COMMITTEE:

HC Deb 30 July 1890 vol 347 cc1274-323

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 2.

Amendment again proposed, in page 2, line 28, at the end thereof, to add the words— (b.) and subject, as aforesaid, among the County Councils of counties and Town Councils of burghs, and police commissioners of police burghs in Scotland, in proportion to the respective valuations of such counties and burghs and police burghs as such valuations shall be ascertained by the Secretary for Scotland at the date of such distribution, the share falling to such councils and commissioners respectively to be applied to the relief of local rates levied by them respectively, in such manner as they may determine."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

(12.25.) MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in his name. The object of the Amendment is to prevent the abuse, which is possible under the Bill as it stands, of employing the money assessed to counties for the relief of landlords. The money will come out of the pockets of the working classes, and it would be a shameful abuse to allot it to the landlords. I doubt whether the County Councils would dare to do so; but as the insertion of these words can do no harm. I think it is only right that we should take it out of the power of the County Councils to perpetrate so great a wrong.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 7, after the word "respectively," to insert the words "with the exception of the owners consolidated rate."—(Mr. Hunter.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

(12.27.) THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) Bute

The proposal of the hon. Member is one which would have a serious effect upon the principle of the clause. The proposition is to take away the discretion of the Local Bodies to determine what rates shall be relieved. The County Councils are elected, every one of them by a popular vote, and, of course, as the occupying ratepayers form a large majority of the electorate, they will have it in their power to prevent any abuse. I think it would be objectionable that we should attempt to dictate to the County Councils as to the mode in which the money should be expended, and I am surprised that there should be an attempt to interpose an anticipatory Instruction in regard to restricting the action of the County Councils. I may also point out that the road expenditure in counties is by far the largest. It amounts to something like £225,000, as against £280,000, and if the County Councils should feel inclined to relieve the counties of some portion of the road expenditure I do not see why they should be prohibited from doing so. That, however, is a matter for the consideration of those who are responsible to the ratepayers. There is, however, another aspect of the question. Take the case of the burghs. In the burghs the greatest part of the rates fall on the occupiers alone. With what justice, if you refuse money for the relief of the owners of property, can you apply it to the relief of the occupiers? For myself I do not think it is right that Parliament should discriminate between class and class, where it is anxious to provide relief from the burden of rates. If the burden falls heavily on one set of people, relieve them, and if upon another, relieve them. The Amendment now proposed amounts to an absolute want of confidence in the Local Administrators, and is positively unjust.

*(12.30.) MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been conclusive if he had started from fair premises, but he seems to have forgotten that the County Rate has been consolidated upon the land as a matter of bargain. [Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON expressed dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he must remember that last year the fight was that the landlord should not be relieved from the burden which he had contracted with the leaseholder— in many cases for 19 years—to divide the rate between the landlord and tenant. In order to equalise the rates they have been taken on an average of 10 years, and a specific sum fixed as the sum which the landlord ought to pay. In the event of any increase of rate it is to be divided, and so also in the case of a reduction of rate it ought to be paid equally to the relief of the landlord and the tenant. The right hon. and learned' Gentleman says that the County Councils-are popularly elected. He ought to-know that that is not so. A certain portion of them may be, but another portion is returned by the Parochial Boards, and is not popularly elected. In the burghs-most of the rates are imposed entirely upon the occupiers, but in the burghs there is popular representation, and the popular opinion can be brought to bear very differently from the way in which it can be brought to bear in the case of the County Councils, If the right hon. Gentleman had allowed us to deal with the rates in the way we pressed upon him last year he might have something to say, but the sixpence on whisky comes-chiefly from the poorer classes, and all we ask is that it shall not be devoted solely to the relief of the landlords. In my opinion, the opposition to this-Amendment is only a further manifestation of the policy of the legislation which the Government have sought to carry out in this Parliament, namely, to secure the advantage of the landlords, the publicans, or the clergy. I had hoped' that this concession would have been made. It is a fair and reasonable concession, and it would have induced the-people to believe that the Government were prompted by a desire to make an equitable distribution of the money. I trust that the matter will be carried to-a Division, in order that, at any rate, the Scotch Members may be able to enter one more protest against the policy of the Government.

(12.35.) MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that up to the passing of the Local Government Act the county rates in Scotland were payable by the landlords alone, and for the last 10 years those rates were higher than they will be: now. Landlords have purchased property on the footing that the old county rates were a burden on the land. Is it now proposed to give the landlords a subsidy for the rates which were taken into account when the property was purchased? That is the point which we have now to determine. If we are going to give a subsidy on account of local rates, can we expect the County Councils to expend money on sanitary and other improvements? The only object of this Amendment is to secure that the County Councils shall not have the power of giving relief from a stereotyped rate. It would have been much better to take the Parochial Board Rate and to have made it payable one-half by the landlord and one-half by the tenant. In that case every ratepayer would get a benefit, and the question would not have arisen of devoting money towards the relief of a rate which has been stereotyped. As the landlord's property has all been purchased on the condition of the rates being a burden upon it, what you are proposing to do now is to give a subsidy that will go directly into the pockets of the landlords.

(12.40.) MR. A. ELLIOT (Roxburgh)

As I read the Amendment it is quite clear that the money is to be distributed by the County Councils and the Town Councils. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Esslemont) has said that the County Councils are not Popular Representative Bodies.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

What I said was that the District Councils will, to a large extent, influence the distribution of taxation in their districts, and that they are not Popular Representative Bodies.

MR. A. ELLIOT

My point is that the question of the authority by whom the money is to be distributed will rest very much with those who elect the County Councils.

(12.41.) MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. Elliot) is perfectly correct.

SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

I am afraid it will be difficult to know what to do with the money, and, therefore, that the proposal of the Government will only throw an apple of discord into the County Councils, to be scrambled for in the most undignified manner. In the Irish case the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to give the whole of the money to education, but in the case of Scotland he refuses to do so in the most dogged manner.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! We are not now discussing the case of Ireland.

(12.44.) SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I do not think that the District Boards will have anything whatever to do with the distribution of the money, and, therefore, the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) as to the composition of the County Councils do not really bear upon the question of who will have the distribution of the money.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

I adhere most distinctly to my statement.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That has nothing to do with the question now under discussion.

SIR G. TREVELYAN

My hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Hunter) brought forward a much more serious question, which the Government have not answered. It is a curious thing that in most of our discussions the Lord Advocate always avoids the most serious-point. In the Debate upon free education the right hon. Gentleman made a long speech, but he skilfully avoided the Sixth Standard, which was the gist of the whole question. Upon this question the gist is the permanent burden upon the land; and if you allow the County Councils to relieve the landlords of that permanent burden, you will simply allow them to relieve themselves. The Government have given no answer whatever to that point, but it is one upon which I think every Scotch Member has a right to demand what the opinion of the Government is.

(12.46.) MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I do not intend to enter into a general justification of my conduct. I leave that to the judgment of the House. With regard to this Amendment, all I have to say is that, if it is intended to afford relief at all, it is impossible to justify the entire exclusion of the landlords from that relief.

(12.47.) MR. HUNTER

My contention is that there can be no justification for the allotment of money solely for the purpose of reducing the charges upon property.

(12.50.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 44; Noes 118.—(Div. List, No. 213.)

Question put, That the words '(b.) and subject, as aforesaid, among the County Councils of counties and Town Councils of burghs, and Police Commissioners of police burghs, in Scotland, in proportion to the respective valuations of such counties and burghs and police burghs as such valuations shall be ascertained by the Secretary for Scotland at the date of such distribution, the share falling to such Councils and Commissioners respectively to be applied to the relief of local rates levied by them respectively, in such manner as they may determine,' be added after the word 'Scotland,' in line 28."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

(1.0.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 122; Noes 51.—(Div. List, No. 214.)

Question proposed, "That the Clause, -as amended, stand part of the Bill."

(1.11.) SIR G. TREVELYAN

Before the clause is ordered to stand part of the Bill, I wish to say a few words. What has hitherto been done in respect to this clause has been to treat the Representatives of the Scottish people, who know their own minds thoroughly, especially on the questions of finance and education, as if they were in leading strings. The numbers voting in an important Division were 42 against the Government proposals, and 14 in their favour.? do not stop now to analyse the minority, but everybody knows that when the Government take up a certain line, the number of Members who support the Government do not actually represent the amount of public feeling in Scotland on their side, a fact which, I may say, as common to both Liberal and Conservative administations. Still, when 42 Scotch Members vote on one side against the Government, and 14 on the other in their favour, I think there can hardly be a doubt as to which side represents the public opinion in Scotland. I must say that I regard the action of the Government on this question as most irritating, and, in some respects, almost as an unmannerly insult on Scottish feeling. I should like to know what would have been the case if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated Ireland in the same way. Let us look at the aspect of the House in reference to this measure. Here are most important clauses relating to Ireland, as to which Irish public opinion has been consulted, and the consequence is that there are only some three or four Irish Members present who may rise to endorse what is virtually an agreement made across the House between the Government and the Irish Members. How different is the position occupied by Scotland. We have a certain sum of money allotted towards free education, and every Scottish Member knows that free education will, thereby, be left in a most unfortunate position, and that every disadvantage which is said by its opponents to attach to free education is left there. The people are to have their fees paid for them instead of paying them themselves, and if this can have any effect on the individual character of the parents that effect is produced under the present system. But the Government propose to limit free education to a point exactly below that at which free education would encourage the parents to keep their children at school. This is the point the Scotch Members have all along been urging, and to this point, up to the present moment, we have had no adequate answer, and, indeed, hardly any answer at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the sort of House of Commons answer that he made on this subject, said we put but little trust in Scottish parents if we thought they would be deterred from continuing their children's education by not getting relief from the fees. The right hon Gentleman has been referred to as one who is interested in this education question, and, therefore, he must know that practical educationalists have always protested, both in their speeches in this House and in the Reports they have made to Parliament, against raising the fees as the children approach the upper standards. But this is not all. After having refused to do what the Scotch Members desire, the Government have insisted on inserting in the Bill words as to which there is absolutely no adequate explanation from a Scotch point of view. The Lord Advocate has told us that this money, in the case of the Scotch School Boards, may directly or indirectly be used for paying the fees in the higher standards, and yet it is insisted that in the Bill, which is understood to permit this action, certain words limiting the grant to the compulsory standards under the Scotch Code shall be retained. Why, I ask, should words be inserted in the Bill which can have no statutory or binding power? The only explanation that can possibly be given is that they are inserted to carry out an expression used by the Prime Minister, because the question is one involving considerations that will have a bearing on the English question. Scotland complains, first, that she is deprived of what she regards as a real benefit; and, secondly, that words have been put into this Bill which add to a very genuine injury something like sheer mockery, in order that the minds of the English Members who object to compulsory education, and wish to limit it as much as possible, may be put at rest. I am very sorry that the Government, having made concessions in this Bill which, whatever else they may have done, have greatly facilitated the business of this Session, should have made a stand only in the case of Scotland, and in order that they might not make what I described in the first speech I made on this question as a most gracious concession, which would have been received with gratitude, they have taken a course by which I feel that the genuine interests of Scotland have been sacrificed.

(1.17.) SIR G. CAMPBELL

I should like to ask, if I am in order in so doing, whether the Government can give us any explanation of the inconsistency by which, while adhering to their proposals in this clause, they intend by the next to devote the whole of the Irish grant to educational purposes, and a portion of that grant to intermediate education. It seems to me an astounding inconsistency; and, worms as we poor Scotch Members are, we are bound to turn against this unequal treatment.

*(1.18.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square

In reply to the hon. Member opposite I would point out that the inconsistency he speaks of is not at all astounding. In Ireland large contributions have already been made to the rates, but in Scotland no contribution whatever has been made before to the rates, and, as a matter of fact, Scotland gets more out of the money for education than any other part of the United Kingdom.

(1.19.) MR. CALDWELL

I think an important point to place before the Committee is the way in which under this clause the policy of the Unionist Government is exhibited. Hitherto the policy of the Government has been to treat the different parts of the United Kingdom with equal justice in the bestowal of grants from the Imperial Fund. It has been left to the Chancellor of a Unionist Government to divide the Kingdom into three separate nationalities, and to start separate accounts for each under the head of Imperial grants—

THE CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. Member that we are now discussing the question whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill.

MR. CALDWELL

I bow, Sir, to your ruling; but I was anxious to point out that what has been allocated to Scotland is Scotland's share of the Imperial Fund, and I wish to argue that it is only right that the money should be distributed according to Scottish opinion. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the Scottish Members do not represent Scottish opinion, and that a question which concerns Scotland alone ought not to be determined by the votes of Scottish Members, I think we may reasonably ask the Government to provide some other constitutional machinery whereby the voice of Scotland may be really ascertained.

(1.21.) MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

I should not have risen to continue this discussion but for the challenge yesterday thrown out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Scottish Members, and the manner in which he, to a certain extent, hit myself more particularly than the rest of my Colleagues. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that we on this side do not fairly represent the feeling of the Scotch working classes in this matter, but it seemed to me that in the course of the encounter which took place between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), the former right hon. Gentleman did not show himself particularly well acquainted with the educational condition even of the English working classes, more particularly in the county in which he himself resides. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to his own experience in relation to a constituency in the Scottish Metropolis, and adverted to an occasion on which he advocated principles antagonistic to free education, and said that he then and there obtained proofs of the confidence of that Scotch constituency in the opinions he professed. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that I also have some acquaintance with that constituency, and that it is of a much more recent date than that of the right hon. Gentleman. Whether he was deceived by the post hoc or the propter hoc, or by some syllogism or other "ism" I do not know; but I can confidently say, as many of my Colleagues have said on behalf of the Scotch constituencies they represent, that in that particular constituency there is, among the working classes, a strong feeling antagonistic to the proposal now before this Committee. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer doubts what I say I will make him this offer. Let him come down to Edinburgh to discuss this matter, and we will promise him a fair field, and no favour; not only will he have the advantage of his great controversial ability, but he shall also have the leading speech and reply, and I will undertake to say that, even with these advantages, he will not find that the constituency he has mentioned as supporting his views on a former occasion will support them now. Should it turn out otherwise, I will undertake to go into sackcloth and ashes, or to perform any other humiliation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may demand, and which may happen to be within my power. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer also told us that it was unfair to Scottish parents to say that if you remit the fees for more than the compulsory standards you do not rely upon their sense of duty. My reply to that is, that if that is an objection to this measure, it is an objection to compulsory education altogether, because every compulsory scheme must necessarily rely on the parents' sense of duty. The great object of the present educational system is that there should be a universal diffusion of knowledge throughout the community up to a certain standard, and for that purpose it is necessary that compulsion should be exercised on that class of parents who are not sufficiently moved by a parental sense of duty. I say that if we are not satisfied that the standard of education is sufficiently high we are bound to take such measures as may secure, as far as possible, that parents who are not moved by the sense of duty, shall, by some other means, be induced to carry on the education of their children to the necessary limits. We are asked why are we to free or emancipate parents from their duty. Sir, I do not regard the proposal for free education which we now make as any attempt to free parents from their duty. I regard it rather as an assistance to parents in the performance of their duty—as an inducement offered to them to keep their children at school after they have passed the compulsory stage in order that the standard of education may be raised as far as possible throughout the community. I would ask leave to say, further, that it is of the utmost importance to the object the State has in maintaining this system of national compulsory education, that the Sixth Standard should be made a free standard. I say that at the age when compulsion stops you lose what is the crown of the whole system you have been persevering with in the previous standards if you stop at that limit. I maintain that if the Sixth Standard is not made, as far as possible, universal, you, to a large extent, lose all the advantages derivable from the education given in the previous standards.

THE CHAIRMAN

Surely the hon. Member is travelling beyond the scope of the clause, because this clause does not describe what should be compulsory with reference to the standards.

MR. WALLACE

Of course, I shall not persist in an argument which you consider to be out of order, and, therefore, I will proceed no further with this point. The Bill, however, provides that money is to be given to free those standards which are at present compulsory. I do not know whether I should be in order in alluding to another part of the clause which gives money for purposes which are challenged in Committee on the ground that the money would be more advantageously devoted to other objects.

THE CHAIRMAN

I understand the hon. Member to be raising the question that the Sixth Standard ought to be made compulsory, more, even, than the other five standards. It does not matter whether there are five, six, or a dozen standards.

MR. WALLACE

I make no proposal to render the Sixth Standard compulsory, but I say that in this clause you are simply throwing obstacles in the way of the attainment of that which is the object in having the five compulsory standards. I was about to say that it is extremely desirable, from an educational point of view, to keep children in the Sixth Standard, even after the compulsory stage had been passed, and that this clause, because it throws itself in the way of the attainment of that object, is a most objectionable one. The five compulsory standards only give the key to knowledge, and do not give any experience of knowledge, or any pleasure, or any of the good temptation which arises out of that knowledge. If you merely give a person a key with no conception of what he is to find in the place the key fits, you have given him a useless instrument, because he has no temptation or stimulus to make use of it. I maintain, therefore, that it is a great calamity and disappointment to Scotland that the inducement that might have been offered to parents, through a better version of this clause, to keep their children longer at school than the compulsory stage, has not been held out. The only redeeming consideration I find in it, is that it will prove—and that not very long ahead—a greater disappointment, and a greater calamity to the Party who have so perversely refused the object on which the national will and aspirations were set. We have been told that the ratepayers ought to come into some benefit from this money. I maintain that the greatest benefit that the ratepayers could receive from the expenditure of this national money would be the elevation of the general standard of public education throughout the country. The Government told us that, as this money was derived from drink, the best use to make of it was, by its means, to 'diminish the consumption of drink—and then they went on to apply it—or propose to apply it—in the very unwise way of endowing public houses. In that application of the money they have been, politically speaking, disappointed. Why, then, did they not adopt the next best method of meeting the influence of drink, namely, by advancing education I hold that to perfect the spiritual nature of man is the next best antidote—I would say the best, better than the endowment of public houses. I do not think that in that I am advancing an untenable proposition. And now I would renew my protest against what I will call the political fraud contained in this clause; that is to say, the attempt to declare that the money is given exclusively for the freeing of the compulsory standards, in the face of the promise given to us that "Behind the back of Parliament and the Statute it will be all right !"When I am compelled to sit here and see that sort of thing done, I feel almost that I am not in the best sort of company. It looks to me almost as if I were present at the concoction of a prospectus that may, by-and-by, require the attention of the Directors' Liability Bill. I say I will not be, even indirectly, concerned in putting forward a delusion of this sort to the public. It may be very clever, but I say that Artful Dodgerism in a political or any other character does not commend itself to my plain and unsophisticated understanding. I do not like old Pagan in any capacity, and I hope that, at the last moment, more straightforward counsels will recommend themselves to the Government.

(1.42.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

Before we pass from this clause, I think we ought to consider what it is, and what the Government and the House of Commons have been doing with it for the last three days. This clause is the 2nd clause of the Bill, or the first clause which is to dispose of the extra taxation raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the satisfaction of the wishes of the various sections of the United Kingdom. We know what happened to the 1st clause of the Bill. It has gone to pieces. The 2nd clause is for the satisfaction of the people of Scotland, and we have had an opportunity in the House of Commons, in the last three days, of ascertaining exactly how far this clause satisfies the people of Scotland. We know that on the other side of the House no very high value is given to the opinions of the Representatives of the various parts of the United Kingdom. We have seen that with regard to Ireland, and we know how the opinion of her Representatives is treated with disdain, and even with hostility, but I think that until this week that principle has not yet been openly avowed, and practically acted upon, with reference to Scotland and its Representatives. But I will ask the Committee to consider what is the course and what is the conduct of the Government with reference to Scotland and its Representatives? Now, mark this; the question is the disposal of taxes raised upon what is, undoubtedly, one of the principal industries of Scotland, and we would have supposed that the disposal of the money would have been governed in some degree, at all events, by the opinion of the Representatives of Scotland. What are the facts? Scotland has 72 Representatives in this House, and, taking the Division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth, who proposed to eliminate from Clause 2 the compulsory standards, as a test Division, the result of an analysis which I have made of the Division List shows that out of the 73 Scotch votes the Government are only supported by 12 Members. That is a matter which will be considered and remembered in Scotland. Now, let me go a little further in this analysis. Tories are not a numerous body in Scotland, but they have contributed seven votes, two of the number being votes of Members for Universities. Universities in Scotland, I fancy, like Universities in England, by their Representatives, are not friends of popular education or of free education. Out of those seven votes I find that three are those of Members sitting on the Tory Treasury Bench—one of whom represents the populous constituency of the Island of Bute—a fourth is that of a Member representing a University, and out of what I may call the independent votes for Scotland in this House three Tory Members have voted in support of the Government. Then there is another vote in Scotland, which we regard with considerable interest—in fact, its future state is the subject constantly of our pious commisseration. As far as I know, the gentlemen who call themselves Liberal Unionists number 16 amongst the Scottish Members. Out of these 16 how many have given their support to the Government on the present occasion? Just five. Of course, there was the Member for St. Andrews, and the Member for Roxburgh, who supported the Government by his vote and voice, and always exhibits the ardour and courage which characterises the sincere ally; then there were the two Members for Ayrshire and the Member for Forfar. I have spoken of the Tories who supported the Government, but where were the Tory absentees? There were several of them. Where were the two Members-for Renfrewshire; where was the hon. Baronet the Member for Renfrew, the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, the hon. Baronet the Member for one of the Divisions of Perthshire, and the latest acquisition, the victor of the Ayrshire Burghs, whom I see opposite?

* MR. SOMERVELL (Ayr, &c.)

My absence was owing to my being obliged to attend an important meeting in Scotland. I was detained until the moment I entered the House, and I voted in the subsequent Divisions.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I noted his absence, but did not know the cause of it. The Government got the votes of 12 out of the 72 Members. On the other hand, what had the Government against them in relation to the measure? I venture-to say that they had the overwhelming voice of the people of Scotland in opposition to them. Forty-four Scotch votes-were recorded against them, as-compared with 12 in their favour. With regard to the Scotch Unionist Members, their votes were distributed with almost absolute impartiality, because five voted with the Government, five against the Government, and the other six wisely abstained from voting at all. The hon. Member for the-Ayr Burghs has accounted for his absence. Of course, I cannot tell the causes of the absence of the others, but I observe that the hon. Member recently elected for the Partick Division did not vote. It is worth while to consider how Scotland has been dealt with by the-Government on this occasion. All the Representatives of the great and populous centres in Scotland have voted against this measure, All the Members for Edinburgh, nearly all the Members, for Glasgow, the Members for Aberdeen, Dundee, Dumfries, Greenock, Inverness Burghs, Leith, Paisley, Perth, Montrose, Stirling, and Hawick, have voted against you. What is there in your favour? You have the Member for St. Andrews and the Member for Central Glasgow. They are the only burgh Representatives who have voted with you. Of course you have the support of the Representatives of the Universities. Let us look at the counties. You have against you the Representatives of Aber- deenshire, Banff, Berwickshire, Caithness, Edinburgh, Elgin, Fife, Haddington, Inverness, Lanarkshire, Linlithgow, Perth, Ross, Stirling, and Sutherland. Such is the voice of the counties, and still you persist in the measure. You say you do it because of some great principle which is involved in the matter. The principle is laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Lord Advocate avoided the principle; he said a good deal about the practice and very little about the principle. The principle is, we will pay for the compulsory standards, but not for the voluntary standards. The Scotch Members have maintained that they attach even greater importance to the payment of the voluntary standards than to that of the compulsory standards. The matter has been ably argued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) and others. It has been shown that your conception of excluding the voluntary standards depended upon the notion of a distinction of classes which is detested and repudiated by public opinion in Scotland, and, therefore, your principle is one which is repugnant to the mind of the majority of the people of Scotland. Tour principle is a bad one, but there is something to be said for people who, having a principle, good or bad, carry it out. We had great difficulty in getting at exactly what was going to be done with this money. The Lord Advocate endeavoured to explain the matter over and over again, but the more he explained it the less we understood it. We said, "Your disposal of the money last year and your legislation were inconsistent with the great principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because you did not put in words to exclude the voluntary standards, and you did, in fact, give money which went, as I understand, to the payment for voluntary standards," and we asked why you departed from that. If the Lord Advocate had said, "Oh, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got a great principle, and, therefore, I must depart from the practice of last year," I could have understood it, but the Lord Advocate was too prudent for that; he is much too canny to say that. He said "Oh, no; consistently with the great principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that money is not to go to the voluntary standards, but, if you will only trust me, the voluntary standards-shall get it." You are not to give Imperial money to the voluntary standards, but you are to give Imperial money in such a way that the voluntary standards may get it. What is to become of the money in the case of schools where already grants are sufficient to deal with the compulsory standards? The Lord Advocate says it will go to the ratepayers; but supposing the ratepayers use the money for paying the voluntary standards, the great principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be upset. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is like a man who says to a small boy, "No power on earth would induce me to give you a penny to buy a tart with, because tarts are very bad things for small boys, but if you only spend a penny of your own upon a tart, I will take care to give you a penny." Now, what a piece of management is this. The Government have money to dispose of for the benefit of the people of Scotland. They have disposed of it in a manner which has almost given as much dissatisfaction to the people as if, instead of giving the money, they had taken it away. I do not know whether we are to be told that we have been obstructing this measure. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] There is an hon. Member ready to say that. I observe that this morning the whole Unionist Press is in full cry against the Scotch Members, charging them with obstruction. Have you Unionist Gentlemen opposite any conception of what Scotch Representatives are here for? Irish Members are here to be voted down, to be defamed, and to be insulted. This was shown during the first 10 days of the present Session. Are the Government going to apply the same doctrine to Scotch Members? If you choose to raise against the Scotch Members the cry of obstruction, there is another cry that will be raised in answer, and that is the cry of Home Rule. Is it not monstrous to say that when the Government come forward with proposals which the people of Scotland think not to be a boon, but injurious to them, their Representatives in Parliament are not to be at liberty to argue against such proposals, to resist them, and to endeavour to amend them 2 What a conception is that of the union of the United Empire! See what you did when you had to deal with a very much inferior question—the question of the police. The Scotch people think a great deal more about their education than they do about police superannuation, but when you had to deal with the police, you appointed a Committee, which consisted exclusively of Scotchmen, a very remark; able and useful precedent. But what would have become of this clause if they had referred it to a Committee consisting exclusively of Scotch Members? Why have they not done so? The First Lord of the Treasury has let the cat out of the bag. It is because they mean to make the question of Scottish education subordinate and subservient to their views on English education. That will not commend itself particularly to the Scottish people, who have their own views and their own interests in the matter of education. There is one thing in which Scotland is fortunate and distinguished—that that bitter spirit of denominationalism which has been so injurious to the cause of education in England., has had comparatively little influence in Scotland. And the Government have chosen, in dealing with this question, to subordinate the interests of Scottish education to the denominationalist prejudices which exist in England. That is the secret of the manner in which they have dealt with this clause. These things will be thoroughly appreciated and understood in Scotland. It is said we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. But this is so bad a horse that we are obliged to look it in the mouth, and the more we look it in the mouth, the more we think the gift horse will not be worth its keep. I cannot understand on what principles the Government go in dealing with different sections of the community. They profess to bring in remedial measures for Ireland, but they will not consult Irishmen. You profess to bring in remedial legislation for Scotland and Wales, but you will not consult Scotchmen or Welshmen. Of course, you have got the Liberal Unionists. The Scotch Liberal Unionists are represented by their organiser the Member for St. Andrews, and the English Unionists are led by the noble Lord who is now the Member for Hampshire (Viscount Wolmer), but who is a candidate for one of the Divisions of the City of Edinburgh. Mr. A. ELLIOT: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. Elliot) applauds that. But I commend the Action of the Liberal Unionists in this matter to the consideration of the electors of Edinburgh, whose Representatives have unanimously voted against this Bill. The Government have still place for repentance, and I hope that, on the Report stage, the very necessary education of these three days' Debate will enable them to make this 2nd clause a gift more worthy the acceptance of the people of Scotland.

(2.15.) MR. A. ELLIOT

As a Scotch Member, I wish to say a few words on the clause, and on the somewhat extraordinary oration to which we have just listened. My right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) seems a good deal more ready to study the Division Lists than to study the Scottish proposals. I do not know for what purpose the right hon. Gentleman supposes the Scottish Members are here, but it is certainly not to rally round the flaunting flag that the right hon. Gentleman so assiduously waves before us. I will not follow the right hon. Gentlemen in his analysis of the Division List beyond sayingthis—that the right hon. Gentleman hardly seems to be acquainted even with the names of the Scottish Members whose votes he criticises. He has discussed the vote of the Member for Hawick, and it is evident that he has failed to distinguish between two very different Gentlemen—Mr. A. H. Brown and Mr. A. L. Brown. The right hon. Gentleman has been equally at fault in his references to the hon. Member for Partick, and in assuming that because that hon. Gentleman was absent from the Division he was unwilling to support the clause. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, he might have left the hon. Member alone. A similar argument may be founded upon the absence from the Division of the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), who takes a good deal of interest in Scottish education.

SIR W. HARCOURT

He did vote. You are mistaken.

MR. A. ELLIOT

The right hon. Gentleman assured me himself that he did not vote. I am talking about the late Division last night, and he assured me that he did not vote, because he was not aware that the subject was likely to be discussed at such extreme length.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The right hon. Gentleman's name is here.

MR. A. ELLIOT

The right hon. Gentleman and I are thinking of different Divisions, and I may just as well count the Member for Leeds on my side if the right hon. Gentleman is to count the Member for Partick among the opponents of the clause. I wish to allude to something else, namely, the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). The right hon. Gentleman is a Scotsman, and he discusses this question occasionally with some regard to its merits. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend sever himself from the line taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce). The hon. Gentleman has practically led the House on this Scottish question. He moved the main Amendment, yet he distinctly separated himself from his right hon. Colleague, and refused to follow him into the Lobby.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNTERMAN (Stirling, &c.)

I do not know what this has to do with the question before the House; but my action in the matter was perfectly intelligible. As I have explained to the House, I am entirely opposed to the proposal of the Government; but while I sympathised with the alternative proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) I was not able to support it.

MR. A. ELLIOT

After asking his hon. Friend not to go to a Division, because if he did he could not support him, the right hon. Gentleman when the Division was taken did support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce.)

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. The Division to which my hon. and learned Friend is now referring is not the Division to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby referred.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. A. ELLIOT

If the two Gentlemen concerned are well satisfied with their joint action last night, I only wonder at their admirable good temper and conciliatory disposition. With regard to Scottish opinion, I do not think that in Scotland, on a Scottish matter, the opinions of the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) joined with those of the Members for East and West Fife (Mr. Asquith and Mr. Birrell) and one or more of the Members for Lanarkshire will carry great weight. These Gentlemen are very able, excellent, and admirable, but they are not acquainted with Scotch affairs. They are not Scotsmen—not even nearly so much as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir George Tre-velyan). If Scottish Members have any merits at all, they are able to look after their own affairs, and they do not require any Englishman to take up the cudgels on their behalf. Surely it is not an "insult" and an "injury" to give the Scotch people £40,000 to aid in establishing free education. The distribution of the money, I contend, ought to be genera], which it will not be if it is bestowed only on some central places for the advancement of higher education. In that case the rural population—the farmer, the blacksmith, the joiner, and the rest—will derive no direct benefit, whereas under the Bill every one of these individuals obtains some recognition. When the matter comes to the test of a Division I do not think certain right hon. Gentlemen will have the courage of their brave words. With regard to the suggestion that the matter should be determined by the preponderance of Scottish votes, will right hon. and hon. Gentlemen be willing to submit all questions relating to England to the English majority, in which the Conservative Party largely prevails? That is the test. I hope we shall have a Division on this clause. It may be that the results will be so strange that the Division List will afford further opportunity to my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) to study the causes for which hon. Members absented themselves.

(2.28.) MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries)

My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elliot) is not really a free agent, and for that reason we ought to make some allowance for him, because he knows that unless he succeeds in making himself agreeable to the Conservative Party in Roxburgh, he may spare himself the trouble of presenting himself there for re-election. That is the reason the Liberal Unionists are so obstinate, unconciliatory, and violent in their language against their old friends. My hon. and learned Friend is wise in not following up the analysis of the Division Lists, because it will be found that throughout Scottish opinion has been over-ruled by the Government and their supporters. My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that some Scotch Members are not Scotchmen, and that some hon. Members represent a country with which they are not well-acquainted. Neither remark affects me, but would there be anything more parochial, contemptible, and narrow than for our countrymen to confine themselves simply to such talent as they may chance to find in their own part of the country, or to confine themselves wholly to Scotch Representatives. Many of our countrymen represent English constituencies. I once represented an English constituency myself, and this I will say, that I never found an Englishman in the whole of that constituency so shabby as to make it a matter of reproach that I came from the wrong side of the Tweed. In regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh, and my hon. Friends the Members for East Fife and West Fife, I do not believe three more honourable representatives or more able men have been sent by any Scotch constituencies to this House. The hon. Member also says that, to be consistent, we should settle English affairs by English votes. Well, has that not been the practice absolutely? I think you will find I am right. I do not believe it will be possible to find a Bill relating purely to England on which the wishes of English Members were overborne by the introduction of Scotch and Irish votes. ["The Burials Bill."] No, I think the noble Lord is wrong, not even the Burials Bill.

MR. A. ELLIOT

Of course, the majority keeps the Government in Office, and that, surely, covers the legislation for England.

MR. R. T. REID

I do not think it does. It is true that in all Imperial affairs Scotch and Irish Members have taken their fair share, as I hope they always will; therefore, as an Imperial Government which is dependent on the whole House, it necessarily follows that the Government must be retained in office by the majority of the Members of the United Kingdom, but I do not believe that an Imperial majority has ever been used to thrust upon England any measure which the majority of English Members were opposed to. I do not believe any instance of the kind can be found. It is unfortunate, and I think hon. Gentlemen on the other side will, in their hearts, think it is unfortunate, that the practice of constantly superseding Scotch opinion by the majority of the House composed of English Members should have grown so much as in the last three or four years it has. I am sure it has been the practice in past times to consider and defer to Scotch opinion in matters of this kind. In this particular we were happily different from Ireland; as regards Ireland it was not the practice. It is this Conservative Government that has fallen into this unhappy unstates-manlike course, of which this is the last and most signal instance, and if no other good arises from our protest, I hope, at all events, it may have the effect of calling attention to, if it does not check a continuance of, this disastrous and, as I think, most unstatesman like policy.

(2.36.) MR. HUNTER

The hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh rather despises our courage, and, by implication, admires his own, and challenges us to go to a Division on Clause 2. Well, whatever may be the state of our courage, we are not wholly destitute of common sense. What does Clause 2 effect? It-effects the distribution of £140,000 to be devoted to Scotch purposes. In Scotland we would rather that this money should go to Scotland for any purpose, however bad, however objectionable, than that it should be lost to us. The money is not a gift. There was one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby with which I disagreed; he spoke of this as a gift; it is no gift. For every 3s. 3d. given, you take 5s. out of our pockets. We are losers, even at the best, and we shall not be guilty of any such folly as the hon. Member for Roxburgh suggests in endeavouring to delete the clause. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman talked very loudly about giving something to the ratepayers, but in the several speeches he has addressed to the Committee he has never attempted to say what the ratepayers are going to get under this clause. A farthing would be something, a penny would be something, but if a man picks your pocket of 5s. and gratuitously presents you with a penny you would be disposed to agree that would be something uncommonly like an insult. The fact of the matter is that, under the most favourable circumstances, the whole benefit of this may be measured by the value of an ounce of tobacco. That about represents the value the ratepayers of Scotland will get. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has relieved me from the necessity of bringing before the Committee a clear statement of the position in which Scotch Members stand in regard to the Government. But I am delighted with the course of the Debate. I deeply regret that the Government have refused to complete the work of freeing education. I do so, not only because of its effect on the cause of education, but because of its bad effect on School Board finance. We know the inconvenience the Boards have felt from not knowing what money they are to have, and what they will be required to raise. It is a great loss to Scotland that the system of free education is not to be completed. But there are considerations, on the other hand; and, just as many a dark cloud has a silver lining, so there is a brilliant lining to this, in that we have been afforded a good object-lesson in Home Rule for Scotland. Last year, in dealing with Local Government, the Government forced upon Scotland a scheme totally at variance with the wishes of her people, a bad scheme, as bad as could possibly be devised. Having done that last year, they now deal with local finance, a very ticklish question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has practically admitted this principle in his scheme of subsidies for local rates, that money raised Imperially should be recognised as national property, to be distributed among the three nations from which it was derived; therefore, recognising, as he ought, that this money raised in Scotland is Scottish money, not English money at all, it ought to be spent according to Scottish, and not English, wishes. We considered you foolishly threw away your money last year; but that is your affair; we do not object to that, but we do strongly object that, your Imperial taxation having been raised by methods imposed against the wish of Scotch Representatives, you should proceed to spend the money so raised not on objects which the Scottish people desire, but upon objects which, in a relative sense, they detest. You are leading Scotland up to that point to which a little more than a century ago you brought your American colonies, when you imposed taxes upon them without their assent and against their wishes. What is the difference between imposing on a country taxation without the people's consent, and doing what the Government are now doing, first asking our opinion, and when that has been expressed in the clearest terms setting that opinion entirely aside? A more monstrous abuse of the power of taxation cannot be conceived. If it were raised for Imperial purposes it would be quite another matter. For Imperial purposes, the Imperial majority must decide, but this is not such a case. Having imposed taxation to the extent of 5s. for each family, you deduct from that 1s. 9d. for the benefit of England, and then deal with the residue in a manner totally opposed to the opinion of the people of Scotland. I do not intend to occupy time further, but I do not forget that the Government are not yet out of the wood. We have offered determined resistance, and I rejoice to hear that condemned by the Tory Press of London. If there is one thing to make our view universally popular it is to be attacked by the Cockney Press of London. We shall continue to use all the forms of the House to the fullest extent to prevent this scandalous, this gross, injustice to the people of Scotland. The Government may, if they please, be wise in time. They may resort to the Closure, or any means in their power, but one thing they cannot do—that is, reconcile us to their policy. They have cast their die, and let them go to Scotland with their cry of "Down with free education."

(2.50.) Mr. W. H. SMITH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Clause 3.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out from "the sum of," to "shall," in line 40, and insert"£78,000."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

(2.52.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I think it would be convenient if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary were now to offer some explanation as to the working of the scheme so far as it concerns primary education in Ireland. I have, on a former occasion, described it as complicated in character. The Chief Secretary differed, but I think it will be found, on consideration, that the scheme is one upon which the Committee may well ask some further explanation. I may recall the fact that we strongly objected to the increase of Revenue from Ireland as extremely unjust; and, although the original purpose of the taxation has disappeared, the money is to be raised, and I wish to say that we assent to the application of this part of the money in aid of primary education, by way of increasing the salaries of the National teachers. We are not disposed to give countenance to any suggestion made—not in the House, but outside—for the division of any part of the sum to any other use than that of primary education. We regard with satisfaction that a substantial part of the money is to be applied in aid of a class of men whose position is an extremely hard and bitter one, and who need further care on the part of the State. While we arte satisfied that the money should be applied in this way, yet we feel that the case of the National teachers will have to be dealt with—not casually, and as by a windfall, but deliberately and permanently, as a matter of ordinary provision. In reference to what was said a while ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridge-ton Division, I have to say that this scheme for National teachers has been prepared in the usual Government mode, and without any reference whatever to Irish Members on the subject. I am not aware of the origin of the scheme. I do not know whether it was submitted to, or considered by, anyone in Ireland. I say frankly I do not think it by any means the best scheme that could be devised for the appropriation of the money. I go further, and doubt whether it is a good scheme, and I question very much whether it will work equally between large and small schools, between efficient schools in towns and backward schools in the country, between schools in the contributory and the non-contributory Unions. Though I think it would have been better if Irish Members had been consulted upon the details of primary education in Ireland before the introduction of this provision into the Bill, yet, as the whole of the money is to go in aid of National teachers, and inasmuch as the National teachers, the persons principally interested, have made no adverse representation about the scheme, I do not feel called upon to offer a scheme in substitution, or even a comprehensive Amendment of it, though I think a better scheme might have been framed, and a comprehensive Amendment of this could be supported by very strong arguments. There are one or two points upon which I feel it my duty to offer Amendments, in order to secure a more fair distribution. First I ask, is it intended to include what are called model schools in the scheme? If so, I shall have to protest against and resist it, because, though the amount of money that would be so diverted would be small, not more than £1,000, yet the principle at issue is imperative. These model schools have ceased to satisfy the purposes for which they were brought into existence. Those purposes were two, the training of teachers, and the provision of mixed education in an efficient form. There are now State training colleges, and, therefore, the model schools are no longer required for their original purpose, namely, the training of teachers. Secondly, they cannot be called schools in which mixed education is given, because they they are attended almost entirely by children of one creed, and that not the creed of the great mass of the people. I do not believe there are more than 250 Catholic children in all the model schools in Ireland, and in some of them there is not a single Catholic child to be found. I would call attention to the fact that for the education of 7,000 children in these schools, the State pays £30,000 a year at the present time, that is to say, each child costs the State £4 a year, and I doubt very much if, in all the systems of primary education in the world, you could find a parallel to this. The cost of the institutions approaches a scandal, and I shall resist voting another penny to their support. It is a question how long such a scandal is to continue. If the right hon. Gentleman feels himself called upon to answer me, I shall be glad to know if it is intended that any of the money shall go to the assistance of the model schools, where the teachers stand in a wholly different position to National school teachers. It is clear that the model school teachers are now well paid because there is a sum of £2,000 now paid in fees in those schools, annually paid into the Exchequer. There is every reason for refusing them any contribution from this grant, and, at the proper time, I shall feel it my duty to propose an Amendment excluding them. Then I have to ask, Have the Government considered the effect of this scheme of theirs as bearing upon the system of local contributions from the rates in aid of primary education in Ireland? That system exists to a very inefficient extent. From 160 Unions there are only 12 contribute to the rates. One effect of the scheme will be to put an end entirely to contributions from the rates in aid of primary education. I do not know whether that is desired or contemplated. I take it the contribution under the Bill by subsidies towards primary education will be greater than the aid from local contributions. The effect will be that in every Union where the Guardians pay more from the rates than they get under the Bill they will cease to contribute, and the teachers will be left to the State subventions. I take the case where the Guardians pay less and the result fees are low. Where they pay less from the rates than is payable under the Bill, it is quite obvious that there it will be to the interest of the teachers that the contributions from the Guardians should cease. Of course, the moment it becomes to the interest of the teachers that this should be so, the Guardians will cease to pay; they will respond to the representations of the teachers, who will be placed in a better position. When this Bill passes then local contributions to the aid of primary education will come to an end. I do not argue whether this is good or bad; I only ask if you intend this to be the effect of the scheme? Great efforts-were made to pass the Act of 1875, and the then Chief Secretary (Sir M. Hicks Beach) stated that if the Act failed to-operate, then something further would have to be done. It has failed to operate, as is shown by the fact that, of 160 Unions, only 12 are contributory Unions under the Act of 1875. In the Amendment I shall propose to the clause, the principle is affirmed that the whole of this money, £78,000, is-intended for education, and should be devoted to that purpose. But in the case of a contributory Union, where the Guardians pay less for education than the grant will reach to in that Union, the deficiency is not to be given to the teachers, but to be added to the Probate Duty Grant. Suppose Guardians pay £300 in aid from the rates, and the amount given under this capitation grant comes to £400, the course under the Bill would be that the Guardians would be paid £300, making good the amount contributed from the rates, and instead of the other £100 being given to the teachers, and placing them upon the level of teachers in non-contributory Unions, the equally unfortunate position is taken up by the Government that they divide this £100 between the Poor Rate and the Grand Jury Cess all over Ireland. Surely that is a most unreasonable determination. The Unions in which the contributions are less than the amount will be under the Bill, are limited in number, and the amount involved will be only a few hundreds or thousands, and you place the teachers in these contributory Unions in a worse condition than teachers in non-contributory Unions. I would suggest that where the present grant of the Guardians is less than the grant under the Bill, the balance should be divided among the schools in the Union in proportion to average attendance, placing teachers there on a level with teachers in non-contributory Unions, making your plan at once more symmetrical and more just. At the proper time I intend to move an Amendment in that sense.

*(3.5.) THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

I have no complaint to make of the spirit animating the hon. Member's observations, or the particular suggestions he has made. With regard to the suggestion that a better scheme might have been propounded as regards Ireland, I can only say that I gave a good deal of attention to the subject, and consulted those whose advice was at my disposal, and who are intimately acquainted with the whole details of the question, and the result is that, though I am far from saying it is the most perfect method of dealing with a somewhat complicated question, the scheme is the best available at the time, and, at all events, it has this one great merit, that it has given satisfaction, I believe, to the teachers as a whole. The hon. Gentleman has reminded the Committee that for a considerable time the position of Irish National School teachers was matter of dispute between Irish Representatives and the House of Commons at large, and, personally, I am glad to have the opportunity of doing something substantial to improve their position, and it is a gratification to know that what the Government have done has met hardly any—if any—criticism from those chiefly interested, but has, on the contrary, met with their approval. The hon. Gentleman appears to be of opinion that teachers in those Unions which have taken advantage of the Act of 1875 will be placed in a worse position than teachers in those Unions which have not done so.

MR. SEXTON

In those Unions where the contributions from the Guardians are less than the capitation grant under the Bill will amount to.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As I understand, the intention is to divide £78,000 among the Unions in Ireland. In those Unions which do not contribute under the Act of 1875, the money will go to the teachers. In those Unions which do contribute, it will go to the ratepayers.

MR. SEXTON

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates my point. In some contributory Unions the Guardians pay less in aid of education than the teachers would receive under this Bill if the Union were non-contributory: and my suggestion is, that in those Unions the balance remaining, after making good to the Guardians the amount paid, should be appropriated to the teachers, as it would be if the Union were non-contributory.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As illustrating the point of the hon. Gentleman, let me take two Unions, A and B. A has never contributed under the Act of 1875, and will get, say, £1,000, and that goes entirely to the teachers. In B the total amount contributed is £500 only, and in that Union, as I understand the hon. Gentleman, he thinks the £500 not contributed should be a first charge on this £78,000. That is what he thinks ought to be done.

MR. SEXTON

That the balance of the £1,000 should be distributed among the teachers in the Union.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Substantially what is done is that in Union B, as in the other Union, what does not go to the teachers goes to the rates. The hon. Member has raised the question of model schools, but I do not think the teachers of those schools get anything under the Act of 1875. They are, I understand, entirely supported by the Board of Education in Ireland.

MR. SEXTON

There are three classes of model schools, central districts, and Union, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that in all there are payments by results.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Speaking from memory, I do not think it was ever contemplated that the salaries of teachers in these schools would be liable to augmentation under the Act of 1875. The salaries of the teachers are, I believe, paid by the Board of Education in Ireland; and if that is so, and this Bill follows the Act of 1875, the salaries of the teachers of the model schools will not be affected one way or the other by any contribution under the Bill. Though I have not thought out the particular point raised, I am disposed to concur in the general view the hon. Gentleman has expressed in regard to this Local Taxation Bill, and have resisted schemes which, however attractive in themselves, however good, were not connected with the object of devoting this £78,000 to the relief of local burdens in Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

(3.27.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. SEXTON

Following on my statement, I now beg to move the in- sertion of the words "excluding model schools," In line 3.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 3, page 3, line 3, after the word "schools" to insert the words "excluding model schools."—(Mr. Sexton.)

*(3.28.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am rather disposed to think the words are not necessary, but I admit their principle. I agree that these schools which are supported by the Central Board in Dublin and by fees ought not to benefit by money which is intended to be applied in relief of local taxation. I have, therefore, no objection to the Amendment.

(3.29.) SIR G. CAMPBELL

Is the effect of this to grant public money to the aid of purely denominational schools? Is it so or not?

* MR. A. J.BALFOUR

No.

MR. SEXTON

These schools are attended almost wholly by children of one particular creed, and the effect of the Amendment is to take such schools out of the distribution of this money.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments,—(Mr. Sexton,)—agreed to.

(3.32.) MR. SEXTON

The only other Amendment is this: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that if in a contributory Union the amount of money paid by the Guardians is less than the amount which would come to that Union under the Bill, the balance of the money will go to the teachers of the Union. In other words, that the teachers in such a Union should not be worse off than if the Union were non-contributory.

*(3.33.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to this matter. I think I made a slight error when I spoke before in Committee. I was under the impression that under the Act of 1875 it was possible for the Union to make a partial and not a full payment. I have referred to the Act, and I find that they must either be wholly contributory or wholly non-contributory. If every Union under the Act of 1875 were to contribute, their contributions would amount to £114,000 or £118,000. The actual amount proposed to be con- tributed is £78,000. We do not propose under this Bill that the contributions by the State should ever exceed the amount that might be contributed by the Unions under the Act of 1875. As the hon. Member knows, that part of the salaries of the teachers which comes from results fees is divided into three parts. One-third comes absolutely from the Treasury, while the second third is contributed by the Treasury on condition that the third third is contributed by the locality. We propose that the local contributions shall be supplemented out of the £78,000. Supposing the total amount is £300: of that £100 would in any case be given by the Treasury; the second £100 is contingent upon the third third, contributed by the locality. The third third will not be provided wholly in any case from the £78,000. I presume that two thirds or three-quarters of that third £100 will so be contributed. If the third third thus supplemented should in any case exceed the £100, which is, I think, practically impossible, then it will have to go to the general ratepayer.

(3.38.) MR. SEXTON

It is understood that the money available under this Act will be given in any Union, whether contributory or not, and so far as may be necessary to fill up the local contributions to entitle the Union to the third £100.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

Will the state of the law be exactly the same with regard to school pence?

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

This clause does not touch the question of free education in Ireland, and we do not propose to deal with the larger question.

MR. SEXTON

I may infer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that when this Bill becomes an Act the teachers in a contributory Union in Ireland will in no case be in a worse position than if the Union were non-contributory.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is so.

(3.40.) MR. E.HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

As I understand the Bill, it does not in the slightest way affect the existing regulations with regard to rates. It would be well for parents to know that the teachers get no more under this Bill than they now obtain. It should be further understood that the improvement of the status and position of the teacher is dependent on contingent results, and that it in no way affects the obligations of the parents to pay their children's school fees.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes, that is so.

COLONEL NOLAN

Mr. Courtney—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member has spoken. There is no Amendment moved.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 3, page 3, after line 28, to insert— (ii.) The residue of such share shall, until Parliament otherwise determines, be paid to the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, and be distributed and applied by them amongst schools to which the provisions of "The Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1878,"apply, for both or either of the purposes following, but for no other purposes, namely: —

1. (a.) for the payment of prizes and exhibitions, and the giving of certificates to students; and
2. (b.) for the payment to managers of schools complying with the conditions prescribed under the said Act, of fees dependent on the results of public examinations of students;

according to a scheme to be settled by the said Board with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

(3.42.) MR. SEXTON

We quite approve of the appropriation of the sum for these purposes. The first is primary education, and the Bill determines that the money shall be applied in that way in any financial year. But in the Amendment just moved, the Chancellor of the Exchequer inserts the words—"until Parliament otherwise determines." Surely every enactment only holds until Parliament otherwise determines. I am entirely at a loss to understand what is in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the governing words of the clause relates to any financial year. I move that the words be omitted, and I would further suggest that the Sub-sections (a) (b) should be reversed, inasmuch as (b) refers to the more urgent and important matter of the two.

Question put, "That these words stand part of the proposed Amendment."

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member, I would point out that these words are already in the Scotch and English parts of the Bill. Clearly, we could not leave out of the Irish part of the Bill what is already in the other parts. With regard to the order of the two sub-sections, I believe it will be in the power of the Education Board to apply the money to either or both these purposes, but I rather think the second purpose is the more important of the two, and I have no objection whatever to adopt the suggestion.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

We had an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Scotch part of the Bill that these words, "until Parliament otherwise determines," was to give a flavour of uncertainty. It was a sort of warning that this money could not be taken for some other purpose. I think the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are entirely applicable to Ireland.

(3.45.) MR. S. STOREY (Sunderland)

I am very glad that this point has been raised a second time by an Irish Member, because I am hopeful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government may give to the Irish what it would not yield to the English. The only reason which the Chief Secretary gave for retaining the words was that the Bill would be made more symmetrical. But that which is wrong may be symmetrical as well as that which is right. The Chief Secretary is wrong in supposing that these words as applied to Scotland relate to the same thing when applied to Ireland. In regard to Scotland, they relate to the residue which is to be applied to the payment for extinguishing pleuro-pneumonia and the cost of Medical Officers and Sanitary Inspectors. These uses of the money may be, and probably are, temporary in their nature. How does the case stand when you come to Ireland? The proposal is, that this money shall be given for primary and intermediate education; but, so far as intermediate education is concerned, the money shall only be paid so long as Parliament shall determine. Does not the House know that when once money has been granted for either primary or inter- mediate education there is no chance of Parliament altering its mind for the future? There is no reasonable chance that this money will be temporarily-applied to the purpose of intermediate education and, if it is to be permanent, where is the sense of inserting these words? If the law is altered, the words are superfluous; if they are not altered, they are none the less superfluous. The Chief Secretary has often exhibited on that Bench great common sense in his treatment of matters; and I submit to him that, unless he can answer my argument that the use of the money is necessarily to be perpetual, there is no necessity for the insertion of these words, and that he ought to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.

(3.48.) COLONEL NOLAN

I would only observe that these words ought to be left out, for this reason: This £78,000 comes out of the tax on Irish industry, so that we are paying large sums into the Exchequer and only getting back £78,000. Now, the Whisky Tax goes on, and this £78,000 may be withdrawn. I think these words should be struck out.

(3.49.) MR. SEXTON

You are dealing with one tax, and, if you withdraw the sum applied to this purpose, you will have the whole of the money, though the Bill says it shall be applied to primary education in any financial year. I say that if you continue the tax, you cannot propose to deal with the £40,000 without opening up the question of the £78,000. I submit that the governing words in any financial year ought to be allowed to apply, without qualification, to both sums.

(3.50.) MR. GOSCHEN

The argument of the hon. Member would be perfectly correct if we proposed to deal with the 6d. tax. But a distinction has been drawn not only in the case of Ireland, but will be drawn in the case of England, as regards the money which has been set free by the abandonment of the licences clauses, which money was devoted to the other purposes included in the Bill. The Government desire to keep their hands free as regards the former. I would further point out that it is not absolutely certain that all these purposes will be certain to be met, even if the tax of 6d. is maintained. Therefore, we have introduced the principle of a residue, and to that residue we do not give the same permanent character as to the remainder. It is highly possible and probable that this sum of money will be so well and usefully spent in Ireland that even if it is not continued according to the provisions of this Bill, it might be desired to continue it from another source. Therefore, I do not wish it to be understood that this contribution to intermediate education would necessarily fall through even if the tax were reduced.

(3.53.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

The hon. Gentleman said that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to introduce a flavour of uncertainty. We do not want this flavour of uncertainty.

* Mr. GOSCHEN

There is no uncertainty about the £78,000.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I think there is as much damage done by the uncertainty to intermediate education as to primary education. I hope the hon. Gentleman will press his Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

No one has any doubt that the tax of 6d. will yield a sufficient sum, and, therefore, that argument is disposed of. With regard to the £40,000, I would again point out that the omission of the words would not limit the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the money either by the abolition of this grant or by the transfer of the charge to any other tax. If these words are retained they will cause a feeling of uneasiness. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not mar the feeling of unanimity which exists on this question, a feeling too seldom experienced on Irish affairs in this House. I would respectfully urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and on the Chief Secretary, who has shown some disposition to meet us in this matter, to allow both sums to stand on the same level.

COLONEL NOLAN

I would like to point out that if these words are left in anyone who preached against intemper- ance would injure intermediate education. You put the Irish people in this absurd predicament: You say, "The more whisky you drink the better education you will get." If the Irish people do not keep on drinking whisky then their intermediate education will fall through.

(3.57.) MR. E. HARRINGTON

I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The words proposed to be left in introduce a degree of uncertainty which would have a, bad effect. These words will be an indication of uncertainty which will have a moral effect, and I think an unanswerable argument is adduced when it is said that the allocation of this money to intermediate education in Ireland is conditional upon our drinking a certain amount of whisky in Ireland. It is not fair to throw that onerous and important duty upon us; and if the Government persist, in the event of their being a scarcity of funds, we should, of course, have to appeal to the hon. Member for South Tyrone and his friends to assist us in earning the money. We have had no reason given for the words, "Until Parliament otherwise determines." Why, Sir, the Union was agreed to "until Parliament otherwise determines," and that is the case with all fundamental Acts. Do you mean to say with reference to this £40,000 and £78,000 that one sum shall appear in the Appropriation and Continuance Acts and the other shall not? I hold that these words we wish to strike out are words of menace and a warning to intermediate education in Ireland, and that they will damage the very interest that the £40,000 is given to support. I think we have now put this matter very clearly before the Government. If the Government challenge a Division on these words, which they cannot defend, on them must depend the onus of protracting the discussion.

(4.3.) MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

There seem to me very strong reasons why an element of uncertainty should not be imported into this matter. There is no fact better known in Ireland than that the valuable system of intermediate education which was gradually growing up there has been sadly interfered with through the money grant having decreased from year to year and there having been insufficient funds to enable the schools to be kept in a state of inefficiency. I know an Order of brothers that has been losing large sums of money in the attempt to fit its pupils for intermediate education. I had an Amendment on the Paper with the object of giving the Order some share of this money; but as the Government have devoted it to intermediate education, I did not propose to persevere with the Amendment, or to try and fit it in with the new state of circumstances. I assumed that this would be a definite and permanent contribution. The Christian Brothers have lately had to consider whether it will not be necessary for them to close some of their schools and send some of their members away to the colonies or the Continent. The efficiency of the education they give has been attested by Royal Commission after Royal Commission; their pupils take many prizes, and it would be very regrettable if, through the admission of this element of uncertainty, they should be prevented from carrying on their useful work. If at some future time the Government desire to devote this particular £40,000 to some other purpose, it can be done, I apprehend, by some short Bill.

*(4.6.) MR. GOSCHEN

I would make an appeal to hon. Members opposite to be considerate in this matter. We have largely met their wishes in regard to the application of this money. We insisted on the retention of the words in the case of Scotland, and were supported in that by a majority of the Committee and if we omit the words in the case of Ireland, it will have a special signification and destroy the interpretation we have adopted in the case of Scotland. If the application of the money to intermediate education is found to have a beneficial effect in Ireland, even if it should be necessary to cut off this specific source of supply, it would be the duty of the Government to continue the grant. It is to be remembered that this is not merely an endowment, but an endowment from one particular source; and though it may be found expedient to continue the endowment, it may be right to obtain the money from some other source. It may be found expedient to continue the extra 6d. on whisky, or it may be found insufficient for the purpose. Do hon. Members from Ireland desire that this tax of 6d. on whisky should be permanent?

COLONEL NOLAN

No; but that the money should be permanent.

* MR. GOSCHEN

The question is merely one of the grant of a certain sum of money from a certain source. We are not granting it out of the Consolidated Fund, but from a particular source; and my case is, that the application of the money from that particular source to this specific purpose may be open to doubt, whilst it may not be open to doubt that the purpose should be continued.

(4.10.) Mr. SEXTON

The declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very important, and no doubt it goes far to meet the necessities of the case. Of course, we shall be glad to see an excessive and unjust tax lessened, if the useful object for which it is imposed can be otherwise attained. I understand that if this subvention is usefully applied, and if the source is abolished or proved to be insufficient, the Government will see that it is provided from another source. But I would suggest that the object the Government has in view in introducing the words "until Parliament otherwise determines" would be better accomplished by using the word "unless" instead of "until," because "until" appears to imply that Parliament will otherwise determine.

(4.12.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL

It is a dexterous speech we have just heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am not to be frightened and bought off by this declaration of the right hon. Gentleman as to the continuance of the Whisky Tax, as hon. Members below the Gangway appear to be. There are some of us who would not object if the Whisky Tax were even higher than it is. My objection to the clause is that Parliament is saying to the Board of Intermediate Education, "There is a donation of so much a year, but you are not to count it an annual subscription." The Intermediate Education Board cannot take effective action on such an understanding. If they are not sure of the money they can do nothing. If they go on the hypothesis that the money will be paid, they may get into difficulties. Those words have no value whatever from the standpoint of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(4.14.) MR. SEXTON

The prejudices of the hon. Member entirely blind him in this matter. We have an objection to the Whisky Tax, because we think that Ireland already contributes twice as much as she ought to the Imperial Exchequer, and we also think that if the tax is increased, the money obtained should be applied to some useful purpose.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

My answer to that is that the tax is paid by the consumer, and not by the distiller.

(4.15.) MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)

I repudiate entirely the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. We do not object to any Irish commodity being made available for taxation for the purpose of education, but what we want to be assured of is that, if this tax is taken off at some future time, it will have no prejudicial effect on intermediate education. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us a positive assurance.

* MR. GOSCHEN

Let there be no misunderstanding on the point. I thought I had expressed myself clearly. I stated what the general policy would be, and I thought I had generally satisfied hon. Members of the fairness of my position, but I gave no positive assurance, nor could such a positive pledge be given. I do trust hon. Members from Ireland will now allow this matter to be brought to a conclusion. I am sure I have endeavoured to meet them as fairly as possible.

(4.16.) MR, J. O'CONNOR

I have no desire to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly in the matter, but there is the point respecting the acceptance of the word "unless," instead of the word "until." If, in the future, this money should fail through any alteration in the incidence of taxation, we would undoubtedly be quite willing that the tax should be increased still further, if necessary, in order to keep the fund for the purposes to which it is to be applied. The question of intermediate education is one that cannot be left in a state of uncertainty in Ireland. The Irish nation is an emigrating nation. Up to the passing of the Intermediate Education Act the Irish emigrants were very badly equipped indeed for the purposes of emigration. Under that Act they have acquired some technical education, which enables them to meet in competition with the emigrants from other countries—such as Italy, and Germany, and France. As the clause stands, it leaves in a state of uncertainty the question whether the money set aside for the purpose of encouraging education will continue to be devoted to that purpose.

(4.18.) MR. SEXTON

I am unwilling to prolong the discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not denied that the word "until" colours the situation. It points to a time when Parliament will determine in a sense contrary to that now decided on.

*(4.19.) MR. GOSCHEN

I think the hon. Member will feel it is highly probable that if we give way on this small point we shall have to move an Amendment with reference to the clause respecting Scotland. ["No, no!"] Well, then I will agree to substitute "unless" for "until."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, To leave out "until" and insert"unless."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question, "That the word 'until' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That 'unless' be there inserted."

(4.20.) MR. STOREY

I frankly say I shall not take the trouble to move other Amendments. We have discussed for a long time, both yesterday and to-day, words that are absolutely useless in any Act of Parliament, and what is the outcome of the situation?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The Amendment now is that the word "unless" be inserted in the clause.

(4.22.) MR. STOREY

I was going to say that the insertion of the word "unless" is entirely unprecedented in the history of Parliament. The clause will provide that this money will be expended in a certain way "unless Parliament otherwise determines." Well, Sir, every Act of Parliament passed is subject to Parliament otherwise determining. The words are entirely useless.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

(4.24.) SIR G. CAMPBELL

The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to indicate that the Bill gave to Scotland more than to any other part of the Kingdom. The Bill gives to Scotland £40,000 for education, with the distinct proviso that it should not be applied to anything but compulsory elementary education. The clause now passed, or about to be passed, gives Ireland £78,000 for elementary education, and a further sum for higher education, assistance in regard to which is denied to Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that Scotland receives assistance by another measure. No doubt she gets something from the Probate Duties, but Ireland gets three or four times as much.

(4.26.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL

There are three or four Amendments on the Paper affecting model schools, and I hope the Government will inquire into them before the Report stage.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No doubt that will be done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4.

(4.27.) MR. STOREY

This clause deals with superannuation in England and Scotland, and I now propose to deal with the English question. I now propose a small Amendment which, with consequential Amendments, will materially modify the clause. At present, it provides that of the £300,000, which are to be given for the superannuation of the police, £150,000 shall go to the Metropolitan district of London, and the other £150,000 be distributed in certain proportions over the rest of England and Wales. My Amendment goes to that point, and that point only. I allege that that is an unjust and unequal distribution of the money, and I propose a plan by which the money will be distributed in equitable proportions. The clause, if amended as I propose, will run— The annual sum applicable under this Act for Police Superannuation in England shall he distributed among the Police Authorities for the Police Forces in England in a proportion equal to that which the number of the police in the Metropolitan Police District bears to the number of the police forces in the whole of England. If that is adopted, London, instead of getting £150,000, will receive her fair share and no more, according to her size, population, and rate able value, and the number of her police as compared with the number of the police forces of the country. Now, I understand that this proposal of mine is likely to meet with some opposition, not only from Conservative Members representing London, but also from Liberal and Radical Members who represent Metropolitan constituencies. I cannot imagine that anyone should for a moment wish to give London anything more than her fair share. I would scorn to ask for my own borough anything more than it is fairly entitled to. I want the Home Secretary to tell us why London is to have half the money that is to be allocated to England and Wales. At the extremest calculation, London has a population of, say, 5,000,000, and at the most modest computation the population of England and Wales is 25,000,000. Therefore, on the ground of population London would be entitled to only one-fifth of the money. With regard to the rateable value of London, it is very much inferior to one-half the rateable value of the country. But the great test I would apply is the amount which London contributes towards the sum we are obtaining. As the whole world knows, that sum has to be got out of drink. I do not think the London people drink any more than people in other parts of the country. If that be so, London does not contribute more in proportion than the rest of the Kingdom contributes towards this sum. I should say London does not contribute one quarter of the sum. On what ground, then, can London be entitled to receive one-half? I come now to a still better test. I should say this money ought to be distributed according to the size of the police forces in the different districts. Such a distribution must be in favour of London, and not against it. The peculiar circumstances of London are such that we may assume the Metropolis has a larger number of policemen than an equal population elsewhere. This supposition is certainly borne out by facts. The Junior Member for Derby (Mr. T. Roe) had an Amendment down to the Bill, and I understand he put it down in concert with the Association of Municipal Corporations. But he tells me to-day that he understands that Association is satisfied by some arguments or explanations which the Home Secretary has given, and he does not intend to press that Amendment. I am astounded to hear this. I must venture to differentiate between the Municipal Corporations and the limited number of gentlemen who have presumed in this matter, at this late period of the day, to speak for the Municipal Corporations. Speaking for my own borough, I venture to say that we have no part or lot in any agreement; but, on the contrary, our County Council, with the fullest knowledge of the Bill, and after the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman, have petitioned against the measure, which they regard as mischievous, and in part as useless. I think the Home Secretary will not contend that on any of the four bases I laid down London is entitled to anything like one-half of this money. What is the argument he has addressed to the gentlemen I have spoken of to induce them to give way? I understand that London, in consequence of having a greater number of pensioners, and a probable demand for a greater number still, really needed more money than other parts of the country. I admit London has a great many pensioners, and is likely to have a great many more. I imagine that if the ratepayers could measure what this Superannuation Bill will involve them in, they would give it as wide a berth as a sailing ship does a steamer at sea. The number of the Metropolitan policemen at the present moment is between 14,000 and 15,000. The Police Forces of England and Wales together, including the Metropolitan Police, amount to 38,000. Therefore, the forces outside the Metropolis number 24,000. The Government contend that the 14,000 Metropolitan Police should have an exactly equal amount of the public funds for the purpose of superannuation with the 24,000 outside the Metropolitan area. I submit that, on the face of it, this is an unjust and unfair proposition, which cannot be defended in argument. I believe I am right in saying that at present the deficiency in London approaches nearly to £200,000, while the number of pensioned persons is 4,000, or a little more. In the rest of England and Wales the number of pensioned persons is 3,500, or a little more. To this extent, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has some reason on his side. The total amount of pensions paid last year for police in England and Wales, including the Metropolis, was £370,000, and of this £200,000 went to the Metropolitan Police. Again, I freely admit that, on the facts as they stand, the right hon. Gentleman has some reason on his side, but I say we have no right to settle this matter on the basis of the existing state of things. The right hon. Gentleman ought to project his mind forward a few years, and see, when an efficient and complete system of superannuation is carried out throughout the whole of the country, what will be the relative proportion between London and the rest of England and Wales. I will take £400,000 as the probable cost of superannuation in the Metropolis within a very limited time. According to the scheme of this Bill superannuation is to be on the same level and to grow in the same way throughout the country, and I estimate that the cost of superannuation outside the Metropolitan area in the same period will be £700,000 a year. That means a total of at least £1,000,000. Well, in the portion of the country where superannuation costs £400,000 a year the Government contribution will be £150,000, while in the rest of the country where the cost will be £700,000 a year the Government contribution will also be £150,000. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, this is not just. My view is that he should take the police forces of the country and divide his £300,000 equitably amongst them according to their numbers, on the principle that their numbers are the test of the necessities of their districts. As things now are, I admit, the right hon. Gentleman's scheme does not appear so very equitable. In the County of Durham, which has 550 policemen and 57 pensioners, to whom it pays £3,300 a year, the amount obtained from the Government will be £3,000. Northumberland has 200 policemen and 28 pansioners; it pays £1.500 a year in pensions, and will get £1,200. New-castle-on-Tyne has 270 police and 25 pensioners; it pays £1,360 in pensions, and is to get £1,400 a year. Sunderland has 134 policemen and 25 pensioners; it pays£l,100 a year in pensions, and is to get £1,000 a year. All this does not appear so bad, but I say the right hon. Gentleman has no right to take the present state of affairs. Looking forward for a brief period, I find that Durham will have to pay £15,000 a year for pensions, while it will still continue to get a contribution of only £3,000. The same result is exhibited in the other cases. For instance, Sunderland, with 134 policemen, will within a very brief period be paying £4,000 for pensions, and receiving only £1,000. As far as we are concerned, we do not want the right hon. Gentleman's money, nor his control. We want to be left alone after the good old fashion of municipalities; but, if he will devote this money to the purpose in hand, he has no business to give an unfair share to the Metropolis. If the right hon. Gentleman is determined to divide this money, he has no right to give the Metropolis more than its fair share. On these grounds I intend to move the first of the Amendments which stand in my name, with a view of afterwards moving that the money shall be divided pro rata among the police forces of the country.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 33, to leave out the words "out of."— (Mr. Storey.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'out of' stand part of the Clause."

(5.11.) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.

Although the object of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to distribute the sum available according to the numbers of the various police forces, he has pretty well admitted that that is not a proper or equitable mode of distribution. The numbers of the police stand in no fixed or regular proportion to the superannuation charge. That charge depends not on the aggregate number of men in the force, but on the number of pensionable men—men who have served 15 years. It is true, as stated by the hon. Member, that in 1888–89, the Metropolitan Police Force numbered only a little over 14,000 men; since then, it has been augmented by a thousand men. None of those men could become chargeable upon the superannuation fund for at least 15 years, yet the hon. Member would allow the Metropolitan Police to draw pension contributions on account of those men during all those 15 years. That shows that the hon. Member's principle of distribution is not and cannot be a fair one. Take the case of a new borough just starting a police force of its own with 400 or 500 men; it would be obviously unfair to put it on the same footing with an old borough having a force of about the same strength, in which a large proportion of the men have reached the pensionable age and period of service, and who are coming on to the fund from time to time for a pension. Distribution according to numbers is obviously unfair and improper, and the only equitable mode of distribution is according to the actual figures of the pension charge. The numbers of the police were, in the Metropolis about 14,000, and in the provinces 23,000 in 1888–9; but the pension charges for the same year were, in the provinces (including the City of London, which is now excluded from the Bill) £177,000, and in the Metropolis £193,000. If the money were distributed according to the latter figures, the Metropolis would get more than is given to it by the Bill. But, says the hon. Member, "You must project your mind into the future; this system of distribution is to be for all time. You must not only fix the proportion in a way which is fair at present, but in a way which will be fair in the future also." That is making a very large call upon the ingenuity of any draftsman. If we do project our minds into the future, is there not a prospect that the increase in the Metropolis charge will be as rapid and as considerable as that in the provinces. I have, however, made what inquiries I could, and have laid on the Table actuarial calculations as to the probable future pension charge in the Metropolis. The figures run up to £520,000 or £530,000. I do not know where the hon. Member got his estimate of the probable future charge in the provinces. I have no figures myself, but general considerations induce me to think that the growth of the pension charge in the provinces will be neither so great nor so rapid as in the Metropolis.

In the Metropolis the scale will be the maximum, while in the provinces it will probably be something below that. The amount paid to pensionable men will, therefore, not be so large. We know by actual experience that in the provinces there are various ways by which superannuation charges may be avoided, but which cannot be adopted in the Metropolis.

MR. STOREY

But your Bill will prevent that.

MR. MATTHEWS

The Bill no doubt gives the right to a police constable to a pension, but constables in the provinces often prefer after 25 years' service to stay in the force and draw their pay rather than retire on pension, while experience shows that is not so in the Metropolis. That practice, which is of constant occurrence in boroughs and in the provinces generally, will tend to diminish the number of men on the pension charge. The distribution in the Bill is more than justified by existing facts, and, so far as I am able to form a judgment, will continue to be so for the next 30 or 40 years. If the time should arrive when the distribution becomes unfair, it can then be re-considered. I know of no reason why the growth of the pension charge in the provinces should be greater than in the Metropolis, except in the case of a few small boroughs which have systematically avoided pensions in the past.

Question put, and negatived.

(5.16.) MR. STOREY

I did not press the last Amendment to a Division, but I propose to divide the House on the next one which proposes to substitute £120,000 for £150,000.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 24, to leave out "50,"and insert"20,"—(Mr. Storey,)—instead thereof.

Question put, "That '50' stand part of the Clause."

(5.20.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 175; Noes 104.—(Div. List, No. 215.)

(5.28.) MR. STOREY

I now beg to move to insert after the words "shall be paid" the words "for one year," so as to fix the contribution for London for one year only. I do so in order to enable the Committee to see in its naked entirety what we are being committed to. The Home Secretary, when I invited him to project himself into the future, said he was unable to accomplish that acrobatic feat. The last thing I should think of asking the right hon. Gentleman to do would be to perform an acrobatic feat, but I should like to point out that he did not contend, neither can he contend, that when full effect is given to this scheme—

It being half past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.