised; that a special curriculum and special schedule of standards and subjects should be allowed, suitable to the needs of a locality, and that the local managers should be encouraged to submit such schedules to the Department for approval; that the provisions embodied in the code requiring all scholars in evening schools to pass in the three elementary subjects as a condition of taking up additional subjects should cease to be enforced, and that no superior limit of age should be imposed upon the scholars."
  These were the views of the majority of the Royal Commission, but the minority enforced them in a much more copious manner, and they went much more fully into the question of evening schools. I state this to show how unanimously the Commission was in favour of establishing evening schools. Memorials and resolutions in favour of evening continuation schools have been received from school boards, education associations, trade unions, co-operative societies, friendly societies, chambers of commerce, teachers' associations, and working-men's clubs, colleges, trading associations, and societies engaged in educational work. There used to be an impression that the working-classes were not favourable to legislation of this kind because they desired to get their children to work as soon as possible. I am happy to say that now this feeling is entirely dispelled. I have been in communication for two or three years with many working-class leaders, who insisted strongly upon the necessity for establishing evening continuation schools. I have been in communication with most of the school boards in the country for the purpose of ascertaining the average age at which children left the elementary schools, and I have found it was about 12

  1839
  in the towns and 11 in the rural districts. In some rural districts it was 10; in some towns 11; in Wolverhampton, with 97 per cent of the scholars it was 11 years six months. I was quite unprepared, when I entered upon this question, to find how young is the age at which our children's education is stopped. In London, where they insist on the sixth standard, for which we owe the School Board a debt of gratitude, the average age of leaving is 13 years, which was probably the highest average in the country. In 1886 of 2,500,000 presented for examination, only 128,000 were presented in standards 6 and 7; 265,000 in Standard 5; 455,000 in Standard 4. The greater proportion did not go beyond Standard 4; and diminishing numbers reached Standards 5 and 6. The fact is, the greater part of the children of this country do not go beyond Standard 4, while a smaller number go to the 5th, and only a small minority at present pass the 6th Standard. This is a miserable state of things. In place of boasting of our great educational progress, we ought to be thoroughly ashamed of it. Of course we are far ahead of what we were before 1870, but then we were in a state of heathen darkness. Our educational attainments are miserably poor when compared with those of Germany, Switzerland, and several other countries. Now what becomes of the little children? Hundreds of thousands of them leave school at the age of 10, 11, and 12. Do they get any further education? As far as I have been able to gather, only 4 per cent receive any further education at all; 96 per cent cease to be educated altogether at the age of 12 or younger, and soon forget most of what they learn. Before 1870 we had a system of night schools which worked well, and the Shaftesbury ragged schools did useful work; but the Education Act killed these; and last year the average attendance at evening schools in England and Wales did not exceed 30,000 children against 4,500,000 in the day schools. What becomes of this enormous mass of children after they have passed out of the day schools of this country, very poorly equipped for life, at the age of 11 or 12? I will quote a sentence, which puts the whole thing in a nutshell, from Dr. Paton, of Nottingham—
  1840
  "First we build up at an immense expense a colossal system of primary education, and then see and allow the results of it to be very largely wasted and lost. Teachers speak dismally of the havoc to the fruit of their labours in the first two years after school is left. The garden which by daily culture has been brought into such an admirable and promising condition is given over to utter neglect; the money, the time, the labour bestowed upon it are lost. We cease to educate at the most important, most plastic, most receptive period of life."
  These are the words of a man who has, I believe, given more attention to this subject than any other in England. Now, many of these children who leave school at the age of 11 or 12 fall into a mode of life which is simply deplorable. They almost live upon the streets, frequenting public-houses and low music halls, where they hear that which is trashy and often worse, and their chief education is the literature of crime. This is the sort of training many of these children get after leaving school; this is the chief cause of the social degradation and the shameful condition of our large towns. The condition of the lower tier of the population—the residuum—is a reproach to us. I have made an attempt at an estimate, and I believe this residuum falls little short of three millions. I believe we have nearly three millions of our population who are on the verge of pauperism, and who are more or less supported by charity. My hon. Friend near me says there are more, but that is my estimate. And what in the main produces this pauperized class, this disgrace of England, and which we have in far larger proportion than any other civilized nation in the world? I will give my judgment as that of one who has spent much of his life in work among them, and I say that neglect of children is the main cause. Of course, I know there are collateral causes, such as the wretched dwellings, drunkenness, the hard struggle for existence. There are many contributory causes, but the one that stands out beyond all others, and which accounts for most of the squalor, degradation, and wretchedness of the English poor is the shocking, the shameful neglect of children. We have a large class of parents in England who are little better than savages; they do nothing for their children; they prey upon them; they treat them as wage earners from the earliest years of their

  1841
  life, and under the degrading influences that surround them these children sink into that state of heathenism in which a considerable part of our people live. There is no way of Christianizing, of civilizing them, except by the State putting them into schools and keeping them there as long as they can be kept. But we allow the children of the poorest class to leave our schools at 11 or 12 years of age, and then they pass through the education of the slums; they sink down into the same state of degradation as that in which their parents live, and in a few years become parents of another crop of the same destitute class, and create another generation of "the unemployed" in our large towns, for this class is always unemployed, and never will be anything else. How should they be anything else? They have never learned a trade; they have no means of living but by what they can pick up in the streets by odd jobs. By the time the children have grown up into youth they are hopelessly condemned to a life of poverty and degradation. We have let go the critical moment for changing their destiny; we have lost the period between 12 and 16 when the character is forming, and when education can be turned to good account, and to our shame we have let these evils repeat themselves from generation to generation. Let me quote a few lines from a writer who has spent his life working among this class and knows exactly what he writes—
  "Year by year (says the Rev. Benjamin Waugh) from 70,000 to 80,000 London children pass out of elementary schools; of these, possibly, the half obtain bonâ-fide occupation. As for the rest—the poorer part, inhabiting, too, the more densely-populated quarters—here is nothing for them but the streets, and the almost certain life of a knave or a fool. It is probable that, every day, not less than 70,000 boys and girls are actually 'hob-jobbing' about, utterly helpless, until they hob-job into gaols, penitentiaries, and reformatories."
  I think I know Liverpool well—I do not know London so well—and I can say this describes the state of things in Liverpool. There you may see thousands of these children from 10 to 16 years of age half-clothed, half-fed, screaming about the streets, selling newspapers or fuzees or doing any odd jobs. This is the condition of Liverpool as I have known it for thirty years, a veritable scandal to the country. When an American lands at Liverpool, the first thing he notices is
  1842
  the crowd of squalid, dirty children who swarm around him. Their number is far larger in Liverpool than anywhere in Europe, so far as I know it. An hon. Member says in New York you will find as many. That may be true, though it was not my experience, and if it be so, those are the children of the destitute emigrants who have landed there, the sweepings of European towns. I have travelled over almost the whole of America twice, and I can say that nowhere except in New York can you see a score of ragged begging children in the streets. I have travelled in most civilized countries, and have specially inquired into this subject, and I say you can pick up in Liverpool in a single day more of these ragged, dirty, neglected children than you can find in six months in any other civilized country. I have made a study of this question, and I have inquired very specially into the condition of things in Germany and Switzerland. Once before I told the House the results of my inquiry, but as there are now present many Members who did not hear me on a former occasion, I may be allowed to repeat something of what I have said. I went to Germany with the special object of inquiring into the subject. I went through the largest cities, I saw the best authorities on education, and I inquired specially into the condition of the children of the poor. I did not find in any city, not even in Berlin, any sign of the existence of this class of dirty, ragged, neglected children. And yet the average rate of wages is lower than in England, and the struggle for life is very severe. So perfect is their system of education, so thoroughly are the children looked after, that such a thing as the class of squalid, neglected children we are so familiar with does not exist. How is it that in the great German Empire, that in Switzerland and in Scandinavian countries, they have got rid of this pest, this social nuisance that afflicts our country? There are many causes, and one is germane to this question. I found all over Germany that attendance at school was compulsory, almost universally up to the age of fourteen for boys, and so regularly was this rule complied with, that the average attendance of those on the school books was 97 and 98 per cent. whereas our

  1843
  average attendance in England is about 76 per cent. In one school I found 99 per cent of the children in actual attendance. This seems to us almost a miracle. I found there was no such thing as shamming and finding excuses to keep the children from school. If any parent did keep his child from school, he heard of next day, and, if not provided with a proper reason, he was liable to imprisonment within a week. Such is the law in Germany almost all over the Empire. The school teaching, too, is much better than in England; the teachers are of a higher class—a better taught class—than in England, and they occupy a higher social position. But what I especially want to call attention to is this—that I found in every large city a system of evening continuation schools, into which the children went when they left the day schools, and where attendance was generally compulsory, in most towns up to the age of 17. So thoroughly was this system carried out that I found, at the hotels in Dresden, waiters under the age of 17 had to give five hours a week out of their time to attend these continuation classes, and several of these youths were learning two foreign languages. I inquired how it was possible to get such a large attendance of children at night schools up to the age of 17, and I found it was carried out without friction; the people liked the system, and it worked wonderfully well and smoothly. The effect of it is you never see swarms of unruly children in the streets. The streets of the large towns are as quiet in this respect as an English country village at night; there is no noise of rowdy children such as we find in London, fighting, swearing, and using vile language. The child population attend the evening schools, and throughout Germany there is almost no pauper class. In 47 millions of people, and with great poverty among them too, the pauperized class and the professional tramp, such as we have here by the thousand, scarcely exists, and I believe this thorough system of education is the main cause of it. And now, the House may ask, what is the plan we propose to get hold of the children, and get them into the schools? If the House will permit me, I will briefly sketch out the plan we propose to submit at some
  1844
  future time. We, first of all, adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the age for leaving school in all cases shall be raised to 13. I regard that as one of the most important recommendations of the Royal Commission, and if that alone is carried out it will immensely improve the educational condition of the children in this country. Then we propose that the half-time age should be raised from 10 years to 11 years. In Germany the age for entering factories is 14, and that is also the case in Switzerland; only in some special cases is the working age lowered to 12. But in England we allow children to enter the factories and workshops for half-time at 10 years. It is high time, in my opinion, we raised the age to 11, and the full exemption age to 13. Enormous advantages would accrue from raising the exemption age. We shall prevent the hurry-scurry and scramble there is to push the children through the standards, and get them out of school as soon as possible. Our education is spoiled, to a large extent, by this terrible scramble to get up to the standard; but, if the exemption age is made 13, the Sixth Standard should be made obligatory. Experience has shown that the majority of children who attend regularly can pass it at the age of 12. Here, in passing, let me say I think we begin the education of our children rather soon, and that it is perhaps better to wait until a child is five or six years old than commence at the age of three or four, which is bad for the brain, the sight, and the health of the child. I have no objection to the Kindergarten system in infant schools. The opinion of the German authorities is that six or seven years of age is early enough to commence mental education; their principle is to begin later and continue longer. With us, everything is precipitated to meet the exigencies of poor parents. We propose to make the exemption standard the sixth, as it now is in London and elsewhere. But we know there are a great number of children who will not pass this at 13; and here comes the crux of the situation—What shall we do with the dull, the stupid children, poor and ill-fed, who cannot pass the Sixth Standard at the age of 13? Our proposal is to give two options—either to attend the day-school up to the age of

  1845
  14, or to pass into the evening continuation school at the age of 13, and continue there until the age of 15 or 16, or until the equivalent standard is passed; and the standard will be there framed in a manner suitable to these dull children. We propose to say to the parent, "Your child has failed to pass the Sixth Standard; will you let him remain longer at the day school, or shall he go into the evening school?" I think, in the great majority of cases, the parents will prefer the evening school and have the advantage of his child's labour for part of the day. They will come to regard the evening school in the light of a relief from the day school. It will not appear to be harsh and tyrannous; it will be a kind of harbour of refuge into which children may go to escape the compulsion of the day school. We propose that when a child gets into the evening school he shall have a totally different treatment to that now pursued. Evening schools have, hitherto, been ruined by pedantry. The Education Department have laid down certain foolish rules about committing so many lines to memory every week, and other things which disgust the children who attend these schools, tired as they are with their day's work. They go to school at night to improve their intelligence, not to go through a course of verbal training. We have almost allowed our evening schools to be ruined by pedantic theories of educationists who have mistaken the object of the schools. We have gone on allowing the mass of the people to grow up deficient in intelligence, owing to the foolish regulations made by the Board of Education, without practical knowledge of the real wants of the working classes. I feel very strongly the folly of going on year after year in this hopeless, fruitless manner. We propose to make our evening schools as cheerful, as bright, and attractive as it is possible to make them. We can do much in this way to secure a large attendance; we will make it a recreative movement, so that children themselves will be delighted to attend; they shall be bright, cheerful, and attractive, with calisthenics, musical drill, handwork, object lessons, history and geography, taught in an interesting form, everything we can do to encourage and develop the training of eye and hand. We mean
  1846
  these schools to have a partially technical character; we wish to appeal to the eye and hand as well as to the mind. We hope to make the schools so attractive that very little compulsion will be required, or only for the first few weeks, and when the children get into the way of going to these schools, they will regard it as a great deprivation to be kept away from them. We wish to carry out the suggestions of Mr. Heller, who drew up the recommendations in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, and allow a wide discretion in management, having no cut-and-dried system, but an elastic course of instruction adapted to the trade or industry of each locality. It would be ridiculous, for instance, to give in an industrial centre like Bradford and in a rural parish the same kind of teaching. It may be asked what are we going to do about Voluntary Schools? In regard to Board Schools there is no difficulty. We have the buildings, and the bulk of them are idle in the evening, and they might just as well be open as shut. Wherever there is a School Board a sufficient number of evening schools can be provided to meet all requirements, but in rural districts where there are no Board Schools there is some difficulty. I would propose that in the first instance we make evening schools obligatory only in Board Schools and optional in Voluntary Schools. I should be most happy if Parliament went further and made them obligatory upon Voluntary Schools, but in the present state of public opinion we can hardly take this step. I know there are many cases in which clergymen in rural districts have admitted the desirability of opening evening classes in Voluntary Schools and would welcome an Act of Parliament to compel the attendance of children in such schools during the winter months. Of course there is not the same danger from moral corruption in the country as there is in great towns, so if we fail for the first few years in developing the system freely in rural districts, yet we shall have done much by inaugurating the system in towns. I propose that these schools should only meet in the winter months, not in the summer, so as not to interfere with field labour; and I think that three nights in the week

  1847
  would probably be sufficient in the earlier stages of the movement, probably two hours in the evening, or six hours during the week. Ultimately, perhaps, we might extend the hours. I should think the present scale of grants is and would be nearly adequate to support the schools. If I am mistaken in this, at all events a grant of 16 s. or 18 s. per head would, I am told, be sufficient to carry on evening schools where you have a large number of children. Of course, it is not necessary to open every Board School for the purpose, probably, one in four would be sufficient. Then arises perhaps the greatest of the difficulties, the creation of a staff; but I would not meet it by employing the day teachers, their work in the day is too severe to allow of it. But there are a good many retired teachers who would be willing enough and perfectly competent to conduct teaching in the evening for six hours in the week at a reasonable remuneration, and I think we might rely upon a considerable amount of voluntary teaching. But whether we secure voluntary teaching or not, I would follow the recommendation of the Minority Report of the Commission that it is not desirable that the head teacher of a day school should be required to undertake the charge of the evening school, and that the additional duty though not forbidden, should be rather discouraged especially in towns. Without committing myself to details I hope I have said enough to commend the scheme as a practical one. Knowing the sympathy and support it has received throughout the country, I am rather disappointed that I am unable to carry my proposals to the test of a Division. I believe that in this House there is a general approval of my scheme, and that if members were left to vote freely according to their preference I should have a large majority in my favour. I have had almost as much support from the other side of the House as from my own. I hope I maybe allowed to mention that we have a Bill prepared and ready, and I hope that at an early date I shall be enabled to introduce it to the House. I trust then that the Government will see their way to permit that Bill to pass the Second Beading unopposed. It has been most carefully framed after years of consideration with the view of meeting every difficulty. I
  1848
  know that I can rely on the sympathy of several members of the Government, and especially on that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has always been an advocate of education. I well recollect the speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered some years ago. Towards the close of it he spoke of the ladder provided by the State by means of which children were to climb up from the elementary schools to the universities. The right hon. Gentleman went on to point out that owing to the want of Continuation Schools the ladder had been left hanging in the air, and it was impossible for the children of the working classes to get on to the lowest rung. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to help us in this matter. In doing so they will be conferring a great honour on themselves and performing a truly patriotic act. I believe that in passing an Act of the kind I have sketched the Government will double the value of our educational system, and do more for the cause of social reform than has been accomplished by any Measure passed since the great Act of 1870. I beg to thank the House for the patience and attention with which it has listened to me.
  MR. HAYES FISHER: I cordially concur in the Resolution which the hon. Member opposite placed upon the Paper, but I rather regret that the hon. Gentleman should have taken what I deem to be a somewhat too gloomy view of the present state of things, particularly with regard to parental responsibility. I cannot say that I entirely share his views on the subject of compulsion. But there are within the four corners of the Resolution many practical points which deserve the consideration of the Government, and it is to those points I wish to address myself, before my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council rises to reply, during the short time I shall occupy the attention of the House. It may be thought that too great a demand is made on the Department to which it would be necessary to go for the money to carry the scheme of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) into operation. But I think, although we may not be able to satisfy altogether the requirements of the right hon. Member, we

  1849
  may, nevertheless, do something between the maximum demands he makes and the minimum of other hon. Members, who, at the same time, are earnest friends of education, and are ready to do everything in their power to encourage any laudable effort in that direction. Now, what is the real evil that the resolution of the right hon. Member for Flintshire is intended to meet? The evil of our educational system is that it has failed, notwithstanding the enormous expenditure incurred, to fix the knowledge acquired by the children in their minds. The resolution of my hon. Friend is one way of stopping the mental and moral leakage of our children. It is incredible folly to spend £7,000,000 every year in pouring knowledge into the minds of our children, and then to refuse to secure for ourselves by a little additional expenditure the full value of our money. In London alone 80,000 children pass out of the schools every year, but only 4 per cent continue in any way a systematic education. If examined at the end of the first year those children will be found to have lost half their knowledge, in the second year to have lost two-thirds, in the third the whole of it will be found to have gone, while in the fourth year after leaving school it will be found that their minds are replete with the noxious garbage picked up in the purlieus of London. The Registrar General points out the vast number of people who have gone through the ordinary curriculum and yet are unable to write their names when they come to be married. Every one, after listening to the speech of my hon. Friend will admit that there is a practical remedy. Polytechnics and schemes for extending University lectures are splendid in themselves, but they have been designed rather to meet a different age of life altogether. What we want is to fill up the gap between the age at which children leave elementary education and the age at which they are capable of educating themselves and of getting some benefit from the science and art classes. The night schools are undoubtedly failures. No hon. Member will deny it. If it is denied, I would ask hon. Members to turn to the report of the Education Commissioners, where they will find over and over again evidence which points to the decay
  1850
  rather than to the advance of the evening school system. If they have not been such a failure in London as elsewhere, it is due to the efforts of the Recreative Evening School Association, by means of which so many people are struggling to educate the poorer parts of London. The Rev. Mr. Diggle, the Chairman of the London School Board has made this statement:—
  "Throughout England and Wales only 32,000 scholars in night schools were qualified by attendance for examination. Of these, 4,138 were qualified in connection with the evening classes under the London School Board. It is satisfactory to notice that whilst elsewhere in England and Wales night schools are apparently either stationary or decreasing in number, the evening classes under the Board have been steadily increasing during the past year, and for some of this improvement, and for much valuable help, the Board are indebted to the energetic exertions of the Recreative Classes Association."
  Why is it that evening classes are successful here and not in the country? The Recreative School Association have discovered that the failure in the system of night schools is owing to their not being attractive, and I agree that the great failure is due to the pedantry of the Board of Education. Perhaps hon. Members will not be prepared to go as far as I should in the direction of compulsion, but I believe it is generally agreed that the minimum exemption for half-time should be 11, and for whole time 13. But without imposing compulsion at all, the Education Department could do very much in carrying out our ideas in regard to the moral and physical development of the children. It may not be desirable to use any form of compulsion in order to secure the attendance of children at night schools, but short of that, the Education Department ought to offer every kind of attraction to induce the children to attend school voluntarily, and continue their education. What the Board can do has been well pointed out by the hon. Member for Flintshire, and I will only give one further illustration. What I would impress upon the Department is that they should carry into effect the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. In order to show how impossible it is to fill our English schools at the present moment, let me take a case from the Commissioners' Report. The Report says:—

  1851
  "We have endeavoured to find out the causes of this comparative failure, and we learn that, in the opinion of many witnesses, a chief cause is to be found in the insufficient encouragement of evening schools by the Education Department; and one of Her Majesty's Inspectors agreed, in the view that if the Government encouraged such schools with more liberal grants they would increase in number. We are told in particular that evening schools need more freedom in respect both of classification and of subjects of instruction. The Code makes it obligatory on evening schools earning a grant that they must be examined in the three elementary subjects. In like manner a girl cannot join the evening cookery class without making 24 attendances at the evening school, and without being presented for examination in the standard subjects. This requirement is said to deter many girls from attending the cookery classes."
  What we ask from the Board of Education is greater freedom. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire is correct or not when he says that the present special grants are sufficient. At all events they might be divided among more subjects. At a Conference of the Recreative Evening Schools Association, held in this House, it was resolved—
  "That the following subjects be added to the list of specific or class subjects in the Code;—(a) for girls—laundry work, household needlework, including making, mending, and (b) for boys—designing, modelling, wood-carving, or other hand work; (c) for boys and girls—drilling and calisthenic exercises, surgery, and such subjects, industrial and others, as in the opinion of the local managers, are rendered necessary by the special needs of the locality; that on the subject of cookery a grant of 2s. for 20 attendances be given, instead of 4s. for 40; that these subjects may be taught in classes irrespective of standards; that the present restriction of the number of additional subjects to two be abolished, and that instead of English being a necessary additional class subject, that the selection of such subjects be left to the local managers; that the three R's be no longer compulsory for those evening scholars who have passed the fourth standard or are over 13 years of age."
  I do not feel disposed to take up the time of the House further, but I hope I may elicit many opinions from hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House. But I will most earnestly impress on the Vice President of the Council the desirableness of carrying into effect the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, the folly of making the three elementary subjects compulsory, and the necessity for greater freedom. The local managers should have the option
  1852
  of submitting subject schedules to the Board, and I would even ask for more money, because I do not think that the present grants are sufficient. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, who I feel convinced concurs in the spirit of this Resolution, will be prepared to give practical effect to the opinion it expresses, which I believe to be that of the House generally. We may not be able to correct the evil under which we are suffering for the present generation, but we may do much to improve the mental and moral condition of their children, who will form the next generation.
  MR. HOWELL: I do not think it needs any argument from any quarter of this House to impress the Government with the absolute necessity for taking this subject in hand without further delay. Of course, the Government may have some difficulty in dealing with the matter. It may be supposed that the Government will have to find more money in order to carry out the plan suggested by my hon. Friend; but that question, I think, has already been answered. We are now losing a great deal of money which is set apart for education simply because we do not spend a little more for the purpose of perfecting the system. I have had something to do with this question for some years. The hon. Member for Flintshire has referred to the memorials which have been sent to the Prime Minister and the Education Department. Those memorials have been most numerously signed by large and important bodies of men who are practically engaged in the work of education like our Board Schools and other educational establishments, and from other bodies who are engaged in trade. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to some of the letters which have come into my possession, and here let me say that out of something like 4,000 different bodies who have been addressed on the subject, not more than seven or eight absolutely refused to sign the memorial, and even in those cases the refusal was only because there was a feeling that some of the details contained in the memorial could not be carried out, or they were not prepared to endorse them at the moment.

  1853
  The Secretary of a large Trade Society numbering nearly 30,000 members writes:—"I have got the petitions agreed to by my council and sent in as directed." Other large Trade Societies and a Society representing a considerable body of miners write in similar terms. Working mens' clubs all over the country have sent in Memorials. Almost every body appealed to has unanimously signed the Memorial, and only in a few eases has there been any hesitation about one or two details. I think that this fact ought to encourage the Government to take the matter in hand and see whether something cannot be done to push it forward. The unanimity which has been manifested in this House to night ought to encourage them for once to throw aside Party politics and agree upon something which is to benefit future generations. So far as compulsion is concerned I am afraid there are a great number of persons to whom compulsion is absolutely necessary, and although it is right and proper that a child should honour and obey his parents, yet it is also right that parents should do their duty by their children. If parents fail to do their duty the State ought to step in and compel them to do it. In a great majority of cases, no compulsion would be required, especially if a proper curriculum of education is provided. It will be my duty to-night to take the chair at a very popular institution in London—the Polytechnic. The way in which the children are attracted to that institution at the present moment and the way in which they are taught is perfectly marvellous. I have had the pleasure of going through the rooms and of seeing the system of education carried on there, and it was most gratifying to witness the large number of young persons who evince a desire to attend the evening classes. I am not quite sure that I am accurate, but, as far as I can remember, the Secretary told me that the applications to go into the school are much greater than the facilities for accommodation can make provision for. I went into one of the classes where lessons were being given on geography. The lessons were made as attractive as possible by the aid of the magic lantern, and I am perfectly satisfied that a considerable amount of sound and useful information can be given to children in a
  1854
  way to excite their interest and attention. If we can by any means provide something in our schools that will be attractive to the children, and keep our boys and girls away from the music halls and other haunts—I was going to say of vice—but at any rate where vice abounds, I think we shall have done a great deal of good. The most important thing is to keep the children under good influences between the ages of 12 and 16 or 17. When they leave school at about 12 or 13 years of age and go back to poverty-stricken homes, in some cases where vice is in the ascendant, how is it possible for a child to resist the evil influences that are brought to bear upon him? Keep the child under the influences of school for two or three years longer, and you will find that the better side of his nature becomes trained so that he is able to resist the evil influences even of a bad father and mother. I know plenty of instances where it is being done now. Cases have come under my own knowledge where the drunken habits of the parents have been resisted by the voluntary abstinence of the children, and where the children have left home and gone into other institutions of their own accord. I think we should do something to encourage that state of things all over the United Kingdom. I am quite in favour of extending the age of children in elementary schools, but I would not curtail the age. In very many cases the school-house is a much brighter and more comfortable place than the home, and I am in favour of getting them there at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Flintshire spoke of Liverpool as a town with which he is better acquainted than London. I know both towns very well, but London much better than Liverpool; and I must say that of all the towns where it is necessary for something to be done it is this great Metropolis, with its nearly five millions of inhabitants. I am quite prepared to pay tribute to the London School Board for having done its best, under difficult circumstances, to give encouragement to voluntary education, and to bring the children into the schools. I sincerely trust that the Government, if they cannot see their way to bring in a measure themselves, will support any measure that may be brought in by the hon. Member for

  1855
  Flintshire, so that something may he done this Session to commence this great work.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I rise once more to pay my tribute of approbation to the philanthropy of the hon. Member for Flintshire. I have done it so often that hon. Members may think I am painting the lily. Nevertheless, I entreat the House to remember that, although there is a general consensus of opinion upon the abstract propositions of the hon. Member for Flintshire, the statements which have been made are of an academic character, and that a certain amount of practical application is necessary. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I propose for a few moments to offer a running commentary upon the remarks of the hon. Member from a Metropolitan point of view. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not attempt to press the Resolution to a Division. I am afraid that, however he might feel disposed, he could not do so under the Rules of the House. Nobody, however, challenges the expression of opinion contained in the Resolution. The hon. Member says that it is desirable to establish continuation schools all over the country. I suppose that nobody denies that proposition. It is one of those propositions which nobody can deny. To the various Memorialists mentioned by the hon. Member I would say, "If that be your opinion, why do not you act up to it?" Now, I am thankful to the proposer and seconder of the Resolution for the tribute they paid to the efforts made by the London School Board. The fact is that while outside society is memorializing, and the House is debating, the London School Board is acting: we are men of action. There may be some Boards who are not doing as much as they ought. I have no objection to the hon. Member's (Mr. S. Smith's) strictures being addressed to them, but I do claim exemption on behalf of that great Corporation which I have the honour to represent, the London School Board. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) said that for a long time the evening classes in London, as elsewhere, were failures. That description cannot be applied to the evening classes which now exist. The evening classes in London are not all they might be, but they are already something very
  1856
  considerable, and therein I gladly acknowledge the assistance and cooperation we have received from the various societies which are promoting evening classes. Reference has been made to the term "education." Let me ask hon. Members what is meant by education? I am sure some listeners would gather from the speeches of certain hon. Members that the speakers think education consists in the imparting of knowledge, and that such knowledge as is afforded by the system of elementary education may pass in at one ear and go out at the other. That may be, but I am anxious to remind hon. Members that education does not consist of knowledge alone. There are in our elementary system influences of a moral character; there are the disciplinary and humanizing influences and the recollections of our school buildings in contrast to the misery and degradation of some of the children's homes. These things are not forgotten—they last as memories through life. Then the hon. Member for Flintshire said a great deal about our children running wild about in the streets. What he said may be very true as regards the evening, but I submit it is not correct as regards the day. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's speech, one would suppose that the children of the Metropolis are running wild about the streets at all hours of the day. That is really not the case, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit it, because in the very next breath he spoke of children being treated too much as wage earners. If it is so, it is impossible that the children can be running about the streets in the day time. It is the fact that children are apt to run about wild in the evening, and this is one of the greatest of the many reasons for the establishment of continuation classes. Again, the hon. Gentleman spoke of parents being neglectful of their children. There is unquestionably another side to the question. There are parents who are neglectful, but there are others who pay attention to their children in a manner which makes them examples to all classes of society, and these parents are to be found amongst the very poorest classes in the Metropolitan area. It is my duty to constantly inspect the children of the poorest classes in the poorest schools in the poorest parts of ths Metropolis, and I am therefore able to

  1857
  declare that for one mother who neglects her children there are scores who manage somehow or other to send their children decently to school. Mothers who themselves are starving manage somehow to keep their children in something like physical condition; women hardly able to afford decent clothing for themselves contrive to send their children respectably clad to school. Only this week I have seen, in the poorest parts of London, cases which came under the category. Such parents certainly deserve every praise which can be bestowed on them. The hon. Member seemed to think that in London and in our great industrial centres the children are uncared for, and he alluded to the care taken of children in Berlin. Any outsider listening to the hon. Gentleman would suppose that little or nothing has been done in London to bring the children into the educational fold. Will the House be surprised to hear that at this moment, within the Metropolitan area, there is a house-to-house visitation, so that no child of any class, sort, or condition of life can possibly escape education? Every child is accounted for. Even the children who sleep out under arches are brought up before a Committee of the Board and sent either to a reformatory or an industrial school or a truant school. There is not a child who escapes going to school so many times a year. What is the average attendance? More than four-fifths—more than 80 per cent—so it is really not just to our countrymen, and to our organization, to indirectly imply that the children of the humbler classes are uncared for. Then, the hon. Member drew moving pictures of the sorrows and the miseries of England, and attributes them all to the want of education. I am sure the House will say that the statement of the hon. Gentleman was tinged with exaggeration. ["No, no!"] If it was not, the hon. Gentleman's remedies, the extension of the age of compulsion from 11 to 13 years, and the establishment of continuation classes for children up to 14 and 15 years, are very small remedies for such a wide-spread and deep-seated a disease. Either the disease is exaggerated or the remedy is insufficient. Then, the hon. Member spoke in very complimentary terms of the elementary school teachers in Germany, and drew,
  1858
  as I understood him, a comparison between the German teachers and the teachers in England generally, somewhat unfavourable to the latter. But the hon. Gentleman is not the only Member of the House who has travelled. I am myself a traveller—perhaps a greater one than he; and I assert that our teachers—certainly those in London and in great centres like Liverpool and Birmingham—are a very highly trained and competent body of people. Our teachers, whether male or female, have a great deal of force of character, power to command, and aptitude for enforcing discipline which cannot be surpassed by the teachers of any nation in the world. After all these very powerful descriptive passages the hon. Gentleman proceeded to develop his plan, which really amounts to this—that the period of compulsory attendance should be somewhat prolonged, and that every child should be obliged to pass a higher standard than that which is now made obligatory. Neither I nor any educational authority would have any objection to these proposals, provided only that the people will stand them. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that while parents on the Continent of Europe are willing to let their children remain at school for a long time without earning wages, British parents insist upon their children earning wages at a tender age. Now, in justice to my country, I should like to point out that, with respect to the labour of women and children in factories, England compares most favourably with all other nations.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Not children.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I speak subject to correction, but that is certainly my impression. Then the hon. Gentleman spoke of our infant schools in terms of disparagement. He seemed to think that children ought not to go to school till five years of age. It is commonly admitted all over London that the infant schools, in which children are brought into training from three to five years of age, are the means of diffusing a blessing upon the people. The infant schools are very popular with the parents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) will admit it is far more easy to induce universal attendance between three and

  1859
  five years of age than it is in the subsequent period of life. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Flintshire were to inspect some of our Infant Schools in London, see the little children going through their Kindergarten exercise, and notice the tender maternal care taken of the children by the head and assistant mistresses, he would admit that our Infant School system is one of the jewels in the educational crown. Then the hon. Member alluded to the standard to be followed for evening classes. I heartily agree with him although here again I think he spoke in somewhat too severe terms of what he called the pedantry of the Education Department. He thinks the curriculum is unattractive. That is admitted to be the case by every person who has had anything to do with the matter, but on previous occasions I have stated in the House that the School Board of London is not at all at fault. We find ourselves hampered by the regulations of the Educational Code and have repeatedly drawn the attention of the Education Department to the matter and prayed for relief. We were told relief could not be afforded pending the Report of the Royal Commission. That Report has been presented; we are still without relief, but we trust that the New Code will enable us to make our classes thoroughly attractive. But when the hon. Member for Flintshire spoke in such interesting and eloquent terms of the singing, calisthenics, musical drill, and the like, I thought he was drawing a picture of what is going on at this moment under the School Board for London. This special instruction is actually being given all over London. Inasmuch as allusion has been made to my late colleague, and still my friend, Mr. Heller, may I inform the House that he was for many years Chairman of the Evening Classes Committee under the London School Board. Something has been said about the cost of the evening classes not exceeding 15s. per scholar. I think that is certainly sufficient; the work is being done now in London for that sum. More than half the cost is received from fees, and that receipt is to us a very essential part of the system. I apprehend the hon. Member for Flintshire would put the whole charge on the public, either upon the rates or the Treasury, or upon both
  1860
  in combination. The hon. Gentleman made a very pertinent inquiry. How is the staff to be provided? He rather deprecates the ordinary day school teachers being employed in the evening schools, but may I remind him that by so employing the day school teachers, we effect a great economy, and economy, surely, is a very essential element in the calculation. It is a most expensive thing to employ teachers for this work alone; besides, I cannot admit it is impossible for day school teachers to do the work. The work for the teachers in Board Schools is not excessive. ["Oh, oh!"] It begins at 9 o'clock and goes on till 12 o'clock; then there are two hours' recess, and afterwards the school is open from 2 to 4.30, possibly on some occasions to 5 o'clock. [Mr. PICTON: Then there is evening work and preparation of pupil teachers.] The preparation of pupil teachers has nothing to do with the matter, in London at least, and considering the elementary nature of the instruction and high educational qualifications of the teachers, it is not a fact that the teachers have much in the way of preparation over night to undergo. As a matter of fact, many teachers do give private instruction in the evening. I assure the House we shall not find the slightest difficulty in getting clever and physically strong young teachers, both male and female, to take charge of the evening classes, and in this way saving a great deal of money to the public revenue. Lastly, I must urge the question of finance. At present our educational charges are as large as the people can bear. The school rates and taxes are becoming highly unpopular, and there is the greatest danger that if the rates are enlarged to any appreciable extent, education may become unpopular and a great movement put back. I entreat all friends of the evening class system to try to make the cost as small as possible. We, educational men, thoroughly recognise the soundness of principles enunciated to-night—namely, that instruction should not end at 12 or 13 years of age, but that a child having learned not only knowledge but moral discipline—having also been educated in habits of thrift and temperance—may come under the beneficial influence of continuation classes for a certain number of evenings in the course of the year.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: The hon. Member for the Evesham Division (Sir Richard Temple) commenced by saying he was about to paint the lily; but I think, before he ended his speech, he had so besmirched the lily that there was little of its lustre left. He endeavoured to show that my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) had brought forward an impracticable or useless scheme. I quite agree that we must take care to satisfy the country that the proposed expenditure will not be wasted. But what my noble Friend and those who support him contend, is, that the expenditure of the country upon education which is now getting very large, is an unproductive expenditure, that we are wasting a large portion of our expenditure by not continuing the education of our children when they leave our elementary schools with a taste for further knowledge; that the little knowledge they gain is quickly rubbed off in the wear and tear of life, and is of little use in their future career. My hon. Friend contends that unless you proceed with the children's education you are wasting the treasure and resources of the nation. I recollect years ago, when we first began to seriously take up the question of education in the House in 1870, and for years afterwards, we found that very few indeed—not 30,000—children went into the higher Standards and received an education that was capable of being continued in after life, and experience showed that unless a child passed Standard 4, in a few years amid the wear and tear of life, the whole value of education was gone. But do not let us depreciate what we have done. Since then we have done a great deal in education. Very few children now pass through our schools who do not pass the Fourth Standard, which, in all towns except Bradford, is now the standard for labour. Do not let us depreciate what we have done since 1870; we have done much. But we have still a great deal left to do. As my hon. Friend has shown by statistics, the great bulk of the pupils come out of the schools at the age of 12, and I would ask hon. Members to consider what knowledge our children would possess in our own position of life, and with the advantages we have, if they were turned out at 12
  1862
  years of age to take part in the battle of life. Even with our own children there would be but miserable armour of knowledge for the struggle; but what can the children of the poorer classes get at 12 years, but a thin veneer of learning that, unless continued and strengthened, can be of little effect in after life? It is because our educational expenditure is unproductive, because so much of it is wasted; it is in order that the children we have taught up to the age of 12 may continue their education that Evening Schools, Science and Art Classes, and Technical Schools are proposed. I do not wish to pose as a prophet, but in the discussions upon the Bill of 1870 I pointed out that the night schools would become a complete failure under the Act, because they were designed to give elementary instruction to neglected children, but gradually as your children became educated night schools ought to have been made higher schools, useful and attractive continuation schools, where children could learn the use of hand and eye in preparation for pursuing the industrial arts of life. We did not do that; and the night schools went dragging on in a system of mere verbalism, which the children do not care for and find no advantage in, and now are in the miserable condition of having an attendance of only 30,000 in all England. I have always regretted the division between the Scotch and English educational systems, because Scotland does not get the advantages England has, nor England the advantages of Scotland. So completely separated are the two Administrations that here in England you do not know what is going on in Scotland. What has been done there with night schools is, they have been converted into higher schools, and the result is that the attendance bears that proportion to population that 60,000 or 70,000 would represent in England. I support the Resolution of my hon. Friend, and do so in a much broader sense than he does. I think continuation schools are excellent if you have the sense to make them attractive to the growing intelligence of youth, for the training of hand and eye unencumbered by verbalism, opening two new gates of knowledge—sight and touch. They make the scholar very much more intelligent, and much more useful in life

  1863
  but more than that, I look upon these schools as the means of inducing children to go still further; that they should not lose their time, but go on to the Science and Art Schools—supported with so much expenditure and with so much usefulness—and the Technical Schools of the future. And here I would like to ask the Vice President what has happened to the Technical Education Bill which has been mentioned in two Queen's Speeches, and which we are all anxious to see become a reality? For three years a Technical Education Bill has been before the House, and twice it has been promised in the Speech from the Throne, but we do not yet know what particular Bill is to be laid before us. As leading to the Science and Art Schools, and the Technical Schools, I want to see these continuation schools established. I regard this as a matter of urgent national interest. We see competing nations spending their treasure to a far greater extent than we are, and spending it without stint, to create a trained intelligence among their workmen. We are not accustomed to rely on all expenditure from the central authority, nor do I know that Technical Education should rely on State support, but we ask the Government to show us how they will allow localities to spend for themselves as well as what aid they will give in order that our present educational expenditure may not be wasted, as now it is, in part from want of these schools. With this view I thoroughly support the Resolution of my hon. Friend, only considering it a road to a much higher and more important education, which will put us in a position to give that intelligent training to our working classes which will enable them to keep their position in the competition of the world.
  MR. YOUNG: I ask the indulgence of the House not only because this is the first time I have trespassed on its time, but because I have had something to do with boys in the early years after they have left school, and also because I may express views upon this question that may not meet with great favour in any quarter of the House. I have nothing to say against the principle of evening schools; everyone, I suppose, is convinced that when our children leave school at twelve or
  1864
  thirteen years of age their education is by no means complete, and I would be prepared to agree with the hon. Member for Flintshire in extending the time of compulsory attendance at day schools to thirteen years. But that is not the point we are discussing to-night. I believe that these continuation schools wonld do much to give a higher education to our children, that they would enable that education to be completed, and I am quite prepared to admit that between the ages of 13 and 16 is just the time when the mind begins to expand and to appreciate the instruction offered. No doubt, to a certain extent, higher education has been neglected in this country, and, in consequence, foreign nations have been running us close if they have not been outstripping us in the industrial race. But what I do object to in the terms of the hon. Member's Resolution is the use of the word "National." I am quite aware of the importance attached to this by many hon. Members, who think that not only elementary but higher education should be controlled, supported and directed by the State. But I must protest against the unlimited adoption of this principle in regard to higher education without very careful consideration. We know very well the large appetites of many hon. Members and of some right hon. Members, too, for the expenditure of public money for educational purposes, and as a "National system of evening continuation Schools" means in the first place a system supported by the State we may well ask with some alarm what limitis to be put upon this doctrine of National support? Whatever the state of our National finances may be, I think, we ought to pause before taking action that may tend to check the responsibility of parents for the education of their children, and discourage those voluntary agencies which have done a certain amount of good in the past and are now doing a great deal more to supply what is lacking in this respect. Education is a very important matter, no doubt, but there are many other important and necessary things not provided by the State; food, clothing, shelter, medical attendance, these are all matters of primary importance, but individuals are left to obtain them for themselves and their families, or to get them from those who will sup-

  1865
  ply them. No doubt, an exception was made in the case of elementary education, but I do think we ought to pause before extending that principle to an indefinite degree. As a matter of fact these evening schools as has been pointed out by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Temple) do exist to a great extent, and what exists in London may very well be extended to other large towns in the country, and, indeed, it is admitted on high authority that there is hardly a large town where Technical Schools do not exist, and where provision is not made for education in science under the Science and Art Department. It may be true that the ordinary night schools are not so well attended as they might be, or so well as they were attended some years ago. Why? I should like to quote Dr. Paton who has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Flintshire, and he is an authority who I know will be respected by those who take an interest in this subject. He was examined before the Royal Commission on Elementary Education, and he said the whole system of education at the day schools was such as to deter boys from attending evening schools, and when they have passed the exemption standard they fling up their caps and cry, "Catch me going to school again!" It is the principle of compulsion to which I take principal objection in reference to this Motion. It has been introduced in the case of elementary education, and there are a good many people who think it has not been altogether a success. You have a gigantic staff to compel attendance at a cost of £30,000 a year in London, and there is an opinion, that has penetrated even the London School Board itself, that this compulsion has not been worked altogether satisfactorily, and has not been productive of the happiest results; and now you propose to extend this principle to children of more advanced age, whom it would be still more difficult to bring into school. We may be asked to look at the Continent, and, of course, we there see the compulsory principle introduced. Why, there is one place where the lads working in a large factory for 12 hours' daily are made to attend evening school up to the age of 18, but I should like to know whether the people of this country are disposed to sanction the introduction of
  1866
  such a principle on any large scale here? I do not believe they would, and I should be sorry if they were. It is all very well to refer us to the Continent, but I do not think we are bound slavishly to imitate Continental models when we know that our habits and character are so very different from those of other nations. I think it would be a fatal mistake to adopt a system of compulsion in higher schools just because it has been adopted and been found to answer among other nations. Boys leave school now, say, at the age of 13, and most of them go to work of some kind, and some of them work long hours; they come home tired in the evening and want rest. Now, set up classes for these boys which shall be bright and attractive, and invite them to come in, and you may be doing them a benefit just at the time when it will be most advantageous to them. But compel them to attend, and you make that distasteful if not odious to them, which should be a pleasure and a boon; you are cramming them with knowledge with the effect very often of permanent injury to the health; you may possibly turn out a very superior wage-earning machine, but it is at the expense of all the higher qualities of the man—and the woman too. I may seem 20 years behind the time, perhaps, but I believe I express the opinion of a certain number of the working classes and of a good many of the already over-burdened tax and ratepayers, and some of the best friends of education, who will agree with me when I say that the cast-iron method of thrusting knowledge down the throats of the people is not the real way to promote the cause of education in the highest sense—that, however important it is to have the working classes instructed in science and art, as well as the ordinary branches of knowledge, there is another side to their nature which ought not to be left out of account—and that by this constant and evergrowing interference on the part of the State in matters of individual and family concern, you are doing your best to destroy that spirit of freedom, self reliance, and self respect which have helped to make our nation what it is.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I have felt it my duty to make many visits to schools in manufacturing

  1867
  towns, and I have given some attention to this subject. If the hon. Member for Flintshire will allow me to express an opinion, I think he takes too gloomy a view of the condition of our town population. I do not believe he exaggerates in the slightest degree the condition of things in the town of Liverpool, and I confess as a Lancashire man I look with the greatest regret and the deepest sorrow on the condition of Liverpool. The reason for it I think is not far to fetch. You have in the great city of Liverpool no occupation for girls or women. If you pass from Liverpool to one of our great manufacturing towns, say Wigan or Bolton, you find the whole of the population that in Liverpool would be running about the streets, a source of anxiety and discredit to all, are in Wigan and Bolton occupied day after day in the great factories of those towns. I do not think that anything is gained by exaggeration in this matter. I believe on the contrary, that a cause is greatly weakened when statements are made which do not stand the test of severe examination. I do not believe myself—he hon. Member for Flintshire will pardon my friendly criticism—hat there are three millions of people in the country on the edge of pauperism; I cannot think that a tenth of the entire population of England and Wales are at the door of the workhouse. I think in that as in his more general statements the hon. Member is not supported by facts, and in his inferences has gone beyond the truth. With reference to the popular opinion in favour of some movement of this kind, there was one omission in the speech of the hon. Member for Flintshire. During the last few weeks an important and representative body of churchmen, who met to consider how the National Church can best discharge its duties, passed an emphatic Resolution in favour of a system of continuation schools. I think it is only due to my co-religionists to say what they are doing in that particular. I think the real argument in favour of the hon. Member's proposition is that laid before the House by the right hon. Member for Leeds (Sir L. Playfair). We have a gigantic machine, a system of the most elaborate character, teachers trained with the greatest care and accomplished in their art; we have millions of chil-
  1868
  dren gathered together, and yet we allow them to be removed from this most careful and elaborate method of instruction just at the time when they are beginning to take advantage of it. Of this there is no doubt, and the more the case is rested on this argument the more it will be supported and the more speedily the matter will be settled. I do not in the slightest degree believe that the education of our young children begins too soon. It is a delusion to think that the infants collected in the schools are subjected to a painful process of instruction until their lives are made unhappy and school hours a period of misery. On the contrary the years spent at school are happy years, and the hours passed in our schools are hours of enjoyment to young children and among the happiest hours of a child's life. I need not describe the scene in an infant school as I have often witnessed it; anyone who cares to do so can visit a school, and after he has done so I am sure he will agree with me. But the real difficulty is the age at which children leave school, and I may mention a remarkable circumstance which has a bearing upon this point. It is a fact that now in some of our manufacturing towns children pass through the standard which gives them exemption from school attendance at so early an age that they are not allowed to enter upon factory labour. This is the almost incredible condition of things, and shows how machinery does occasionally get out of order. The effect is that many of these children pass 12 months or more in a condition of idleness: the bye-laws of the School Board cease to have effect, because the standard is passed, but the Factory Act remains in operation, and the boy is not permitted to work. So children idle away a year or more of the most precious years of their life, because parents are unwilling to continue sending them to school, and compulsory attendance has ceased. Another fact to be borne in mind is the great reluctance of magistrates to enforce the bye-laws when a parent who does not attend as he ought to the education of his child is summoned before the magistrate by the School Board or School Attendance Committee. The mother comes forward with a story not always true, which excites sympathy, the case is dismissed, and thus the efforts

  1869
  of the school authorities to secure attendance are discouraged. Night schools hare comparatively failed, and some years ago I had a correspondence with some clerical friends, who expressed regrets in regard to the decay of these schools which were fast ripening into despair. They have been conducted in a half-hearted fashion, rather to the prejudice than the advantage of education. They have failed, because of the nature of the subjects taught; because successive Governments have made injudicious requirements, and because of the difficulties of securing an efficient teaching staff. I confess I do not think we can expect day school teachers to add night teaching to the labours of the day. In the case of London I believe teachers in elementary schools are free from the necessity of instructing pupil teachers. In my judgment, to require a teacher who has been at work during school hours to also instruct pupil teachers is to subject these teachers to an excessive amount of pressure. Whether you can supply deficiencies by means of a voluntary staff, or whether you might accomplish your object by exempting teachers from half their day labour when they engage in night school teaching, I will not venture to say, but I do say that it is quite impossible for teachers to do both, and there should be no attempt to induce a teacher to conduct a night school as well as a day school. As to compulsion, I confess that my opinion—an opinion formed, with considerable regret, under the pressure of observation—is that we are at the edge of a period when there will be an objection to compulsion on the part of parents, just as there has been a reluctance on the part of magistrates to carry the compulsory law into effect. I deeply regret so retrograde a condition of public opinion. Some years ago I embarked in an education campaign with a strong feeling against compulsion. I argued against it before large gatherings of working men, and I found, to my great surprise, that my arguments were not well received by the working men. I arrived at the conclusion on which I have acted ever since—namely, that working men are in favour of compulsion, and that it is our duty to press on them in a friendly spirit that which they believe to be, and that which we know to be, an advantage and boon
  1870
  to them. That being the case, I think we ought to be very careful lest we press the movement too far. I do not think it would be prudent in the interest of the continuation schools to make them compulsory. There are two difficulties which meet; and the first one is the fatigue of young persons after the day's labour. Sometimes the school may not be near the home—it may be very far distant. Some of the factory workers walk a considerable distance to their factories, because the labour of the household is not exclusively factory labour, and the young persons have to seek their livelihood as best they can, often at a distance from home. And, secondly, you have that which I believe to be a most valuable duty on the part of our young girls, and that is, assisting in the management of the household. That I always regard as a technical education of the most valuable character, and I do not think the House will act with wisdom—and I am sure it would not act with mercy and consideration—if it were to pass a compulsory law to prevent the young women of our working classes from assisting their mothers in the management of the home. I think, Sir, these remarks are quite sufficient to show that the time for compulsion has not yet come, and that we ought to be most tender and careful how we advance in that direction. There is one further remark I would make, and that is that I do not think that sufficient recognition has been given to work actually done. If you come to our town—I am speaking now of the North of England, with which, by this time, I hope I have some acquaintance—you will find that some of our schools are well occupied at night. You will find various classes under various names to young boys and young women. Sometimes there is a certain degree of technical education, sometimes there is some debating society, sometimes there is some music taught of a more or less valuable character, sometimes there are lectures given on subjects of deep interest, and, altogether, there is far more to continue education given to these young persons as they become more advanced in life than might be thought by some who have not carefully investigated the subject. There is one other point in which I think we do indulge in too much depreciation

  1871
  and that is, when we do not fully acknowledge the abilities of our teachers. I believe we have in the teachers of our elementary schools a most splendid class, both of men and women. I ought to know something of them, having to do not only with schools, but also with some of our great training institutions; and I believe, if there is any class more than another which is elevated by a sense of duty and who pass their lives in devotion to their work, it is the elementary teachers of this country. I am quite sure that those who conduct this education in the training colleges are most anxious to develop that education in such manner as the country may require. It was only the other day I had an opportunity of making inquiry from a gentleman who is competent to give advice on such a matter, and he said that he feels assured that our training colleges at this moment are in such a state that it would be easy to engraft upon them any amount of technical education that the Government might propose. I feel we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman opposite for bringing this matter before the House. The discussion will have been of service, not only to the cause but to the country, and though to night no definite result may arise from the Motion owing to the rules of the House, yet the cause is being advanced, the way is being prepared, and the day is coming when a definite result will follow and be a great benefit to those whom we desire to advance by these discussions and these organizations.
  MR. GEO. DIXON: I thank the hon. Member for Flintshire for the admirable manner in which he brought before the House the subject of evening schools, and I listened with the greatest pleasure to the speeches which followed. There have been criticisms upon matters of detail, and upon some side issues, but it is quite evident that, upon the main point, the House, so far as can be gathered, is in favour of the Motion. But it is not merely this accidental debate in the House of Commons which shows the progress which this question has made. We have been told by those who ought to know that in the country there is a strong feeling in favour of the establishment of these evening schools—in fact, that the feeling is unanimous.
  1872
  Now, Sir, as having long been connected with School Boards and their management, and as having been chairman of a School Board in one of the largest provincial towns, I may claim to have a practical knowledge of this important question, and of the difficulties in the way of carrying out our wishes. That difficulty lies exclusively with the Education Department. By a slight alteration in the Code, the power which is now sought for could be given in a moment. The Education Department would willingly make the alteration I believe; I believe it desires it, but behind the Department is the Treasury. And it is the duty of the Head of the Treasury to resist the expenditure of the public funds unless the strongest possible case is made out. Now, I do hope the Treasury will come to the conclusion that the strongest case is made out, a case sufficiently strong for them to act, when there is such evidence as has been brought before the House tonight, and when you find that the working classes, who are seriously affected, are the most anxious to have this alteration. Now, what is the alteration required in the Code, in order that our object may be attained. At the present moment the Code insists that is is essential that children attending the evening schools should be taught the Standards, and unless they are they cannot be taught any additional subject. None of those subjects in the Science and Art Department which they are so eager to learn, can be learnt unless they go through the drudgery of learning the three "R's," which in many and the most important cases they have already learnt in the elementary schools, and are perfectly familiar with. Now, Sir, if that condition were to be withdrawn from the Code, our wishes would be granted. We ask for no more additional contributions from the State than those claimed from the Science and Art Department. No doubt we should be glad to have additional grants, and we shall hereafter ask for them. There is at the present time a literally burning feeling in favour of giving that kind of teaching which educates the hand and eye in the use of tools. All desire that. And, if that were given in evening schools, there would be no grant for it. But while we should be glad to have

  1873
  that grant, it is not so essential as what we have asked for—that the simple alteration should be made in the Code of not insisting upon children who attend evening schools going through standards which many of them have already learnt. I believe the reason why this condition has not been withdrawn is because the Education Board has not become fully sensible of the fact that the country desires its withdrawal. The working men are very desirous of having these night schools, and are anxious that when the manufacturers receive young persons into their works they should insist on their going to night schools, so that they might learn the art or science connected with their trade. But there are no such schools to go to, and therefore the working men and the Trades Unions insist on the necessity of establishing them. We have one very good school in Birmingham, but our large towns are extending over such enormous areas that one school does not suffice. We have established recreation classes, but they do not cover the ground, and we are obliged to rely to a great extent, if not mainly, on volunteers, who, for the most part, are ladies and gentlemen who have not had experience of the work, and who have to be trained to it; and who, when they have acquired knowledge and ability, find their task so enormous a strain upon them that they may fall away We consequently have no confidence in the continuance of these voluntary efforts. In the legitimate demand we are now making we have behind us the whole of the people of this country, and I do not see how the Government or the Education Department can justify resistance to it. If the School Board be not the proper body to entrust the power to, then let the power be given to some other body. What we want is that the thing should be done. My own impression is that if the power were given to the School Board by a simple alteration of the Code we should find that the local authorities would promote these schools to a very large extent, and in a very few years experience will show what the wants of the community may be. The expenditure at the commencement would be comparatively small. The Government would be afraid of any great addition to the general cost of education; but I would
  1874
  urge on the Government the importance of this question of increased education to the working classes, believing that the cost, even if it were for the moment to appear great, would be trifling compared with the enormous advantages that would be derived. The working men earnestly beg that you will supply them with that educational help which they have not hitherto been able to get. This has been from no default on their part; it is because the schools have not been there for them to send their children to. When a boy leaves an elementary school at 13 years of age he has not acquired any knowledge of the art or science of the work he will have to do in after life; of this he knows almost nothing, and in many cases absolutely nothing; and the parents all say, "Let us have the means of sending these children to a night school, where they can get the information they require." It is not necessary that they should go every night in order to acquire this technical education; attendance two nights a week for a couple of hours would be sufficient. I trust that, whatever he may do in connection with this important matter, the right hon. Gentleman will receive from me the assurance that, in any steps he may take in this direction, he will have the whole of the people of the country enthusiastically behind him.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I think that every Member of this House, without distinction of Party, has every reason to be thankful to the hon. Gentleman who has brought this important question forward, and in the few remarks I shall offer I desire to express a general approbation of the Resolution. I am very glad that this debate will not end in a Division, because, if it were, my right hon. Friend below me might have felt himself compelled to have voted against it, lest the Government might otherwise have been committed to this particular course. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this discussion has referred to the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon which I had the honour of sitting last year on this subject. Now, in my opinion, there is considerable necessity for caution with regard to compulsion in conncection with attendance at night schools. As to the necessity of continuing education after the usual school age there cannot be two

  1875
  opinions, and all the hon. Members who have spoken have agreed on that point. The difficulties are two: first in regard to compulsion, and then in regard to expense. Compulsory evening classes would be especially objectionable in the rural districts. For my own part, I am strongly in favour of every encouragement being given to the establishment of evening classes; but I think that the principle of compulsion ought not to be applied. There are two chief objections to these schools being made compulsory, especially in the rural districts; in the first place it would interfere with the labour market, because boys who have been working in the fields all day, can hardly be expected to attend classes every evening; and, in the next place, the difficulty with regard to girls would be even greater. On this point Archdeacon Barber, for 12 years Diocesan Inspector in the Diocese of Oxford, when before the Royal Commission, was asked (Question 49,779)—
  "Should you be prepared to say whether you thought it a feasible plan to require compulsory attendance in evening schools?—A. I should hardly think that it was feasible."
  Question 49,780—
  "That must apply specially to rural districts?—A. Yes."
  Then the Rev. F. Synge, who was appointed by the Education Department to the Norwich district in 1869, and has been there ever since, and was made Chief Inspector of the Eastern Division in 1886, was asked (Question 58,330)—
  "You would not think it desirable that there should not be evening schools?—A. I think that some of the most useful of the evening schools, are those which it would be impossible to inspect and assess grants for fairly, and that they do their work much better, being free from all Government restrictions."
  Question 58,334—
  "We have had a considerable amount of evidence before the Commission very strongly in favour of much greater encouragement being given to evening schools; and it has sometimes been suggested to the witnesses that, though they might be comparatively easy for boys, they would be very difficult to organize for girls, owing to the necessity for caution as to their being out late at night?—. I think that it would be exceedingly difficult to organize them so that they would not be a greater evil than good."
  Question 58,335—
  "Would you apply that remark to country schools, as well as to town schools?—A. Yes; I think so."
  1876
  Question 58,336—
  "And perhaps even more to country schools, because of the long distances and the unfrequented lanes they would have to pass?—. Yes; I think so."

  Those who know anything about rural districts will admit that to compel children over the age of 13 to attend evening schools would be nothing less than insanity, and, in fact, it could not possibly be done. A system of compulsory attendance at evening schools must apply equally to both sexes, and the House, before it comes to a decision, must carefully examine the question as it affects the girls. I believe the universal feeling of the Royal Commission was that it was absolutely impossible to enforce compulsory attendance at night schools on girls. Of course, it is comparatively easy for boys in great centres of industrial occupation to be compelled to attend, but when you come to deal with rural districts the physical difficulties in the matter are exceedingly great. The districts are scattered, and it is almost impossible for boys who have been at hard work in agricultural pursuits during long hours to be compelled to attend night schools. I therefore hope that the House will not be led away by philanthropists to enforce a system of compulsion, which, if pushed too far, might have a disastrous effect in alienating public feeling in rural districts and producing a re-action which we might have to deplore. And then, too, there is the matter of expense. When the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Education Department and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to address themselves to this subject they will have to make up their minds to dip their hands pretty deeply into the taxpayers' pockets. In the first place, the existing staff of school teachers will not be adequate for the additional labour which will be involved. I do not say this as an argument against continuation schools, but it is a matter which the House and the country should deliberate upon before rushing too hastily into this work. I hope, if we undertake the work, it will, indeed, be organized on a liberal scale; I am not speaking from a pecuniary point of view only, but as against that system of payment by results, which is universally denounced by the best friends of education,

  1877
  and which will be specially to be deplored if it is applied to evening schools. I think Her Majesty's Inspectors, instead of looking to see if the schools pass given standards, should, in the case of evening schools, see that the schools are kept in good order, that the young people are really improving themselves, that the apparatus is satisfactory, and that the schools are doing good work. Do not let us, in fact, be tied down to that miserable system of earning so much money by so many passes, which is the bane of the day schools. An hon. Member suggested that it would be economical to employ the day teachers in the evening schools. No doubt we should thereby spend less money, but we might exhaust our material; and I do not think it would be wise to trust to that means of supply alone. I congratulate the House and the Government on the tone of the discussion.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I can add little that is fresh or new to that which has been said, but I venture to address the House as an hon. Member fully alive to the importance of the subject. The hon. Member who introduced this matter has entitled himself to the thanks, for many years, of the people of Liverpool by his liberal hand and his liberal thoughts, and I am quite certain that I express the feeling of my constituents in extending to him, on their behalf, thanks for bringing this matter forward. Two hon. Members have referred to the squalor of the City of Liverpool, and those who do not know may think that, in some measure, its squalidity is owing to the want of action on the part of the School Board or of the Corporation. Now, I speak in the knowledge of many hon. Members when I say that the educational authorities of Liverpool are foremost in the educational battle, and also that the great Corporation of that city has been foremost in extending sanitary improvements throughout its length and breadth. The hon. Member who introduced this matter referred to the squalor to be found in the City of New York, and he attributed it, in a great degree, to the foreign element introduced from outside quarters. I think he would have been equally accurate if he had gone on to state that the squalor of the City of Liverpool was also, to a large
  1878
  extent, attributable to the outside element brought into its borders. In classical history we read of a certain people who were doomed to pour water into vessels without a bottom, and sometimes I think, when I look round the streets and courts of Liverpool, with which I have been intimately acquainted all my life, that the authorities of Liverpool are very much like those unhappy people, who, after all their efforts, find that a great deal still remains to be done. I cordially approve of the Motion before the House, and perhaps I do so more cordially because it keeps clear of details; but I think that, even about the details, there will be a large amount of common agreement, and when the question comes to be reduced into practice, we shall find hon. Members on both sides of the House combining to further the better instruction of our children who are growing into men. I cordially approve of the proposal to extend the school age of children, and I am quite in favour of promoting continuation schools, which, I feel convinced, will do a great deal to bridge over that time when children are turned loose from their regular schools to enter on the battle of life. It seems to me the real crux of the whole thing is the matter of compulsion. I myself would strongly deprecate trying to compel these children to go to the evening schools. I believe, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, that, whether it be in rural or in urban districts, compulsion is practically impossible. You can neither punish the child by imprisonment or fine for playing the truant from evening schools, nor can you punish the parent who, because the child does not come back after work, is unable to send him to school. I therefore think that the compulsion would break down, and that it would be a thousand pities that it should be tried. We have been told that, in the City of London, at least £20,000 or £30,000 is spent yearly on compulsion; and the hon. and gallant Baronet, who so ably represents the London School Board in this House took to his Board great credit for the way in which they swept the streets of London. But if I may make a remark, I should say that in the Bermondsey district the streets are by no means adequately swept of waifs and strays. Indeed, I think compulsion

  1879
  works very indifferently in the South and South-East of London. Then, again, in connection with this matter of continuation schools, the question of expenditure must be very carefully considered. I am perfectly ready to spend a considerable sum toward the further promotion of the education of those on whom we have already spent money; but it must be remembered that in the upper classes a vast amount of private money is wasted by well-intentioned parents in sending boys to school and college who had better have gone to work, and I submit that the State is not justified in sending a large amount of money on children over the age of 14 years, unless those children show, by their zeal in coming voluntarily to school, and by making some small payment, that they are worthy of the expenditure which the State is asked to incur for them. I am quite prepared to give each child who shows a desire for increased knowledge some opportunity of improving himself. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire spoke a great deal of the squalor and misery that arise from the neglect of parents, and he attributed it to many causes; but to my mind he omitted the one underlying cause of that misery and sorrow which exists among our people, and it is the indiscriminate management of the Poor Law system, which for centuries has done so much to demoralize the character of our people. I think, by a strict administration of the Poor Law, the miseries of our people would be greatly alleviated. And now let me return for a moment to the question of the condition of Liverpool, with a view of showing that the illiteracy is due to the outside element. After the Election of 1885 some very interesting statistics were published, and from these it seems that in the Toxteth Division, which is represented by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, there were only 12 illiterates; in the Everton, which is the largest division in the city, there were only 17; in my own division, a good representative division in the heart of the city, combining all sorts and conditions of men, there were only 89; but in the Exchange Division, where the Irish element largely predominates, there were 339 illiterates, while in the Scotland Division, repre-
  1880
  sented by my brilliant colleague, with whom I too often have to differ—and this, too, is a very small division of the city—there were no less than 428 illiterates. Now, I need not point a moral from this; I think it is sufficient to show that the squalor of Liverpool is not owing to laches on the part of the authorities, but that it is due largely to the introduction of that outside element which it would be inhospitable for us to refuse to receive.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I agree that we should not approach this question from a. Party standpoint, but with the sole desire to alleviate the condition of our more unfortunate countrymen. I approve, in the first place, of the proposal to raise the age for compulsory attendance at our national schools, but I should like to point out, as the representative of an agricultural district, that hon. Members who sit for urban constituencies can scarcely have any idea of how great the pressure is upon the poorer classes, when the children are taken away from their homes at a time when they might earn a large proportion of the wages earned by the family. A child of 12 or 13 can, perhaps, earn half-a-crown a week. Well that may seem a trifling amount to some people, but perhaps it is 25 per cent of what the parents earn, and see how much it represents of added comfort for the entire family. In my own constituency the common wage of the agricultural labour is 2s. a day. How in the world a man, his wife, and five children can pay rent and find food, clothes, and firing on 12s. a week, as well as pay school fees out of the miserable pittance is a problem I have unsuccessfully tried to solve. Therefore, while I am strongly in favour of increasing the school age, I am glad that the parents will be allowed an alternative, for I believe it would be infinitely more advantageous to the poor parents as well as to the scholars themselves to keep children at school between the ages of 12 and 15 years, with an attendance sufficient to keep them in touch with their educational surroundings, than to insist on a close and regular attendance for a single year. I hope that the parents will have this opportunity given them. An hon. Member opposite said it was impossible to expect children who spent their days in the field in agri-

  1881
  cultural pursuits to attend evening schools under a system of compulsion. But why not introduce the system of half-timers? Why not let the boys go to work in the morning and rest during the afternoon? They would then come fresh to their educational studies, which would have a charm for them after their half-holiday. I have done a good deal of voluntary work in evening schools in London, and I know how difficult it is to overcome the natural drowsiness of boys coming into a heated atmosphere from the fresh air after a long and hard day's work. As to the expense of the compulsory system, it has been said that £20,000 is spent yearly in sweeping the streets of London of the waifs and strays. But that is a mere bagatelle, when you come to remember that there is a population of five millions to deal with. I do not wish to make this a Party question; but when hon. Members opposite hold up their hands because an increase of expenditure is proposed in connection with national education, I would point out that there is no difficulty in finding millions when we want to increase the Navy and add to the Army Estimates. We ought not to be alarmed at a little increase of expenditure on our schools. That outlay is, in the long run, absolutely productive, whereas the money spent on the Army and Navy is not; indeed, the latter only increases the class dependent on the labouring community, and abstracts wealth from the population and impoverishes the country, while the money spent upon the education of the people makes them better wage earners and wealth producers. It is a matter for congratulation that while, since 1870, the amount spent on education has increased, the expense of pauperism has decreased and the number of criminals has diminished. In other words, we have forced open the door of our elementary schools and have compelled the children to go in, but in doing so we have closed the door of the gaol and the workhouse to them; and this is a distinct economic advantage, if we look on it from no other point of view. With regard to the pauperism that now actually prevails in our midst, hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to have underestimated the amount of it. My hon. Friend who introduced the Motion stated that he believed the pauper population of this country to be some-
  1882
  thing like three millions. Well, I am afraid that this pauperism is double the number at which he set it. Instead of the number being only three millions, I greatly fear it is nearer six millions. I do not regard the pauper population as only those who, at any one given moment, are in receipt of pauper relief. I maintain that if the condition of a man is such that last year he was a pauper, and that he is looking forward to being a pauper again next year, he is in that state of abject fear, misery, despondency, dread, doubt, and difficulty which necessarily classes him amongst the paupers. If you find statistics which show that when a man's life comes to an end he has no alternative but to be classed with the paupers, I maintain that that man belongs to the pauper class. I hold in my hand some statistics compiled by Mr. M'Dougall, Vice Chairman of the Manchester Board of Guardians, according to which it appears that there are in the City of Manchester, living in a state of actual pauperism, 10·88 per cent of the entire population. But that is not all. The number who actually die in the workhouse, or in receipt of parish relief, is one in every 5·84; that is, more than 17 per cent. of the population die under the shadow of the workhouse at last. It seems almost incredible to think that when you have an audience before you of 1,000 people in the City of Manchester, you can say 171 of these people will die in the workhouse, or at the time of their death will be in receipt of workhouse relief. I do not take these figures merely on the statement of Mr. M'Dougall, Vice Chairman of the Manchester Board of Guardians, but I refer to one of his authorities—namely, the Registrar General's Report for 1879, and I find there that in public institutions, including workhouses, infirmaries, and public lunatic asylums, the deaths recorded were equal to 10·1 of all the deaths in the whole of England and Wales. This does not include those who died in receipt of outdoor relief, nor the many more who die as beneficiaries at home, and in hospitals of benevolent and philanthropic institutions. Therefore, it is indisputable that beyond the 10 per cent of the population which die in the workhouse and other instiutions, those who live in

  1883
  poverty but escape the workhouse at the end of life are also very numerous. This reveals a most miserable state of things, and I am glad my hon. Friend has brought forward one aspect of this case of pauperism, and has made an effort in one direction of relieving it. I do not believe his plan will have the far-reaching effect and influence which he expects. There are many disintegrating causes at work. Education alone will not be enough to relieve us from the miserable position in which we are placed. I look to other social efforts. I look forward to the time when workhouses will be done away with, and we shall have work-fields and workyards where those now driven to the so-called workhouse can earn a livelihood. I look forward to the time when men and women, having a larger share of the wealth they create, will be released from the necessities and troubles which now surround them, and will gladly contribute to the education of others, as we now insist that they shall share better educational advantages from the State.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I will not detain the House by enlarging on, or dealing further with the sad and gloomy topics which the hon. Member who has just sat down brought under our notice. I do not admit the correctness of his figures, or the accuracy of the conclusions he has drawn, and I cannot help thinking that he seems disposed to paint the shadows rather too darkly, and to admit too little sunshine into the picture. I would rather go back to the more pleasant aspect of the case. So far as I am concerned I am sure there is no Member in the House who feels the difficulty of the position that I have the honour to hold than I do, or the inadequacy with which I fill it. If there is anything that can encourage a man in my position, it is the candid and generous treatment I have received on all sides of the House, and if I disagree from some of my friends and their conclusions it will be in no hypercritical or contentious spirit, but in an earnest desire to carry out the object of the hon. Member for Flintshire has in view in bringing forward the Motion. It is rather difficult to deal with the formal Resolution on the Paper, be-
  1884
  cause it is partly shadowed or accompanied by a Bill; and between the two there is some divergence. The Resolution refers to those who leave day schools early; but the hon. Member, in his speech, contemplates schools for ex-day scholars of from 12 to 16, and for those who have passed the exemption standard. The hon. Member suggests that the last standard may be taken in the continuation school; but I am strongly of opinion that there would be something hazardous in breaking up day-school life. If you fix a standard of exemption, you ought to secure that the education is completed in the day school. If I had any doubts on the point beforehand, they have been confirmed by the debate. The State has a right to demand absolute security for the value of that for which it pays, and I think we have had ample indications in this debate to show that if the education in the last standard is confided to night schools the security as to that standard will be of an illusory character. The day-school education should be completed at the day school, from which the continuation school should be kept quite distinct. The hon. Member for Liverpool gave a gloomy picture of neglected children in large towns; but the hon. Member appeared to be carried away by his enthusiasm, for, go where you will, to town or agricultural district, there is a general concurrence in the statement that children are now better fed, clothed, cared for, and educated than they were 10 or 12 years ago. The hon. Member has quoted the City of Liverpool with which he is well acquainted, but I maintain that the condition of things there is exceptional, and that people of the knowledge and common sense of Members of this House who are constantly travelling and visiting the large centres of the country will confirm the view I have just expressed. I can speak confidently in this matter of the condition of the children of the wage earning class in the agricultural districts of Kent. And, Sir, when the hon. Member presents to the House his gloomy picture of the state of these unfortunate neglected children in our large towns I would appeal to something stronger and more material than our own observation and experience, I would appeal to the statistics of crime—for, after all, if the picture the hon. Member draws

  1885
  has anything of truth in it, it means infant crime. If these vast numbers of neglected children which he pictured are constantly running about the streets by night, contaminated by everything evil, I say it can only lead to one possible result—namely, infant crime. What is the main result of the statistics? They amount to this, that since Mr. Forster's Act of 1870 was passed our population has increased by one-fourth, and in spite of that increase that our juvenile crime is to-day exactly half what it was in 1870. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman opposite has painted the picture in too deep and fervid a colour. There is perfect unanimity as to the object in view. The House of Commons is unanimous on the subject, and the Royal Commission unanimously reported in favour of encouraging the system of evening and continuation schools. I shall, no doubt, be asked what is the view of Her Majesty's Government in the matter. In reply to this inquiry, I am obliged to contest much that has been said as to the actual position of our evening school system. Many gentlemen, in referring to that system, have dealt only with the bare figures as they appear in connexion with the grants paid by the Education Department; but that is an altogether fallacious view to take. It ignores the vast amount of good that has been done by voluntary effort and in other ways. The minority Report of the Commission, in dealing with this question, was strongly in favour of extending the system of continuation schools. Yet they concluded with some very remarkable observations—hat while they thought the State, through the Education Department, should help these schools as much as possible, and while the local machinery of School Boards should also be directed to their improvement and extension,
  "We are of opinion that this is a branch of education in which we must endeavour very largely to enlist voluntary activity and cooperation."
  To my mind, taking the view I do of the existing state of things—that is a very encouraging sentence—and, in view of that, I should like to point to another sentence in the Minority Report, in which the Commissioners allude to the systematizing of science and art schools, the expansion of mechanics' institutions,
  1886
  and other agencies. From the first day I entered the Education Department I have given most earnest attention to this question, and the first motive which induced me to introduce a Technical Instruction Bill was that a vast number of youths and others would, under the operation of such a measure, be attracted to evening classes. In addition to the voluntary agencies to which I have alluded, the Recreative Evening Schools Association is doing a vast amount of good in our large towns, and there are also the Science and Art classes. I often think it is too much the fashion to ignore the extraordinary amount of good which these classes are doing. In making these observations I am not pleading against the Motion, nor against any assistance the Government can give to continuation schools, but simply pointing out what is being done by the Science and Art Department, and showing the extraordinary increase which is yearly going on in connection with these classes. At the April, May, and June examinations in 1888, the number of Science Schools examined was 2,035; and up to November last the number of applications sent in by schools for forms in the present year has been 2,212, showing an increase in one year of 200 schools. Take the number of students in the schools. In 1888, the number of students was 113,000; and in the Estimates for 1889–90, the Department Estimates for 125,000—an increase of 12,000 scholars—and a proportionate increase is anticipated in the Art Classes. These figures show that a vast movement is every year going on in connection with these classes at the expense of the Exchequer. As regards evening classes, there is a growth of something like 8 per cent. this year, and there is an increase in the number of students receiving instruction in additional subjects There is another very important element which, I think, we ought to consider in dealing with the question, and that is the one the hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to, technical education. I am glad my right hon. Friend has appealed to me on it, and I hope that before the end of the Session he will appeal to me in still more harsh terms if nothing is done. I am most anxious to carry the Bill dealing with that subject, and although it is not distinctly mentioned

  1887
  in the Queen's Speech, my colleagues in the Government are equally anxious to see the measure passed. There are one or two difficulties in the way, but I hope we shall be able to surmount them; and, so far as I am concerned, I will leave no stone unturned to deal with the question in the present Session. Something has been done to remove the extraordinary hindrance which has hitherto been placed in the way of evening schools by the stringent requirement of the Department as to elementary subjects. It has been discovered that the sooner this restriction is removed the better will it be for the evening schools and for the cause of education. It has been stated that if this hindrance were removed, the 30,000 schools would become 60,000, and I do not regard that an exaggerated estimate. I am not divulging any Cabinet secret if I state that in the new Education Code there will be a provision whereby any scholar who can show that within six months of the time of his appearing in the school he has passed a certain standard, he will not be bothered with any of the elementary subjects, but will be free to be put in additional subjects, as the locality may deem necessary. I hold that in a question of this kind, the common-sense view is to leave the localities to deal with the curriculum as much as possible, although with State aid it is, of course, necessary to have some security that the money is not wasted. I do not say these things in antagonism to the Motion, but simply to show that as far as the Government are concerned they are not blind to the necessities of the day, and that they recognize as one of the chief and most urgent necessities of the day the advance and encouragement of evening and continuation schools in every possible way. As to the standard of exemption in Elementary Schools I am not prepared to join issue with hon. Members. It is a very large and important question affecting not only the educational future of the country, but the labour market. The one commercial centre most affected by the half-timers—Bradford—resents most strongly any interference with the present standard of exemption. I have here a memorial from the school authorities in Bradford which, referring to the hon. Gentleman's Bill of last year, said—
  1888
  "As the Bill now stands it would create an impracticable condition of things in Bradford if it did not give rise to an open revolt against the Education Act as a whole."
  I quote this merely to show that the Government cannot introduce legislation without a due consideration of the whole subject. Then the question of the supply of teachers—one on which both the minority and majority of the Commission insisted—has to be faced in any attempt to provide the continuation schools suggested. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eve-sham (Sir E. Temple) in suggesting that the day teachers should be employed in the night schools. The teachers are an already overworked body of men having quite enough to attend to during the day. Again, the question of compulsion has to be met in any attempt to deal with the question in the terms of the Resolution before the House. The minority of the Commission were not prepared to advocate the system of compulsion. A State-aided system to be successful ought to be universal; and then there are difficulties to be met in suburbs and agricultural districts, where scholars will have to travel a great distance. Some security ought to be provided that the schools will be successful and that the children will attend. It has been urged, and I am of opinion it would be better to lessen the harshness and asperity of school life and adopt some system more likely to make the schools draw. But then the taxpayers ought to be consulted on the point before they are asked to put their hands into their pockets. They ought to have the chance of asking the question, "Where is education to end and where is amusement to begin in these continuation schools?" Then another question that will rise will be that of secondary education. I do not say whether it is right that the State should pay for it or not; but I maintain that if the taxpayers are to pay for secondary education, it is only fair that they should first be told of the new incubus to be laid upon them. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that any measure which may be introduced on the subject will receive the candid consideration of the Government; but as far as legislation during this Session is concerned, I must say that I do not think there will be much

  1889
  chance for it if the present rate of progress is maintained. I should be glad if I could carry a measure dealing with technical education; but, so far, it seems that the Session is to be one for Supply only. Independently of that, however, I, in my responsible position, will do my utmost to promote the cause which has to-night been advocated in the House.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think all hon. Members will feel we are indebted to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) not only for the admirable speech he has delivered but also for one of the most useful and interesting debates we have had for some time. I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman in nearly all the statements be made. I think, however, my hon. Friend underrated the enormous work already done in education, and exaggerated, somewhat, the results which we may hope to follow upon the establishment of continuation schools. How is it that my hon. Friend is able to draw such a deplorable picture of the state of our elementary education after 18 years of work and the large expenditure of money which has taken place during that period? It is not at all difficult to explain. When Mr. Forster brought in his Education Bill there were 3,000,000 fewer children at school than there are to-day. Mr. Forster was so anxious to obtain a recognition of a standard for labour that when the local authorities came to him and fixed a Standard at which children should pass out of school and take employment, he was glad to accept almost any standard they brought, and he did in some instances accept a standard for total exemption as low as the third. But Standard IV. prevails very largely throughout the country, and especially in the rural districts. What has happened? Standard IV. is a standard which, when Mr. Forster passed the Act, was not attainable by children until they were something like 12 or 13 years of age, but now it is commonly attainable by children of 10 years of age. Better the regularity of attendance, better the quality of teaching, and the same children pass the Standards of education, until it has come to this, that clever children in large numbers pass the necessary Standard at an early age, and, especially in rural districts, pass out of school. There can
  1890
  be no more wasteful system than to allow children to pass out of school at 10 years of age, and forget at the time they are about 13 nearly all they have acquired at so much expense. The Vice-President of the Committee (Sir W. Hart Dyke) has expressed his approval of the object the hon. Member for Flintshire has at heart. The Vice-President is always courteous and always sympathetic, but then he has not always got the power to carry out his good wishes and intentions. When hon. Members reproach the Vice-President with the pedantry of his Department, they must recollect that it is not the pedantry of the Education Department that is to be complained of, but it is the parsimony of the Treasury. It is no use blaming the right hon. Gentleman because he does not give a larger amount of grant or a larger latitude to School Boards, but it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is to be complained of. I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer present, because I want to make a request, which I trust he will find it difficult to refuse. In 1887 the right hon. Gentleman, addressing a large audience in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, pointed out how important it was that the children of the country should enjoy the advantages of technical education, and hoped the people would not let Irish obstruction stand between them and the education of their children. There is no Irish obstruction now; it is Treasury obstruction. The Vice-President hopes he will be able to carry his Technical Education Bill, but he seems to fear delay in the House. There will be no delay in the House. [Mr. GOSCHEN: Will you see to that?] Let the right hon. Gentleman produce his Bill. We have had it mentioned in the Queen's Speech twice, and two Bills have been laid on the Table, but both have been withdrawn. Why? Because they have been condemned by the Liberal Unionists, supporters of the Government. Let us have a good measure introduced; let us have it soon, and I think I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that it will not occupy many—I will not say days, but hours, to pass. I must say another word in defence of the good work that has been done by the Education Department. My hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) pointed out that

  1891
  only 128,000 children have passed annually the VI and VII Standards. I agree with him that every child who passes out of school should pass the VI Standard, but what was the state of things 18 years ago? When Mr. Forster introduced his Bill, the number of children presented in the VI Standard in any one year was only 24,000. Then the VI Standard was the present V; there was no VI and VII; and what have we done? Last year 265,000 children were presented in the V Standard,(formerly the VI,)and 128,000 children were presented in the VI and VII. That is a marvellous advance, one which must be a source of rejoicing to everyone. I agree with a good deal of what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham (Sir E. Temple). The London School Board are doing magnificent work in the Metropolis. They have done more to civilize and humanize the poor and wretched classes than any other body in the Metropolis. I hope they will continue in the good work, and not flinch because it costs another ¼d. or ½d. in the rate. We are very economical whenever education is mentioned. As a matter of fact we are wasteful, because we do not complete our work. There is no man of business would ever dream of doing his business as we do ours—leaving off in the middle and letting the part we have done perish because we will not furnish the remainder. Now, I am bound to say that while the Motion of the hon. Member for Flintshire refers only to night schools, the hon. Gentleman practicaly impeaches the whole of our educational arrangements. I think he is right, because the arrangements made by the Education Act of 1870 became obsolete by 1880. The Vice President has said that Bradford objects to any interference with the half-time Standard. It used to be Standard II, but now it is Standard III. Will he believe that in Yorkshire, in Lancashire, and in the Midlands there are factory to was in which factory labour is important and where there is Standard IV for half-timers and Standard VI for full-timers. I hope that the Report of the Royal Commission will not be left without Legislation. I trust that we shall raise the age of exemption throughout by law. With the exception of Belgium and Russia, England works its children longer hours and harder than any other
  1892
  country in Europe. In most countries children cannot leave school until they are 14, but in England children are allowed to begin work at 10. Now, while compulsion is necessary for day schools, I think it very doubtful whether it should be applied to the night schools, which should be made attractive. With the widest range of colonies in the world, we want to see our people enterprizing and ready to go out into the world rather than sit at home and starve. Therefore we should teach them the geography and resources of our colonies. Those also who are intended to engage in commerce should have the advantage of being able to learn a foreign language. But, more than all, what is wanted from one end of England to the other is technical education. We are told by everybody—by Professor Huxley, by Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by others—how important technical education is for the people, and yet we cannot get a fair Bill laid on the Table. A Bill on that subject might be passed in less time than this debate has taken. Why not refer it to a Grand Committee, as was done in the case of the Railway Bill last year? Again, I entirely agree that it is of the utmost importance to maintain our infant schools. That is a part of our system of which we have reason to be proud. I do not believe any system in Europe can compare favourably with it. My hon. Friend made reference to Berlin, and spoke of the kind of education given there. When I was there some three years ago, and investigated this matter for myself, I was astounded; to find the numbers of children who attended the principal schools in Berlin. There is a school within a few yards of the British Embassy, through which I was told in three years 2,000 scholars under 17 had passed in the higher curriculum adopted, and in the various industries of Berlin they desired to follow. In all the 19 arrondissements of Paris, languages, technical education, art and science teaching, as applied to industry, can be obtained free of cost by any man coming out of the street in any of the schools of the arrondissements. Nothing is more astonishing to an Englishman than to see the sacrifices foreign nations are making to enable their workmen to compete in the production and beauty-

  1893
  fying of manufactures. The Vice-President has assured us that when he lays the New Code upon the Table we shall find in it some of the provisions we are so anxiously looking for, and I can promise him in this matter of the Code that anything that appears there shall have not only our most careful but our most favourable consideration. I know the difficulties of his position in regard to payments by results. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. G. Talbot) spoke in a tone of strong condemnation of the system, and is anxious that we should abandon it, but I am surprised to hear from him, an advocate of the voluntary system, a condemnation of payments by results. I want to know how you are going to pay away millions from the Exchequer without having some test of the application of the money. The whole difficulty is a consequence of the voluntary system, whether we like it or not. You cannot pay into the hands of voluntary managers money without exacting some proof that the money is well expended. You may pay it to local authorities, to elected bodies over whom yon exercise supervision, but it is not possible to pay to private persons, however good may be their intentions and however good their management, without some test as to how the money is expended. I only hope the Vice-President will lay, not only the Code, but his Technical Instruction Bill, upon the Table, and I hope it will be advanced with the least possible delay. He may be assured it will be received with the most sympathetic consideration by the House.
  MAJOR RASCH: As a Member for an agricultural constituency I cannot help offering a most emphatic protest against the bare idea of continuing compulsory educasion after the age of 13. In towns it may be well and good, but in agricultural and rural districts it would be an absolute and complete fiasco. What the agricultural labourer wants, and what he has some expectation of having, is that his children shall not be kept entirely at school after the age of 12, when they are able to work. Where the agricultural shoe pinches, is not in the fact of having to pay school pence—I believe the hon. Member for Spalding (Mr. H. Stewart) will agree with me—but the fact that the labourers' children are
  1894
  taken away precisely at the time when they are wanted—to use a colloquial expression—"to keep the pot boiling." To tell him that his children are to be kept at school till the age of 23 is to pile up the agony, to put the last straw upon an agricultural labourer's back, when he is extremely ill able to bear it.
  MR. PICTON: I join in the meads of praise which have been so repeatedly uttered concerning the service done to the cause of Education by the hon. Member for Flintshire in introducing this discussion, but I cannot help thinking the discussion has often strayed from the immediate purpose of the Motion the hon. Member has given notice of, and would have moved had the forms of the House permitted. The subject of this Motion is the desirability of establishing a system of Evening Continuation Schools. Now we have heard a great deal about the whole system of Elementary Schools in the country, but we have not heard so much as I would have desired to have heard concerning the especial subject of the hon. Member's Motion. In order to explain the point of view I desire to lay before the House, I will call attention to a phrase used in the Resolution that gives some reason for possible differences between Members who are heartily in sympathy with the hon. Member and the object he has in view. The Motion speaks of Evening Continuation Schools "where children who leave Elementary Day Schools at a very early age may continue their education." Now we ought to distinguish two entirely different things; on the one hand real continuation schools adapted to prolong the normal culture of children, to give them a further amount of knowledge and develop the instruction they have received at day schools up to the age of 13 or 14; and, on the other hand, evening schools to do the work left undone by day schools, in the case of very young children. These are two entirely different things. The hon. Member and others have referred to evening schools carried on in considerable numbers by Continental nations, but these are schools to continue the education and culture children have previously received, and in a measure perfectly received up to the age of 13 or 14. But the very notion of schools held in the evening in which hard-worked

  1895
  young children of 10 or 11 years of age are to attend after some four or five hours' manual labour during the day, and weary their brains with endeavours to master reading, writing, and arithmetic, is wholly foreign to any idea of education in any country on the Continent, and I wish it were foreign to every civilized nation. Hon. Gentlemen have spoken as if it were quite within the limit of human nature for boys and girls of 11 and 12 years of age to go to the evening school, and there weary their young, immature minds after engaging in manual labour during the day. The very idea of the thing is, to my mind, most cruel and inhuman. I would ask fathers of families who know what the burden imposed upon boys and girls by evening after-school lessons is, what they think of such a proposition? Over and over again we have had complaints of the evening study required from boys and girls at high schools. It has been asked is it wise, is it healthy for young children to spend as much as two hours' mental labour in the evening? I know that head-masters and principals of girls' schools have issued instructions to parents that for children of 10 or 12 not more than an hour's evening study is desirable, and for older children not more than two. With what decency, with what pretence to human sympathy, can we propose that young and tender children should occupy four or five hours in manual labour during the day and then attend school in the evening? It is impossible that they can derive any benefit from it. Therefore I cannot sympathize or agree with any portion of the speech of my hon. Friend in which, if I rightly interpreted him, he seemed to favour the idea that we could supply the defects of our system of elementary education in allowing a short time at day schools by sending children to school in the evening. [Mr. SAMUEL SMITH: I did not advocate that.] I am sorry if I misunderstood him, but I can claim some justification from the terms of the Resolution itself—"children who leave day schools at a very early age." That must surely mean children under 12 years, and, if so, I say such children ought not to be allowed to attend schools in the evenings. I deprecate that most earnestly, most emphatically. I am of
  1896
  opinion that proper continuation schools are in the highest degree desirable for boys and girls who leave ordinary schools at the age of 13 or 14. I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Rasch) should consider it necessary to protest against children continuing at school until they are 14. Why, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) says, in no European nation that boasts any high rank in education is such a thing tolerated as that a child should leave school before the age of 14 unless under very peculiar circumstances, and I trust to see the time come when no child shall be allowed to go to work before the age of 14. I know it is often said that it is very necessary to poor parents that their children should go to work at an early age, but I deny it altogether. I say it is wholly against the interest of the labouring classes that child-labour should be introduced so profusely as it is. It lowers the standard of life; it lowers the standard of expenses a parent is expected to meet, and, therefore, it lowers the standard of wages. If no parent had a prospect of sending his child to work until the age of 14, the standard of wages would rise, for parents would always have to consider and have to regard the necessity of providing for their children up to that age. It is a most short-sighted, unsound view to take of the interests of the working classes, that they should be allowed to send the labour of young, immature children to compete with adult labour—for that is really the meaning of it. Therefore, so far as my remarks are concerned, I wish to deal only with proper continuation schools—schools for young people between the ages of 14 and 17, at which the culture they have received at the day schools may be continued and developed. So far as the Vice President has replied on the subject, I think we may congratulate ourselves very highly on the tone of his observations, and I, as having had some experience in the matter—I as member of the earliest School Board of London for nine years, and for country School Boards after that, besides being concerned in various enterprizes for promoting culture—I say I heard the remarks the right hon. Gentleman made with the greatest pleasure. I

  1897
  congratulate him upon recognizing, as he did, the necessity for considerably more elasticity in the relations between the Education Department and the local managers of evening schools, continuation schools, or others. I recognize also with pleasure the extent to which he approved of making evening schools attractive as a substitution for compulsion. I do not think it possible in this country to apply the principle of compulsion to evening schools. I know it is done to some extent in Germany, but we have other ideas of freedom here than those which obtain in Germany. I do not think the thing is possible. We must make these schools attractive if we would bring young people into them. On one point I cannot help disagreeing with the Vice President; he seemed to desire rather more supervision on the part of the Education Department than is absolutely necessary. He said—"Of course to the Education Department must be reserved the ultimate decision whether the course of education devised for an evening school is wise or not." Well, I know, if the Government are to grant money, they must be consulted, and that their authority must have weight in regard to the curriculum we adopt; but I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of the superstition that while obscurity reigns outside the Department, but that Whitehall has a peculiarly luminous atmosphere.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: May I explain? What I referred to was supervision to see no subject was taught that was practically absurd. I always supposed there would be a liberal curriculum.
  MR. PICTON: Of course, I am unable to contravene the view urged that no subject which is absurd should be taught; but I think it is highly improbable that any local authorities would desire to have such a subject taught. All I want to say is this—that human nature is the same in Whitchall or Little Pedlington, but Little Pedlington understands its own requirements better than Whitehall; and there should be considerable room for experience—greater elasticity or freedom—allowed to local authorities in this matter. Another subject referred to is the creation of the evening school staff to be employed; and, as to the cost,
  1898
  various hon. Gentlemen have spoken with some fear, if all the young people are gathered into these schools as we should like to see them. When I heard these remarks, I could not but call to mind those discussions upon which we have recently been occupied. Of course I should not be in order to go into them, but I may refer for a moment to the proposal for granting extraordinary sums for naval and military expenditure. It seems there is no limit to extravagance when these destructive services are concerned; but when the building up of our civilization, the culture of our race, is concerned, parsimony and timidity reign supreme! I suppose I may not hope to live to see the day, but I hope it may be in the time of my great grandchildren, or within a few generations, when more money will be spent on schools than on the Army and Navy. For that end I think we ought to work. If money is wanted for our schools, and we cannot—and we ought not to—raise it by fresh taxation, then it should be economized from money saved out of warlike and destructive expenditure. But I pass from that. There was considerable reason in the discursive allusions that have been made repeatedly during the evening to the system pursued in our ordinary day schools, and many reasons have been given for the difficulties that have been found in working our evening schools as we should desire. It seems to me the chief difficulty lies in the inefficiency of our day school system. It is well known that children do not for the most part—I know there are exceptions—do not leave the day school having passed the Fifth or Sixth Standard, with any enthusiastic desire to learn more. The whole system has been so mechanical, so painful and tiresome, that all but exceptional children are glad to get rid of school, and dread the idea of entering a continuation school. I may be permitted to refer to a principle I have at times enunciated when the subject of education has been before us, the need of moulding, of co-ordinating our whole educational system into a unity—a unity of organic development. In this point of view, infant schools have been rightly referred to. I am sorry my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) does not seem sufficiently to appreciate the work of infant schools; but I am convinced that

  1899
  in the most improved methods of infant school training, such, as Froehel's, we have the proper system which by natural development could be pursued throughout ordinary day schools, and without any detriment to learning in the evening schools, and it would be so attractive to the scholars that there would be no temptation to stay away. We cannot treat one part of our educational system without regarding the whole, and if this leads us to appreciate the necessity for one principle running through our whole system, this discussion will not have been in vain. Though I differ from my hon. Friend on some points, I cannot help congratulating him on what, I hope, will be the fruitfulness of the discussiou he has raised.
  MR. DE LISLE: I have been very much interested in the debate, but I have heard very little in favour of the Motion, and if it had been possible to call a Division I should have voted against the Motion. Had it been possible to move an Amendment to the Resolution, I should have proposed it in this form—
  "That it is desirable to develop the existing system of education by evening schools, where children who have left elementary day schools, not before they have attained the age of 13 and have passed the sixth standard, may continue their education:"
  That I think would express the opinion of the generality of speakers this evening. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield made an eloquent speech in favour of technical education, but I do not think he said anything in favour of the Resolution. In the remarks that fell from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) there is much with which I agree. We must all see the gravity of the problem presented. We see the expense of our system growing at a fearful ratio, while we see in our great cities a great amount of human misery. In the development of education lies the best influence on the future of the working classes. Certainly, I should like to see the age of compulsory attendance raised to 13, and no child allowed to leave school until he passes the Sixth Standard. I know the difficulties; I view the future with anxiety, and I feel how sad is the picture the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith) has put before the House. But in the exten-
  1900
  sion of a true, sound, rational, and Christian system of education, I see the best hope for the future. Education leads to emigration, and in emigration there are the means of escape for hundreds of thousands from lives of misery. I do not, however, think a proposal such as this will assist us. If the Government can see their way to raising the age of exemption from attendance at school and raise the standard of education they will do a wise and just thing; but, on other hand, I do not minimize the difficulties involved in such a policy—Primum est vivere, dein philosophare—and our agricultural classes can scarcely keep their children from starvation in many cases, so that the benefits of education often seem to them to be a cruel mockery. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Flintshire on having brought this matter before the House, as I think it has resulted in a very useful debate. But, so far as the Motion is concerned, it is certainly one I should have voted against, if it had been in my power to do so.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I wish to make an explanation as to the position taken by the borough I have the honour to represent in regard to the representation made to the Education Department—referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—in the Memorial that was sent in in regard to the half-time system. I should be sorry if the impression were to get abroad that Bradford is indifferent to education. The House will know that no town in the country interested itself in education with more zeal, and vigour, and liberality at the time of the passing of the Education Act of the late Mr. Forster; but it should be known that nearly half the whole number of half-timers engaged in the textile industry of England are engaged in the district of Bradford. Bradford, therefore, is singled out in reference to this question affecting the great industrial community. I wish the House to understand that if any arbitrary or severe step is taken in raising the standard suddenly and inconsiderately, it will be the death-blow for years to the industry of the town I represent. Our machinery and the character of the industry carried on make it absolutely necessary that young people should be engaged in certain branches of that industry. We have already had a raising

  1901
  of the standard, and I have no doubt that in a moderate time it will be possible to go a step further. An hon. Member opposite aptly quoted the old proverb, "It is necessary to live before you begin to philosophize." Many people come to these towns because they have children. Widows come in large numbers because their children there can find employment. I do not wish to dwell upon this subject, the difficulty of which will be understood by the Education Department, but I wish to remove any misapprehension there may be as to the desire of Bradford, or the Bradford School Board, to do anything to hamper the cause of education. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire on the discussion he has raised to-night. He has stimulated our desire to see something done on this question—he has done more than that, for he has been instrumental in eliciting from the representative of the Education Department an utterance pointing more to an advancement in education than anything we have hitherto had. I can only say that I think the House and the country are to be congratulated upon there having been an interlude of this kind. I can only hope that the Government, having listened to this debate, will take a somewhat different view from that which seems to prevail at this moment, which is, that the taxpayers are prepared for any extravagant expenditure in ships of war which may go to the bottom of the sea, and only become parsimonious when this question of education is mentioned. For a very small expenditure—only some £150,000—we should be able to offer to children of superior capacity in all parts of the country an opportunity of carrying their education further and of developing gifts which now lie waste, and I am sure the country would never object to the necessary expenditure. I trust the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) will re-echo the sentiments he has expressed, not only to the House, but throughout the country, and that the country will force on this and other Governments the conviction that when they are asked for something like liberality and breadth in the consideration of this educational problem it will not do to be at all parsimonious. If the Government bring
  1902
  forward the Measure foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for which the country is panting, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that it will be received on all sides with real unanimity.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I desire to congratulate hon. Members generally, on the tone of this debate and on the fact that the discussion has not been altogether left to this side of the House. But, whilst I am content to join in the general chorus of self-congratulation, I am bound to say I have been asking myself while I have been listening to the latter part of this debate, how far there is any prospect of solid results arising out of it. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has not gone a little too far in eulogizing the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council for the speech he has made, not that I have anything to find fault with in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that I do not see that what he said advances much the cause of those evening continuation schools, whose establishment we are advocating this evening. It seems to me that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Council, really amounts to no more than this, that he will introduce certain alterations in the code which will tend to facilitate the working of the existing evening classes, and that, if allowed to do so by his colleagues, and if time permits, he will introduce and carry a Technical Education Bill. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have seen his way to have suggested other alterations in the law, which would not have tended to raise our evening classes to a higher level of usefulness and of perfection. I should like to point out one or two directions in which I think that might be done. With regard to expense, I heartily concur with the observations which have fallen from my hon. Friends the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) and Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), as to the folly of our continually squandering large sums of money upon hostile destructive purposes, and refusing in a niggardly spirit to spend a few thousands on the immensely important business of the education of our artizans. When I

  1903
  point out that in this country we are spending only a miserable sum of £6,000,000 on education against £30,000,000 on the Army and Navy, whilst in the United States the sum spent on education is at least double that spent on armaments, the House will see at once one great reason why we have to fear the competition of our cousins across the Atlantic, and one great cause why they are so far ahead of us in everything connected with commerce and industry. The more you spend on this remunerative business of education the more you get back. It is absurd to be pottering over a few hundreds of thousands of pounds on this subject of education when we ought to be glad to invest our millions on it. I am certain that if the people of the country, burdened as they are now with rates and taxes, could see that they are now being robbed of millions for worse than useless purposes and that the same millions could be employed on the advancement and developement of their own children, they would not in the least make an outcry when it was proposed so to spend their money; but would be only too pleased to pay whatever amount might be considered necessary. Another matter I desire to refer to is, the question of compulsion. Something has been said as to the impossibility of compelling children to attend night schools. I can only say it has not been found impossible to secure the attendance of children at such schools which already exist particularly in Switzerland. I am not anxious to increase the terrors of compulsion to the parents of children, because I believe that it is not by forcible means, such as prosecutions and so forth, that you can inculcate a true respect and love for your education in patents any more than you are likely to instil into the children a love for learning by frequent applications of the cane. This I believe, that if you adopt that sensible course of instruction which is advocated by the Recreative Evening Classes Association, even though it may be difficult, sometimes, to distinguish between amusement and real education—if you adopt a system thoroughly in harmony with the instincts and feelings of the children—you will have an end to the necessity for compulsion. If you make your teaching sufficiently
  1904
  attractive, you will find your children glad to come to the schools, and their parents delighted to send them. That, I believe, is the true antidote for compulsion. I would illustrate this by pointing to what I myself had experience of before I came to the House to-day. I was visiting one of the schools in the district which I happen to represent on the London School Board, and I found in one of the boys' department, that it was the afternoon for object lessons, and the master was teaching his pupils physical science. The master pointed with pleasure to the fact that on these afternoons when object lessons take place, he has a far higher attendance of children than on any other day in the week. Well, what happened in this school, will happen at evening classes in higher schools. If you teach the children something besides the rules of grammar—which are in the highest degree distasteful and painful to those who have them thrust down their throats day after day—if you infuse into the minds of the children something of a more practical kind, which is just as wholesome, and as calculated to benefit them in future years, you will get rid of the necessity for compulsion. In some of the reports of the best of Her Majesty's Inspectors, you will find statements to the effect that the children who have been the brightest and the most advanced in the infant classes under the Kindergarten system when sent up to the boys 'and girls' branches go back in their work owing to the lack of interest attaching to the subjects taught, and owing to the methods of teaching, This shows the importance of having your curriculum adapted to the age of the child—and I hope that this is a point which the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Council will devote careful consideration to. As to the teachers, I have been looking over a report touching the educational system of the City of Boston in the United States which has, perhaps, the highest development of the highest system of education which this world can produce. We find in this Report that the authorities declare in favour of having the best teachers at the night schools. It has been said by the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Sir E. Temple) that we are spending too much on the teaching staff, and that, if we are going to give more teaching iu even-

  1905
  ing classes, it will be necessary to require the teachers in the day schools to work a sort of double shift.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I said that some day-school teachers work at night voluntarily for extra remuneration. I did not say I would put additional work on them compulsorily, without remuneration.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I know that some of them do voluntarily undertake additional work, and where they do that there is no cause to complain; but I want to point out that there are a great number of young teachers who have been trained at great public cost in our training colleges who never find employment at all. Why should we not avail ourselves of the services of these teachers, who are amply qualified to teach, and who, I am sure, will be only too ready to undertake such employment. I do not desire to go into subjects upon which we are all more or less in harmony; but I should like to recall the attention of the House to the state made by Sir Charles Warren, when Chief Commissioner of Police—and which may be verified by every hon. Member whe will take the trouble to look for himself at the crowds which are very often called, rightly or wrongly "the unemployed"—that numbers of those who meet in the open spaces of London, and who are arrested (and otherwise ill-treated) by the police, are young boys. Is it not of importance to consider that whenever there is a little excitement, political or otherwise, or an opportunity for people to come together, you find the greater number of them consisting of lads who are apparently out of work. It seems to me that this is a consideration bearing on the question, and that we should see if these lads could not be beneficially influenced by making the schools more attractive. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the moral results of evening classes, and thinks that you ought not on that ground to compel attendance at night schools. For my part, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think the moral results of night schools are, and will continue to be, in every respect admirable, and there need be no fear that girls' evening schools would prove a failure on this score. It is stated that not only is no complaint made on this ground; but, on the con-
  1906
  trary, those who are familiar with the working of these evening classes say they are conducive to moral results, because, by providing a pleasant and attractive means of recreative instruction in well-conducted and well-lighted schoolrooms, you bring under better influences those who would otherwise be going about the streets. Therefore, I think that the alarm which has been expressed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen is unreal, and that we may go forward with this work of educating our youth without fear, let, or hindrance, only hoping that Her Majesty's Government will do whatever they can with a view of meeting the general demand for this sort of instruction.

  CROWN RIGHTS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. BUCHANAN (calling attention to the Question of the rights of fishing in Scotland, and suggesting that a Seloct Committee should be appointed to inquire into the disposal by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests of rights of fishing and other Crown ri: On the discussion on the Woods and Forests Vote last November, the Government, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed that the alienation of Crown rights of Fishing in Scotland should be inquired into, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave it as his impression that the General Committee of Inquiry into the Administration of the Department, already promised, would not be a good instrument for this inquiry. A more special Committee, mainly consisting of Scotch Members, would be preferable. Accordingly, last week, I put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether he intended to appoint such a Committee, and the right hen. Gentleman stated in reply that—
  "The reference to the proposed Committee would not exclude the disposal of Crown rights in Scotland from being investigated;"
  and he further stated that—
  "If it should appear that a Special Committee was necessary the Government would not refuse it."
  If the case for the appointment of such a Special Committee was strong in November, it is much stronger now; and this on Parliamentary grounds as well as on general grounds. Since 1832 two Committees have been appointed to

  1907
  inquire into the administration of the Woods and Forests Department—one in 1833, and another in 1849. I have examined the Reports of those Committees, and I find that the case of Scotland was entirely overlooked, the evidence having dealt almost exclusively with larger and wider questions relating to England; and if the Question is to be referred to a General and not to Special Committee of Inquiry, the Scotch Members can only anticipate a similar result. It is only in recent years that the Woods and Forest Department has proceeded to make sales of fishing rights in Scotland These sales began about the year 1872. In the year 1883–84 there were seven sales of sea salmon fishing rights in Scotland and the price realized was £15,800; in the next year, 1884–85 there were ten sales of sea salmon fishing rights in Scotland, one sale of foreshore to the bugh of Dumbarton, and one of river salmon fishing, the total price being £4,600; in 1885–86 there was one sale of sea salmon fishings, four sales of river fishings and one of foreshore for Tynabruaich pier, the price being £375; in 1886–87 there were two sales of river salmon fishings, of which the price was £45, and three of Loch Morar salmon fishing, the price being £270, namely, one to Mrs. Nicholson, for £60, one to Lord Lovat for £150, and one to Colonel Macdonald for £60; while in 1887–88 there was one sale of Loch Morar fishings to Mrs. Cambell for £150, three sales of sea salmon fishings for a total of £4,175 and one sale of land at Stirling for £310. I and my hon. Friends who took part in the discussion of this question in November last contended that it was not merely one of the sale of the rights of salmon fishing in a particular loch in Scotland but that it was also a great public question—that it was not the actual value of the rights of fishing in Loch Morar that would ensue from the concession of these salmon fishing rights to the riparian proprietors; and what we contended for has been amply justified by what has since taken place. It hat transpired that although there was trout fishing, there was no salmon fishing in Loch Morar and what ha resulted from the proceedings in the Court of Session is that by the concession of the rights of fishing in Loch
  1908
  Morar, the riparian proprietors have been able to shut out the public from going in boats upon the loch and from navigating freely on that water as they have been accustomed to do from time immemorial. Even before the case was brought before the Court of Quarter Sessions, the very first action the riparian proprietors took was to give notice to the inhabitants on the shores of the loch, that they must part with their boats, and that they could not be any longer allowed to use their boats in the loch. The net result of it was this—the application was made and stated by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, as a cession of the right of fishing. It has been found to be a right which can be construed, and which has been construed into a deprivation of the general rights of the people in the enjoyment of moving freely to and fro upon this vast sheet of water. No doubt Loch Morar is a very long way off, and situated in a very sparsely populated part of the country. What has been done in the east of Loch Morar may be done in the case of many others of the waters of Scotland. As my hon. Friend behind me also says, there are other fishing rights on the seashore with which the Woods and Forests have to do, and there is the question of foreshores, fishing of salmon, and the fishing rights of the foreshores. These are questions which I wished to deal with had there been more time at my disposal. What I wish to urge upon the Government is this, that if our case was strong, as it was acknowledged to be strong by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury in November last, it is very much stronger now. We contended then that it was not a mere formal question of fishing, but a matter in which important public rights were involved. And that has been clearly demonstrated in the Court of Session. The question is very wide, far reaching, and important to the public, and is one which commands very great attention in Scotland; and the decision of the Government upon it is looked forward to with considerable eagerness and attention in Scotland. It is an especially Scotch question, which I think ought to be investigated by an especially Scotch Committee. It is a question, the settlement of which, the

  1909
  longer delayed, will, I feel perfectly convinced in my own mind, be productive of still more wide and far reaching issues, by leading to further agitation in the country, and to a stronger case being brought before this House. I do most earnestly urge upon the Government to carry out what I certainly thought was the understanding in November last, that we should have a special inquiry into this subject; and that this special inquiry will be conducted in the manner we should have expected—namely, by a Select Committee of this House, consisting mainly of Scotch Members.
  MR. HALDANE: There is one point on which I should like an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think upon the last occasion when this subject was discussed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer very reasonably recognised the necessity of some inquiry into this matter. He suggested that the inquiry could be very satisfactorily conducted by a Committee representative generally of the administration of Crown rights. The situation seems to me to be one which commands some consideration. As I understand, the position is this—the Crown is trustee of certain rights for the public, that is to say, the local public, because it is nonsense to talk of the Crown being trustee of, say, the rights of foreshore up in the Northern islands, or the rights of salmon-fishing in those regions. The public generally, if they choose to go there, can go; but it seems to me that the sense in which you are trustees for the public does not for a moment bear out the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was a difficult and delicate question as to whether it might not be the duty of the Crown to dispose of those rights, and to turn them into money, and put the money into Consolidated Fund. It seemes to me that the trusteeship of the Crown is an open trusteeship. In that sense it cannot be a question or matter for the Committee at all to decide whether the Crown is to sell those rights and turn them into money, and apply them to the benefit of the Consolidated Fund. You might just as well say that, because people who live in the Northern Hebrides do not come often to St, Paul's Cathedral or Westminster
  1910
  Abbey therefore, you might sell those edifices and apply the money to the Consolidated Fund. These rights are of a local nature. As I understand the law it is this. Some of these rights the Crown cannot alienate at all. Others they can alienate under their direct trusteeship for local interests, but only on certain statutory conditions which are imposed upon the localities. I think in the 2nd William IV. there was an Act passed which placed all those Crown rights under the provisions of an earlier Act, 10th George IV., which was passed for their regulation in England. In that earlier Act you can only dispose of those Crown rights under certain restrictions. There must be a broader application, and, unless the purchase money is less than 100 years, there are certain other conditions which have to be observed. What we want is a Select Committee of some kind, which should not merely inquire into general matters. It should not even discuss such questions as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested, and which seem to me to be questions for this House, and not for any Committee. It should inquire not merely into the restriction which is to be imposed upon the action of the Commissioners, acting under the direction of the Treasury, for the future, but also into the validity of some transactions which have taken place within the last ten years, and which seems to me to be very doubtful. It is perfectly true there is a provision in the Statute protecting bonâ fide purchasers against irregularities; but if, as occurred in two or three transactions, the Solicitor to the Woods and Forests Commissioners was at once acting for the Crown and a private purchaser, it does seem to me that is a matter which ought to be the subject of some investigation by a special Committee. In that view, it is impossible for me to accept the suggestion that a general Committee, extending the scope of the inquiry to England, could look satisfactorily into that matter. There must be a special Committee for this purpose. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seemed to take a most reasonable view of this matter on the last occasion, will give an expression of assent to an opinion which I am confident is the opinion of the whole of the Scotch Members.
  MR. C. FRASER MACKINTOSH: After what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year, I am rather disappointed with the course of the debate this year. If a Scottish Committee is not granted, a great deal more will be heard about this subject. One word in illustration of these Crown rights. Many years ago, the foreshore of the island of Lewis, extending to several hundred miles, was sold for £400, but when the Harbour Commissioners of Stornoway wanted a small piece of ground to extend their harbour, they were asked to pay no less than £100 a-year. These are matters worthy of consideration, and I must say that a special Committee of Inquiry will be the most advantageous.
  MR. JACKSON: The Government cannot consent to the granting of the special Committee the hon. Member is asking for. It will be in the recollection of the House that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in the autumn of last year, agreed to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the administration of Woods and Forests and Crown Revenues. That Committee of Inquiry will shortly be appointed—as soon as I can get the names. The question which the hon. Member has brought forward is one of which I quite admit the importance to the localities interested; nevertheless it is a question which may be inquired into by such a Committee as we propose, while at the same time other questions affecting other localities could be investigated. Now the administration of Woods and Forests affects not only Scotland, but Ireland, England, and Wales, and I have no doubt that the whole subject would be thoroughly considered. I may point out that there have been very few transactions of the kind which the hon. Member complains of. Of course the pledge will be kept that no more transactions of that kind should take place until the Committee had made its inquiries, and thoroughly investigated the subject. And I should expect that the hon. Member will admit that the Government have shown their desire to meet him as far as they possibly can. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I think, in an answer to a question, expressly stated that this subject could not be excluded from the inquiry; and I hope that on
  1912
  the Committee we shall have Scotch Members thoroughly conversant with the details, and who will take very good care that the question is thoroughly investigated. I do not think, Sir, I can say more than that. It is not advisable to have a separate Committee to deal with this question; and if the Government do what they propose, I believe it will prove satisfactory to all parties.
  MR. HALDANE: Are we to understand that the Committee to be appointed will have within its scope inquiry into the validity of past transactions?
  MR. JACKSON: I should not like to answer that question offhand. The Committee would, of course, have power to deal with all questions of administration, and would have the power to observe not only action in the past, but what action should be taken in future.
  DR. CAMERON: I cannot help saying that the promise of the hon. Gentleman is eminently unsatisfactory. The law respecting these public rights in Scotland is perfectly different to what the law is in England, and no general Committee can give any attention to the matter, or arrive at any decision on the subject which will commend itself to the confidence of the people of Scotland.
  It being midnight, Mr. Speaker interrupted the business.
  House resumed.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [14th March] reported.

  (1.) "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £45,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1889."

  (2.) "That 65,400 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890, including 14,000 Royal Marines."

  (3.) "That a sum, not exceeding £3,201,700 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890."

  (4.) "That a sum, not exceeding £1,061,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments

  1913
  at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890."

  Resolutions agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 14th instant, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, he now read;
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 152,282, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890."
  Ordered, That, leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Lord George Hamilton, the Judge Advocate General, and Mr. Brodrick, do prepare and bring it in.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 161.]

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL HOLDINGS.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee be re-appointed to inquire into the facilities which exists for the creation of Small Holdings in Land in Great Britain; whether either in connection with an improved system of Local Government or otherwise, those facilities may be extended; whether, in recent years there, there has been any diminution in the number of Small Owners and Cultivators of Land; and whether there is any evidence to show that such diminution is due to legislation.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Broadhurst, Sir George Campbell, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Jesse Collings, Viscount Curzon, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Compton Lawrence, Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. James William Lowther, Mr. Halley Stewart, and Mr. Angus Sutherland, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  DR. TANNER: Seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, I should like to ask him whether the Government have received any intelligence respecting the election at Kennington?
  No answer being returned,
  DR. TANNERsaid: Really I must press for an answer, Mr. Speaker.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

MEMORANDUM OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE RELATING TO THE ARMY ESTIMATES, 1889–90.
Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty, March, 1889.
In the present year it is proposed to include in this Memorandum only a few details in explanation of the Estimates, and to reserve any general review of policy and progress during the past year, for a statement in the House of Commons.
The Estimates for 1888–9, including the Ordnance Factories' Vote, showed an anticipated expenditure of £13,710,700 for effective, and £3,027,600 for non-effective Services, making a total of £16,738,300.
For 1889–90, the Estimates show an expenditure of £17,335,900, of which £14,322,500 is for effective, and £3,013,400 for non-effective Services, being au increase on last year of £597,600.
It will be seen that the main cause of this increase is the provision made for certain Colonial garrisons, the falling off of Appropriations in Aid, but, above all, the necessity of pushing forward the re-armament of our Regular troops with weapons of the newest pattern.
The changes to be noticed in the various arms of the Service in the present Estimates are not very numerous. There is a total addition to the Establishment of 2,615 men.
Almost the whole of this increase has been occasioned by the necessity of strengthening Colonial garrisons, in view of the new armaments, either already sent out, or about to be shipped during the present year. A large addition is made, both of Infantry and Artillery, to the Garrison of Malta, besides the Militia regiment that we are encouraged to hope will be raised there. The principal other additions made are to some of our distant coaling stations; where, however, the policy is being steadily pursued of utilizing, as far as is prudent and possible, the service of Native auxiliaries.
It will be seen by the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting that the work of his department has been satisfactory during the past year. Fewer men were required than in 1887 8, and it is gratifying to be able to add that desertions were fewer in number by more than 1,000. During the coming year there will be a substantial increase to the Reserve, which will, it is hoped, reach 58,300, the highest point yet attained, with the prospect of improvement in future years.
The Militia is, I am sorry to say, 2,039 weaker in numbers than last year. In some districts this is to be accounted for by increased competition in recruiting, owing to the somewhat different class now admitted into the ranks of the Volunteers. In several cases where the deficiency in Establishment has been very marked, adjoining battalions have been amalgamated. In others the Establishments in unfavourable localities will be diminished in order to increase them in districts more favourable to recruiting. The percentage of loss by desertion and fraud continues to decrease, and the confidential reports upon the condition of Militia battalions are on the whole extremely satisfactory. Many

corps were trained last year under canvas in very wet weather, and the discipline displayed under this test was generally excellent. It is also satisfactory to be able to speak well of the officering of the Militia, which formerly caused great anxiety. It has continued to improve, although 211 Officers have been furnished to the Regular Army during the year. In accordance with a recommendation of the Select Committee on Army Estimates, the strength of the Permanent Staff has been very carefully considered, and a Quartermaster at each of the double Regimental Districts will be reduced. In future the status of the Paymaster and Orderly Room sergeants of Militia will be changed to that of Assistant Paymaster and Orderly Room sergeants. The decrease upon this Vote amounts to £25,000.
The Yeomanry is still suffering from agricultural depression, and shows a decrease of 304 men, but the efficiency of this branch of the Service is very favourably reported on. In the case of the Yeomanry, it has not been found possible to reduce the Permanent Staff without serious loss of efficiency, but several corps have been warned that they must be prepared for reduction of Permanent Staff or even disbandment should they not improve in numbers and attain a higher standard.
The annual returns of the Volunteers show a decrease in efficients of 1,366, and of enrolled men of 1,569. It will be remembered that in conceding to the Volunteers two years ago an addition to the Capitation Grant of 5s., I went beyond the recommendation of the Committee by requiring increased proficiency with the rifle as a condition of earning the whole grant. This requirement was received with gloomy for bodings by some Commanding Officers, but it is most satisfactory to be able to state that it has proved a complete success. In addition to this improvement in shooting, it may be said of the Volunteer Force at large, that it evinces each year a greater readiness to accept the reality of its responsibility, and to advance in discipline and military efficiency.
Many of the Officers have shown marked zeal in qualifying themselves for usefulness in the field; nor is the deficiency in the number of Officers—to which frequent allusion is made—worse than formerly. The falling off of local subscriptions towards the maintenance of the Volunteer Force has tended to throw increased expense upon the Officers, and the daily-improving efficiency of the force generally requires them to devote more time to their duties than was the case a few years ago. Cyclist Sections have been formed in many corps, and several cyclist manœuvres were organised under military supervision. Mounted Infantry Sections and machine guns have also been added to several corps.
The increase upon the Vote is £22,000, which is due to the grants to the Volunteer Artillery in respect of the guns recently issued to them, to the larger number of greatcoats for which grants are required, and to the additional Submarine Miners recently raised.
A large decrease has resulted on Vote 1 by the experimental adoption of the system of Station, instead of Regimental, Paymasters. If this can be fully carried out, it will enable a reduction of some 80 Paymasters to be made. The net saving by these changes will amount to £25,000 a year, in addition to the retired pay of the 80 Paymasters.
Votes 3 and 4, as to which recommendations were made by the Select Committee on Army Estimates, have undergone complete revision. In the case of military prisons, however, the changes adopted vary somewhat from those recommended by the Committee. It was found that by closing all the military prisons which were suggested, and providing for Provost prisons in substitution for them, the saving in cost would be much smaller than was then anticipated, owing to the increased charge for conveyance and for the staff of Provost prisons. It has, however, been found possible to make a much greater economy by largely reducing the cost of the Establishment of these military prisons, although only two more of them will be altogether closed.
The Vote for Medical Establishments (Vote 4) begins to show the effect of the measures adopted last year, which were approved by the Select Committee, and have now been carried further. The Establishment has been reduced by 52 Officers, and by utilizing the services of 25 additional retired Medical Officers at home, the growth of the Retired Pay Vote has been checked, and a large

reduction will eventually be effected in the Pension List, although the full result of this step cannot be apparent for some years. A Royal Warrant has been issued, giving to the junior Medical Officers of the Guards in the future their turn of foreign service. And lastly, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, an inquiry, presided over by the Earl of Camperdown, is taking place into the status, and scale of remuneration and of pension now in force for Medical Officers, both of the Army and Navy. No admissions to the department will take place until the completion of this investigation.
The Vote for provisions is increased by £96,000. A rise in the price of the ration, which had been steadily falling for 10 years past, accounts for £49,000. The additional force absorbes £17,000, and provision has also been made for extra transport animals in South Africa.
The Vote for Warlike Stores and Armaments shows an increase of £394,000. I reserve, for the present, a full explanation of the many subject arising upon this Vote; but it may be pointed out that the increase is mainly due to the provision of the new magazine rifle and ammunition, and to the re-arming of the Royal Artillery with the 12-pr. gun.
An amount of £268,000 is taken for machine and quick-firing guns, and for ammunition in connection with the Imperial Defence Loan. But that service entails an additional charge upon Vote 9 for the transport of guns and material at home and abroad, and of £15,000, under Vote 15, for interest upon the sums to be borrowed during the first two years.
The Works Vote is swollen by £72,000, of which no less than £54,200 is due to the falling off of Appropriations in Aid, or, in other words, of the proceeds of sales of land.
A sum of £10,000 is taken for services in connection with the Royal Barracks at Dublin, the sanitary condition of which has attracted our very serious attention. But the general question of Barracks, to which attention was called by the Committee on the Army Estimates, together with some other important subjects arising out of this Vote, is reserved for further explanation in the House of Commons.
The growth of the War Office Vote [Vote 16] has been checked during the last three years, although the annual increments of pay amount to about £3,000. Heavy additional work has also been thrown upon the Office by the Imperial Defence Loan, by the substitution of the monthly for the half-yearly system of accounts, and by the endeavour to bring up to date the examination of the current accounts. A considerable increase of staff has, however, been avoided by throwing on the Paymasters of Stations the duty of the primary audit of the Regimental Accounts, and leaving to the War Office a test audit only.
Upon the Non-Effective Votes there is a net saving of £14,200, due to decreased payments by the Purchase Commissioners and a reduction in the sum required for out-pensions. The continued increase of retired pay in the Medical Department has been checked. The reduction in the General Officers' List, a scheme for which is in preparation, will also produce a considerable ultimate saving; on the other hand there is an increase of £4,900 in consequence of the number of Lieutenant-Colonels who have gone to half-pay on completing their terms of command.

STATEMENT OF FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY, EXPLANATORY OF THE NAVY ESTIMATES, 1889–90.
Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.
STATEMENT OF FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY, EXPLANATORY OF THE NAVY ESTIMATES, 1889–90.

  INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
  THE full vivâ voce statement which I shall have to make in explanation of the whole scheme of shipbuilding for the future, with its attendant consequences, will anticipate much of what would otherwise have been dwelt upon in this memorandum, which is now rather of the nature of a summary than an exposition of the expenditure contained in the Navy Estimates 1889–90.
  The expenditure is estimated to be £602,600 in excess of that voted last year. The increases are mainly in the "Shipbuilding," "Manning" and "New Works" Votes; and the decrease in the Vote for Naval Ordnance. A short explanation of the causes of these variations is appended, as well as an account of the work done in 1888–89, and that proposed to be done in 1889–90.

SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.

  PROGRESS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION (CONTRACT) IN 1888–89.
  The anticipations expressed in my Statement of February 1888 as to the progress to be made in New Construction during 1888–89 have been realised for the most part, and in some cases surpassed.
  In a few instances the performance has fallen short of what was originally hoped for; but there have been special circumstances to account for the difference.
  The completion for sea of the Victoria and Sans Pareil after their delivery by the Contractors has been effected, as it was feared it might be, by the dates of delivery of the 110-ton turret guns. Both ships are, however, now fully in hand, and it is expected that the Victoria will be ready for Commission (as flagship in the Mediterranean) in the course of two or three months.
  The protected cruiser Magicienne has been delivered by the Contractors, and is about to proceed on her steam trials. Her sister ship, the Marathon, is nearly ready for delivery.
  The conclusion of a Contract for the Blenheim was purposely delayed, until September 1888, for reasons that need not here be given; and this fact, together with the difficulty of obtaining an adequate supply of steel materials in consequence of the great demand for mercantile shipbuilding, accounts for the expenditure on that ship having fallen short of what was originally proposed.
  Similar difficulties in obtaining materials have been experienced by the Contractors for the Bellona and the seven vessels for Australasian service, but it is hoped that these difficulties have now been surmounted, and that in subsequent stages of the work lost ground will be recovered.
  Two composite gunboats, the Sparrow and Thrush, complete the list of armed vessels building by contract. They are to be delivered early in the next financial year.
  Besides these armed vessels, there have been in progress in private yards a considerable number of coaling craft, designed in accordance with the recommendations of a Special Committee appointed to consider the arrangements suitable for coaling the Fleet.
  A new type of boat has also been designed for the purpose of being carried on board large warships and employed in mining operations or in coaling. The first example of the type is now undergoing trial, and, if successful, it is proposed to add to the number in the coming financial year.
  Six first class and ten second class torpedo boats have been ordered during 1888–89 for Naval Service, and are considerably advanced.
  The first class torpedo boats are 130 feet long, the guaranteed speed, when fully loaded, is 22½ knots, and they are to carry an armament of 3-pr. quick-firers as well as three torpedo tubes.
  The second class boats are of an improved type obtained as the result of a competition between the firms most experienced in this class of work. They are 60 feet long, have a guaranteed speed of 16 knots, and are to carry a machine gun as well as two torpedo dischargers.
  In addition to these torpedo boats the Admiralty have advised and assisted the India Office in the construction of seven first class torpedo boats, which are now practically complete and in course of being dispatched to India.

  DESCRIPTION OF NEW DESIGNS.
  The first-class battle ships to be laid down in 1889–90 include two types: one armed on the turret system, and the other on the barbette system. It is proposed to build one of the former and the remainder of the latter type.
  They are to be superior in speed and auxilary armament to all preceeding battle ships of the Royal Navy; and will surpass them all in displacement.

  Their principal dimensions are:—

  Length

  380 feet.

  Breadth

  75 feet.

  Displacement (about)

  14,150 tons.

  Speed on measured mile:—

  Forced draught (about)

  17½ knots.

  Natural draught (about)

  16 knots.

  Coal endurance:—

  Speed of 10 knots (about)

  5,000 knots.

  Speed of 16 knots (about)

  1,800 to 2,000 knots.

  The armament of each ship will include:—

  4 13½in. 67-ton guns in two turrets or barbettes.

  10 6-in. 5-ton guns, broadside.

  18 to 24 6-pr. and 3-pr. quick-firers.

  5 torpedo tubes (above water).

  2 (submerged).

  The disposition of the armament has been most exhaustively considered. It has been decided as follows:—

  To adopt an arrangement (in plan) similar to that carried out in the Trafalgar and Admiral classes.

  To place each pair of heavy guns in a separate armoured enclosure, situated about 50 or 60 feet from the bow and stern.

  To carry the 6-inch guns and smaller quick-firers chiefly in a long central battery, situated between the heavy gun stations.

  The armour protection of the hull proper includes two principal features:—
  (1) A belt, 8½ feet broad, extending over two-thirds of the length of the vessel, and having a maximum thickness of 18-inch armour.

  Transverse armoured bulkheads complete the belt, a 3-inch steel deck is fitted above it, and a strong protective underwater deck completes the protection before and abaft the belt.
  (2) The broadside above the thick belt is protected, to the height of about 9½ feet above water over a considerable portion of the length, by 5-inch armour. Screen bulkheads, similarly armoured, enclose the central battery.
  The protection of the heavy guns consists of 18-inch armour on the turrets and 17-inch on the redoubts protecting the turret-bases, &c. In the barbette ships the armour on the barbettes is 17-inch.
  The protection of the guns and their crews in the auxiliary armament, as well as the ammunition supply, have been carefully arranged for, in view of the development of high explosives and quick-firing guns.
  The turret and barbette designs are identical in nearly all the above-mentioned features. The essential differences between them are—

  (1) That the freeboard at the ends of the barbette ship is 18 feet, as against 11¼ feet in the turret ship.

  (2) That the height of the heavy guns above water is 23 feet in the barbette ship, as against 17 feet in the turret ship.

  The second-class ironclads will be reproductions on a smaller scale of the first-class barbette ironclads, being in speed and coal endurance their equal, but carrying a somewhat lighter armament, and armour of less thickness. Their displacement will be about 9,000 tons.
  The first-class protected cruisers which are to be commenced have been designed to carry an armament practically identical with that of the Blake and Blenheim (of which a full description was given last year); but they are to be of considerably less size and cost, to steam at a somewhat lower speed, and to have a smaller coal-endurance than the Blake and Blenheim, although they will compare very favourably in these respects with any cruisers building for foreign Navies.

  Their dimensions are—

  Length

  360 feet.

  Breadth

  60 feet.

  Displacement (about)

  7,350 tons.

  Speed on measured mile

  20 knots.

  Speed at sea (continuous steaming)

  18 knots.

  Radius of action—

  Speed of 10 knots (about)

  10,000 knots.

  Speed of 18 knots (about)

  2,800 knots.

  Armament:—

  2 9·2-in. (22-ton) bow and stern chasers.

  10 6-in. (5-ton) bow and stern chasers. and broadside.

  12 6-pr. quick-firers.

  4 Torpedo tubes.

  The protective deck, extending throughout the length, will have a maximum thickness of 5 inches of steel.
  Careful consideration was given to the question of the best system of protecting these vessels, their guns and guns' crews, before the arrangements approved were finally decided. The use of a very strong protective deck over the vitals, in association with certain novel arrangements for protecting the guns and their crews from shell-fire, was preferred to alternative plans in which the broadsides, to a certain extent, were protected by comparatively thin vertical armour. Special care has also been bestowed upon the protection of the ammunition during its passage from the magazines to the guns, and unusual facilities have been provided for the transport of the ammunition.
  Some of the vessels of this type will be wood-sheathed and coppered in order to adapt them for distant service on stations where docks will not be available, at least in war time. This will add somewhat to the displacements given above, and cause a small reduction of the measured mile speed.
  The second class Cruisers, of which it is proposed to construct a large number, may be described as enlarged Medeas. In protection, engine power, speed, and coal supply they are practically reproductions of the Medea class. They are more heavily armed than the Medea, 35 feet longer, and of about 600 tons greater displacement.

  The principal dimensions, &c. are:—

  Length

  300 feet.

  Breadth

  43 feet.

  Displacement (about)

  3,400 tons.

  Speed on measured mile

  20 knots.

  Speed at sea (continuous steaming)

  18 knots.

  Radius or action:—

  Speed of 10 knots (about)

  8,000 knots.

  Speed of 18 knots (about)

  1,000 knots.

  2,000 knots.

  Armament:—

  2 6-inch (5-ton) bow and stern chasers.

  6 4·7-inch quick-firers, broadside.

  9 6-pounders and 3-pounders.

  4 Torpedo tubes.

  Protective deck: maximum thickness (on slopes) 2-inch steel on horizontal portions, 1-inch.
  It is proposed to wood-sheath and copper the bottoms of a large proportion of these vessels, which will involve an increase of about 200 tons in the displacement given above, and a reduction of about one-quarter of a knot in the measured mile speed.
  Four protected Cruisers of the Pandora class are to be laid down in the Dockyards. They are to be built from the same design as the five Cruisers for Australasian service described in my Statement of last year.
  A description of the Sharpshooter class (Torpedo gunboats) appeared in the same Statement. The first vessel of the class is now nearly complete, and about to enter upon her steam trials, so that it will shortly be possible to decide, as the result of experience, whether any changes are desirable in future vessels of the class.
  Eleven vessels for the Royal Navy and two for India are now building from the Sharpshooter design; and it is proposed to lay down four more Torpedo gunboats in the Dockyards in 1889–90.

  DOCKYARD ADMINISTRATION.
  It was anticipated, in framing the Estimates for 1888–89, that the 23 ships mentioned in the programme of last year would be completed and passed into the 1st class Reserve by the 31st March 1889, and this would, without doubt, have been done as far as the armoured ships are concerned but for the delay in the delivery of their main armament.
  The Dockyard work is complete on all these vessels, except Camperdown, Anton, and Aurora, where there is but very little left to be done, and that little is dependent on the receipt of guns.
  The Trafalgar might be completed by the end of June next, but her last gun will not be delivered until 31st August 1889. If it had not been for this, and also for delays of materials for Trafalgar's turret roller paths, the cost of

  building would be less than is now expected. A reduction of £85,000 for labour, and £15,000 for material has, however, been made on her original building estimate.
  It is proposed to commence building in the Dockyards during the present financial year the following 20 ships, viz:—

  4 Battle Ships, 1st class.

  1 Battle Ships, 2nd class.

  3 Protected Cruisers, 1st class.

  2 Protected Cruisers, 2nd class.

  4 Cruisers (Pandoras).

  6 Torpedo Gunboats (Sharpshooter class).

  To enable this new work to be begun, and to complete 26 out of the 30 ships now building, as well as push on the repairs and reconstructions above mentioned the Vote for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c. (Vote 8) has been increased by £615,900. The sum of £202,465 is the net increase on that part of this expenditure, as detailed in Vote B appended to the Estimates.
  A special order has been issued during the year, by which a higher rate of speed than that known "as economical speed," has been directed for the future to be periodically maintained by H.M. Ships when making passages. The reasons for and objects of this order are explained in the Circular Letter in the Appendix.

  NAVAL ORDNANCE.
  The transfer to Naval Votes of the cost of Naval Ordnance has been associated during the past year with the difficulties which the assumption of new duties and responsibilities generally entails. In this instance they have been aggravated by the necessity of the Admiralty employing as their agents the very Department with whom they were not always in accord upon questions where the interests of the Army and Navy where not identical.
  Considering the controversial nature of the points to be settled and the financial bearing upon the expenditure of the two departments by the division of the stores hitherto held in common, the work done has been remarkable. In future years, now that the ground has been cleared, there is little likelihood of a recurrence of these kinds of questions, which have now been decided once for all.
  The Estimates as submitted by the Dockyard Officers for items of incidental charges were reduced by more that £30,000, but it appears, from the latest returns of actual expenditure, that a saving may be expected at the end of the year upon the approved Estimates as reduced.
  Still further reductions have been made in Estimates of this class for 1889–90, and there is good reason to hope, that in a short time, the incidential expenditure will be brought down to a reasonable percentage upon the direct charges.
  The number of men employed on board the various tugs and harbour craft have been considerably reduced without loss of efficiency. They swelled the incidental expenditure and had little to do, so that action in this direction was urgently needed.
  The Cost Account System has worked fairly well during the year, and has given us returns of expenditure which will be useful in checking the value of work done, and in providing reliable data for estimating purposes in the future.
  An account of expenditure upon alterations and additions separate from that upon repairs is about to be commenced for "Minotaur" and "Thunderer." After this has been started and tried in practice, it may be found possible to extend the system to all ships upon which alterations and additions are ordered to be carried out, and which are likely to cost over £200.
  The cost of repairs, alterations, and additions to the vessels which took part in the Summer Manœuvres will be heavier than was anticipated when

  the Estimates for the current year were framed, but the excess is due to numerous alterations and additions proposed to be carried out in the various ships.
  The "Nile," whose original estimate has been reduced by £80,000 for labour, and £10,000 for material, has been advanced during the year to such an extent as to admit, if necessary, of her completion in 1889–90.
  Substantial reductions have been made in the previous estimates for building "Barrosa" (£3,000 for labour), "Anson" (£1,800 labour and £10,000 for material), "Howe" (£700 for labour and £3,300 material) and "Beagle" (£2,000 labour and material).
  Ships repaired or repairing for recommission:—

  Ship.

  Service for which Repaired.

  Cost of Repairs. (Dockyard.)

  Amount less than that taken in the Estimates (Approximate).

  £

  £

  "Penelope"

  Cape of Good Hope

  11,757

  1,000

  "Tyne"

  Troop service

  6,105

  4,800

  "Cleopatra"

  Reliefs

  31,500

  4,000

  (Approximate.)

  "Champion"

  Reliefs

  30,500

  4,400

  "Victory"

  Guardship

  8,260

  1,740

  The work of re-engining "Superb" and "Thunderer" has been commenced, and will be completed next year. The building of a superstructure and carrying out repairs to "Hydra" and "Cyclops" will be completed this year. The repair of "Triumph," "Achilles," "Minotaur," "Nelson," and "Audacious," will be completed during the forthcoming financial year, and the reconstruction of the "Rupert" and "Devastation" will be well advanced.
  The amount of the deficiencies of Ordnance Stores for Naval Service has now been ascertained, and, although they are serious, it is hoped they may be made up gradually in the course of the next three years, without in the meantime running any very great risk, as, by means of the increased plant recently put up by the Private Trade, ammunition for the smaller natures of guns could be produced very quickly in the event of an emergency, whilst as regards projectiles of the heavier natures, which take a long time to make, arrangements have been made for ordering these in larger proportions at once.
  As is well-known, there has been very great delay in completing ships with guns. This delay was due to the faulty principle which was adopted in the design of these guns, viz., that of placing liners in the bores; these liners, when the guns were proved, cracked, and very considerable delay was caused before the guns were repaired and made efficient for issue to the Fleet. These difficulties, it is believed, have now been got over, and the War Office are of opinion that the block as regards ships of the Admiral Class and the belted cruisers will be removed by June, that is, in sufficient time to admit of all the ships otherwise ready taking part in the Summer Manœuvres. It is believed that no further difficulties or delays need be anticipated in the future delivery of guns, as in the gun designs now approved, the features which have led to the failures above referred to have been eliminated.
  With reference to the new Shipbuilding Programme, the whole of the requirements for the large guns (that is, those taking more than a year to manufacture) have been made known to the War Office, and from reliable information which has been received and verified by personal inquiries, there seems to be no doubt, in view of the simpler form of gun designs now adopted, and of the larger experi-

  ence and greatly increased plant of the private manufacturers, that the guns will be ready in ample time for the ships requiring them.
  The 4·7-inch Quick-firing Gun has been brought into use since the date of my last Annual Statement, and all the anticipations have been fully realized as to the very great advantages possessed by this type of gun, more especially in resisting the attacks of torpedo vessels, and in enabling more accurate practice to be made when ships are moving at great speed. Practice from slow-firing guns under such conditions must be most uncertain on account of the very great alteration in distance between the rounds.
  During the year ending 31st December 1888, 160 new Breech Loading Guns have been completed for the Navy, including one 16¼-inch 111-ton gun, 6 13½-inch 68-ton, 9 12-inch 45-ton, and 6 9·2-inch 22-ton guns. During the same period 262 14-inch Whitehead Torpedoes have been manufactured and issued for Naval Service.

  EXPERIMENTS IN 1888–9.
  A Special Committee has been appointed by the War Office to deal with the question of High Explosives; and experiments are also in progress with several descriptions of smokeless powder for use with quick-firing guns. The experiments against the Resistance with shells charged with high explosives will also now be shortly completed, and will determine several important points in reference to Armament and Ammunition, besides affording the required information as to the most suitable form of defence to be adopted.
  The experiments on armour-plating, mentioned in my Statement last year have been carried out successfully, valuable information having been obtained as to the relative qualities of steel-faced and steel armour when attacked by modern guns and projectiles.
  Experiments with submerged torpedo discharges in vessels of high speed have been continued; and many of the special difficulties incidental to that method of discharge have been overcome.
  The reduction of this Vote to £1,463,000 has been possible by the transfer to another fund of the cost of armament of the new ships which it is proposed to build by contract.

  NEW WORKS.
  No new works of great importance were commenced during 1888–89, but the undermentioned will be practically completed before the end of the financial year:—

  Haulbowline (Extension)

  The Caissons are in place.

  Chatham Dockyard

  New Foundry.

  Gibraltar

  Accommodation for Torpedo Boats.

  Portsmouth

  Torpedo Range.

  Barracks for 400 men (commenced 1889).

  The Estimate of Vote 10 for 1889–90 amounts to £451,000, being £74 700 more than that for 1888–89.
  The difference is caused chiefly by the provision for—

  Improved Coaling Arrangements

  £50,000

  Dredging Medway

  13,000

  Malta Extension—Caissons, &c.

  11,700

  £74,700

  The charges for Stall have been reduced, and also those for Repairs and Maintenance.
  The form of the Estimate has, in compliance with the wish of the Public Accounts Committee, been changed so as to resemble as much as possible that of the Army Works Estimate.
  Provision is made for the commencement of works to facilitate coaling at—

  Portland

  Jetty

  Portsmouth

  Railways

  Keyham

  Pier, &c.

  The only other large work to be commenced during 1889–90 is the important dredging of the Medway to allow of the largest men-of-war passing down the river at any high tide, the remainder of the new barracks on Whale Island, which will enable old hulks—very expensive to repair—to be given up, and the continuation of the reconstruction of the large trooping jetty at Portsmouth Dockyard.
  The large extension works at Portsmouth are nearly at an end, and those at Malta are proceeding vigorously.

  PERSONNEL.
  The offices of Chaplain of the Fleet and of Inspector of Naval Schools have been combined, and the arrangement seems to work satisfactorily.
  The arrangements affecting instruction of Engineer students, referred, to in last year's Statement, have been completed. The training is now carried on at Davenport alone. The students have been made subordinate officers of the Royal Navy. The period of instruction is to be reduced to five (and in some cases four) years. Only those who attain a certain standard at the final Examination will be allowed a period of further study at the Royal Naval College; the remainder will commence service afloat at once.
  The direct entry of Assistant Engineers at the Royal Naval College will commence in 1890.
  It has been found necessary to increase the number of Engine-room Ratings by the following numbers:—

  125 Chief or Engine-room Artificers.

  780 Leading Stokers or Stokers.

  Besides these numbers 200 Stokers have been added to the Coast Guard; though this addition to the Coast Guard will hardly be attained in the coming year, as only men of specified service and very good character are appointed.
  Complaints have been made as to the quality of the Stokers of the 2nd Class. The increase which it has been found necessary to make in this class has led to numerous entries, and as many of the men are rather young, efforts are being made to obtain men of better physique.
  The chief increases in other ratings are—

  Subordinate Officers

  280

  Seamen class, Men and Boys

  390

  Artificers

  100

  Marines

  1,100

  including in the Marines men added to the Corps on account of duties to be performed by it as Buglers, Lamptrimmers, &c., in lieu of non-combatant ratings.
  Arrangements have been made for the gradual reduction of Artificer and Stoker Pensioners in the Steam Reserves, whose places will be supplied by Active Service men. The reduction is gradual, owing to the desire not to deal hardly with men who do their Harbour work well, though rather old for sea service, if called on in an emergency,
  The pay of the Signal Class has been improved, to put them on an equality with other Seamen class ratings, who can attain the higher Gunnery qualifications from which they are debarred.
  The number of Signal ratings borne in Ships will be increased, and provision has been made for training more Signal Boys.
  It is also intended to establish a School for higher training, and instruction given to all boys whilst in their Training Ships will be increased.
  Progress has been made in reducing some of the non-combatant ratings which are to disappear entirely, or almost so.
  These include—

  Plumber's Crew.

  Tinsmith.

  Lamptrimmer.

  Tailor.

  Shoemaker.

  Barber.

  Besides these, in accordance with recommendations of the Ratings Committee or previous decisions, the following ratings will be abolished:—

  Captain of the Hold.

  2nd Captain of the Hold.

  Ordinary 2nd Class.

  Yeoman of Store Room.

  Ropemaker.

  Sailmaker's Crew.

  Lithographer.

  Schoolmasters are to be withdrawn from all but Boys' Training Ships, and the numbers will be considerably reduced. Those selected for the new establishment will receive improved pay and pension. The number of Schoolmasters of the Royal Marines has been reduced, owing to abolition of compulsory School after leaving the Depôt.
  The Carpenter class will be reduced in number by the gradual abolition of Unskilled

  Carpenter's Mates.

  Shipwright.

  Caulkers.

  Caulker's Mate.

  Carpenter's Crew.

  Skilled Shipwrights being substituted for the last in proportion of 2 to 3. It is estimated that 326 non-combatants can thus be reduced. Skilled Leading Shipwright, 2nd Class Petty Officer, will be introduced.
  The previous compulsory training of seamen gunners in Torpedo duties has been made optional, and restricted to men who take 1st class in Gunnery.
  Gymnastic instruction has been established in mastless ships.
  These changes and the increase to the number voted last year have caused a rise in Votes 1 and 2 of £275,300, as compared with the estimate of the preceding year. Of this amount, £78,900 is contained in a new Vote, No. 14, which deals with half-pay as a separate item. Half-pay in the previous year was contained in a subhead of Vote 1.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVES.
  Honorary Commissions as Commander and Chief Engineer will be conferred, in certain cases, on Marine Superintendents and Engineer Superintendents of large Ship Companies.
  A larger number of Officers will be admitted for the year's training in the Royal Navy.
  It is proposed to relax the rules as to appointment of Sub-Lieutenants, with the view of giving more Commissions to Officers of large Mail Lines, who are at present under some disadvantage, as their advancement in the service in which they are employed is rather slow.

  ROYAL MARINE FORCES.
  Notwithstanding the heavy demands made upon Marine Headquarters to meet the additional requirements of the Fleet, the various drills and courses of instruction have been kept up, and the efficiency of the Corps fully maintained.
  Increased attention has been paid especially to Naval Gun Drill training, and much improvement effected in the Armaments of the Gun Drill Batteries.
  Classes for military training of Officers and men, and Reconnaissance and Field Sketching Classes for Non-commissioned Officers, have been established. Regular classes of Officers for the study and practice of the War Game have also been introduced at each Divisional headquarters with good results.
  Discipline has been well maintained. Convictions by Courts Martial have been for many years steadily on the decrease, and in spite of the drain on the Corps by the facilities freely offered to all ranks to take their discharge and to be transferred to the Navy, Army, and Auxiliary Forces, the Marines find no difficulty in enlisting a most desirable class of recruits, which speaks well for the popularity of the Corps.
  In view of the growing demands of the Navy and the adaptability of the Non-commissioned Officers and Men of the Marines to fulfil many duties on board ship hitherto performed by non-combatants, it has been considered advisable to increase the strength of the Corps from 12,900 to 14,000—the increase going to the Infantry branch.
  During the mobilization of the Fleet, the various detachments were embarked with readiness and despatch.

NAVY.
  NAVY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME, 1889–90.

    MEMORANDUM EXPLANATORY OF FINANCIAL PROPOSALS.
    (PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT BY HER MAJESTTS COMMAND.)
    1. The total estimated cost of the 70 vessels to be built under the New Programme is £21,500,000, including armament and all warlike stores, with the necessary reserves. Thirty-eight of the vessels will be built in Her Majesty's Dockyards at an estimated cost of £8,650,000 for Hulls, Machinery, &c, and £2,850,000 for Armament, all provided under the ordinary Estimates. The remaining 32 vessels are to be built by contract, at an estimated cost of £10,000,000, including armament, &c., to be paid for out of the proposed Naval Defence Account.
    2. It is proposed to provide the funds to defray the cost of the above in the following manner: The increase in the total amount proposed to be voted for Naval purposes in the ordinary Estimates of 1889–90 over the Estimates for 1888–89, is £602,600; this it is assumed will be continued in each of the four succeeding years.
    3. In addition to the increased annual provision thus made in the Navy Estimates, it is proposed to provide a further sum of £10,000,000 from a Naval Defence Account, payable in seven annual instalments of £1,428,000 each, making, with the £602,000 already mentioned, an increase in the annual charge for Naval purposes of £2,030,000. The Treasury are to be empowered, under the Bill creating the fund, to make advances in anticipation of the annual instalments, charging Navy Funds for interest thereon.
    4. Vote 8, which includes, besides Shipbuilding and Repairs, the Maintenance of the Fleet in Sea Stores and Coal, together with the cost of the Dockyards at Home and Abroad, amounts to £4,659,000. In this amount an expenditure of £2,650,000, excluding incidental charges, is provided for the special purpose of constructing and completing the vessels now in process of construction as well as those to be laid down under the New Programme in the Dockyards, except only as regards their Armament and Warlike Stores.
    5. Vote 9, for Ordnance and Warlike Stores, amounts to £1,463,500, and includes the amount requisite for the equipment of the vessels built out of the funds provided under Vote 8.
    6. The following Tables show the anticipated Annual Expenditure on the Programme, together with the provision to meet the same, on the assumption that the Estimates for Votes 8 and 9 remain unchanged:—
    Thirty-eight Ships intended by the New Programme to be Built in Her Majesty's Dockyards, the Cost of which is to be included in the Ordinary Estimates.

    —

    1889–90.

    1890–91.

    1891–92.

    1892–93.

    1893–94.

    TOTAL.

    Vote 8.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Amount appropriated to New Construction

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    Less,—Amount re-required to complete Ships in progress

    1,290,000

    256,000

    —

    —

    —

    Amount available for New Programme

    1,360,000

    2,394,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    Vote 9.

    Ordnance Amount appropriated for Armaments of New Vessels

    450,000

    600,000

    600,000

    600,000

    600,000

    Total

    1,810,000

    2,994,000

    3,250,000

    3,250,000

    3,250,000

    =14,554,000

    Estimated Expenditure on New Programme, including Ordnance and War like Stores

    1,810,000

    2,940,000

    3,160,000

    2,250,000

    1,340,000

    =11,500,000

    Difference

    £3,054,000

    The difference between the amounts available for New Construction, &c., viz., £14,554,000, and the sums required to complete the New Programme, viz., £11,500,000 can be either utilised in laying down New Vessels, or in reducing the Estimates for the years 1892–93, 1893–94.
    Thirty-two Ships included in the New Programme to be Constructed by Contract and paid for out of the Naval Defence Account.

    —

    1889–90.

    1890–91.

    1891–92.

    1892–93.

    1893–94.

    1894–95.

    1895–96.

    TOTAL.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Amount available out of the proposed Naval Defence Account

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,432,000

    10,000,000

    Estimated Expenditure

    2,845,000

    4,415,000

    1,900,000

    740,000

    100,000

    —

    —

    10,000,000

    The Excess Expenditure in some years over the instalment payable from the Naval Defence Account will, as already explained, be met by Temporary Advances out of the Consolidated Fund, the interest thereon being charged to the ordinary Navy Estimates.