Commons Sitting of 30 July 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  HANOVER CHAPEL BILL [LORDS].
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th July], "That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Queen's Consent signified.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Henry J. Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHILDERS: I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, as it is a somewhat unusual coarse to move the rejection of a Bill without assigning any reasons for the Motion. Perhaps, under the circumstances, I had better say a word as to what the Bill does, and why it is considered to be necessary. It is a Bill which after having received discussion in the House was referred to a Select Committee of five members—three selected in the usual way and two nominated by the Committee of Selection. I was one of the two nominated by the Committee of Selection, and I can safely say that both of us entered the Committee with perfectly open minds. Neither of us took part in the Division upon the second reading, and neither of us had the slightest bias either one way or the other. The fact of the matter is, that the existing Church has come to be altogether unsuited to the wants of the parish, and it has been thought desirable to dispose of the site and erect another Church in the centre of the parish where it will better meet the necessities of the locality. I may add that the Bill is unanimously

  747
  supported by the inhabitants of the parish.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I rise to protest against debating so small a question at so late a period of the Session. The whole question has already been fully discussed. I do not deny that the right hon. Gentleman has put all the facts clearly and cogently before the House, but we have heard them already and there is nothing more to be said upon the matter. Certainly nothing has occurred to-day to remove from the minds of hon. Members that a complete job is being perpetrated.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill refrained from giving any reasons why a measure, which was fully discussed upon the Second Reading and has passed the ordeal of a Committee, should be rejected at the eleventh hour. When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading we were told that the measure was very much opposed by the parish, and it was pointed out that there was a petition against it from the Vestry. It appeared, however, when the Committee met upstairs that the Vestry had withdrawn their petition and that the Bill was altogether unopposed except by a certain charitable Trust. One of the great points on the Second Reading was that it was proposed to destroy an artistic monument, but no architects for artistic purposes appeared before the Committee at all. The Institute of Architects did petition, but no appearance was put in in support of the petition. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) cross-examined the witnesses in order to prove his contention, but he completely failed; and it was shown that the removal of the church will be of material advantage to the inhabitants of the parish. I am afraid that the Motion to reject the Bill is to be attributed to that bitter opposition to improvements in the Church of England of which we had a signal instance yesterday afternoon. I hope that all fair-minded Members of the House will combine to resist the opposition offered to this Bill.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
  748
  As a resident of the parish, I can assure hon. Members that the removal of this church is very much needed by an increasing and populous district, and it would be a great loss-to the neighbourhood if the Bill were rejected. It is simply an exchange of one site for another, and if the removal takes place there will be an excellent church, with a parsonage as well. The population to be served is a working class population, who will be placed at a great disadvantage if the Bill is rejected.
  MR. W. H. CROSS: The Bill was referred to a hybrid Committee at the special request of the opponents. The Committee went very fully into every matter, and the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), although invited to place his views before the Committee, did not appear, and no real opposition was offered to the Bill. I do not think the Committee could have done more than they did to satisfy the reasonable wishes of the opponents of the measure, and it does seem to me unreasonable that the hon. Member for Holmfirth (Mr. H. J. Wilson) should now, without a word of explanation, move the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. COURTNEY: I do not object to the protest of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. C. Graham) against a waste of time, but it is somewhat singular that the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill did not utter a word of explanation in doing so. He did not even state that he thought all the arguments on the subject had been exhausted, and that a further speech was unnecessary. That being so, it appears to me as if the hon. Member's motive in the action he had taken was not to save the time of the House, but the hope that if the House proceeded to a Division at once the Bill would be rejected. That appears to me to have been the motive that actuated the hon. Member, but, if it was not so, perhaps he will rise in his place and clear himself of it. I have laid it down over and over again that if a Bill has been read a second time, referred to a Committee and passed by that Committee after being examined in all its details, and if, too, the Bill is defended by the Chairman of the Committee on the Third Reading stage

  749
  before the House, it would be a destruction of our method of procedure and an abuse of power if the House insisted for some private reason on ruining the Bill against the well-considered decision of the majority on the Second Reading and against the views of the Committee. There is a word often used in the House, the meaning of which I think is rarely strictly examined—I refer to the word "obstruction." Cries of obstruction are often raised, and, in my opinion, frequently without justice. In connection with this word, I think I may refer to a speech which I made in this House 10 years ago, in which I attempted to define what obstruction is. I then laid down that obstruction is not prolonging a Debate in order to secure greater objection or fresh discussion in the House or in the country. That may be justifiable. What I consider to be obstruction is the use of the power given by the forms of the House by a few persons to defeat what is the desire of the majority, after the question has been thoroughly examined, after every argument has been stated, and after the House and the country know exactly what is in issue. If the House, on the chance position it was then in, at five minutes past 3 o'clock, had used the power which the Members then had to defeat the Bill, although the Members then present might have been in the majority, their action would have been, in my opinion, open to the charge of obstruction such, as I have attempted to define.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from a very responsible Member of the House an ex parte definition of "obstruction," which I do not wish to go forth as the correct definition. I therefore ask you whether we are to accept that definition or not.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is so good a judge of order that I can add nothing to what he has said.
  SIR H. JAMES: Like many other Members present, all I know of the Bill is that it has passed the Second Reading, and that a very strong Committee has reported in its favour. I admit that on some occasions the House might properly and rightly overrule the
  750
  decisions of a Committee; but it is altogether unusual to ask the House to do so without a single reason being given why it should be done. My mind is quite open on the matter, and I ask those who dissent from the Report of the Committee on this Bill to state the reasons why the Bill should not be passed. If hon. Gentlemen who are against the Bill do not think it worth their while to give one reason why the decision of the Committee should be upset, I shall certainly think it right to vote in favour of the decision of the Committee.
  (3.33.) The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 55.—(Div. List, No. 400.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  (3.40.) Standing Order 8A was read, and amended in line 4, by leaving out the words "and the total amount of fees, including the prescribed fee for enlargement, under Section 17 of 'The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883,' due and to become due on the patent shall be deposited with the Comptroller before the meeting of the Committee on the Bill, and such deposit proved before the Committee."
  Standing Order 21 was read, and amended in line 1, by leaving out, after the word "on," the word "a," and by leaving out, after the word "Sunday," the word "or."
  Standing Order 23 was read, and amended in line 2, by leaving out, after the word "on," the word "a," and by leaving out, after the word "Sunday," the word "or."
  Standing Order 39 was read, and amended in line 1, by leaving out, after the word "sections," the word "or," and by inserting, after the word "Reference," the words "or Maps."
  Standing Order 158 was read, and amended:—
  In (A.) line 9, by inserting after the word "compensated," the words "or interested.
  "In (B.) line 26, by inserting after the word "passengers," the words "and if the Company shall make default in so opening the said Railway [Tramway or Subway] the deposit fund shall be applicable and shall be applied as provided by the next following section."
  In (C.) line 22, by leaving out the words "and for which injury or loss no compensation or inadequate compensation shall have been paid."
  In line 34, by inserting after the word "undertaking," the words "[in the case of a penalty the Railway or Railways in respect of which the penalty has been incurred for any part thereof]."

  751
  In line 38, by inserting after the word "depositors," the word "(Company)."
  In line 45, by adding after the word "omitted," the words "In the case of a Bail-way Company omit the words 'and has been ordered to be wound up,' and 'or to the liquidator or liquidators of the Company,' and where there is no deposit omit the proviso."
  Standing Order 175 was read, and amended by adding at the end of the Standing Order, the words "and the total amount of fees (including the prescribed fee for enlargement under section" 17 of "The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883), due and to become due on the patent, shall be deposited with the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, before the meeting of the Committee on the Bill, and such deposit proved before the Committee."
  Standing Order 183A was read, and amended, in line 1, by leaving out the word "contains," and inserting the words "gives, revives, or extends."
  MR. COURTNEY: I beg now to move the following new Standing Order to follow Standing Order 193:—
  "No Bill originating in this House for confirming a Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read the first time after the Whitsuntide Recess."
  It is simply intended by this Amendment to convert into a Standing Order what was adopted earlier in the Session as a Sessional Order. It is desirable to get these Bills before Committees early enough to secure their adequate consideration; and the only question is whether it is better to choose a fixed "date or a moveable holiday. On the whole, I prefer to say Whitsuntide.
  New Standing Order to follow Standing Order 193.
  (Provisional Orders and Provisional Certificates.)
  193A. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That no Bill, originating in this House, for confirming a Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, shall be read the first time after the Whitsuntide Recess."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am afraid that I do not quite agree with my right hon. Friend. Having had some considerable experience in connection with Provisional Order Bills, I am of opinion that the period named by my right hon. Friend would be very inconvenient, and that it will be better to have regard to a particular period of the Session than to a holiday, which might
  752
  come as early as the 10th of May, or at any time within a range of four weeks after that date. Therefore, I propose as an Amendment to omit Whitsuntide and substitute the 1st day of June.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "Whitsuntide recess," and insert "First day of June."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. COBB: May I ask whether the working of the Allotments Act will be prejudiced by fixing this date?
  MR. BRUNNER: May I suggest that instead of fixing the 1st of June it would be better to name a definite time after the beginning of the Session.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The fixing of the date has reference rather to the end than to the beginning of the Session. The operation of the Allotments Act need not be prejudiced by fixing this date, because other proceedings with regard to Provisional Orders will not be altered.
  SIR J. MOWBRAY: In my opinion, the date fixed ought to have reference to the end of the Session and the difficulty of obtaining Members to sit on Committees as the Session advances. For this reason I think the 1st of June would be preferable to Whitsuntide.
  MR. COURTNEY: I am quite willing to try the experiment of adopting the 1st of June instead of Whitsuntide.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That 'June 1st' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Standing Orders, as amended, agreed to.

SLANDER OF WOMEN BILL.—(No. 150.)
(4.0.) Lords' Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 244.)
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
Return ordered—
"Showing, by Counties, the Free Quota and Extra Force of the Royal Irish Constabulary throughout Ireland for the year ended 31st day of March, 1891, in the following form:—

Counties and Depôt.

Free Quota (i e., Proportion of 10,006 Men assigned.

Extra Force authorised.

Total Establishment.

Average number of Men actually serving.

Apportioned per 29 and 30 Vic., c.103, s. 14.

Average Free Quota.

Average Extra Force chargeable.

Totals

—(Mr. Mahony.)

TREASON FELONY (PERSONS UNDER SENTENCE).
Address for—
"A Return of the names and number of Persons now suffering sentences of Penal Servitude in Ireland and England as a consequence of conviction for Treason Felony, showing (a) the date of conviction; (b) the length of the sentence; and (c) the prison where the convict is imprisoned."—(Mr. Parnell.)

QUESTIONS.

  MR. MAGAN (CORRESPONDENCE).
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will grant the following Return, which appears on the Paper in my name:—
  "Return of the Correspondence between Mr. L. P. Hayden and the Irish Land Commission, between Mr. Hayden and the Attorney General for Ireland, and between Mr. Percy Magan, J. P., and the Attorney General for Ireland and the Irish Land Commission, in reference to charges brought against Mr. Magan, of having fraudulently obtained money under the Arrears Act; and the Correspondence between Mr. Magan and the Lord Chancellor, and the Irish Office and the Lord Chancellor, in the same matter."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I am afraid that I cannot give this Return in the exact form in which the hon. Member asks for it. I will communicate with the hon. Member
  754
  as to the form in which it can be given.
  In reply to a question by MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.),
  MR. MADDENsaid: My difficulty has reference to the correspondence between the Irish Office and the Lord Chancellor, which concerns two separate Departments of the Government.

  THE RAJABAI TOWER TRAGEDY.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that among the public of Bombay serious alarm exists on account of the attitude and proceedings of the local police in connection with the case known as the Rajabai Tower Tragedy; whether he is aware that, in that case, the medical men who first viewed the corpses of the two Parsi girls, on the afternoon of the 25th of April, certified that there were on their persons certain marks indicating attempted outrage, but nevertheless, before the post-mortem examination was held, the police adopted, and throughout the inquiry maintained, the theory of accident, or suicide; that the man Aslajee, who was arrested the same evening on suspicion, was found to have his jacket torn and his trousers soiled, but that, nevertheless, he was released the same night, at 3 a.m., without even his person being examined or his clothes

  755
  detained; and that for 56 hours the police failed to follow up an important clue furnished to them in person by one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace; whether these, and other allegations, tending to show bias and neglect of duty on the part of the police, were set forth in a Memorial to the Bombay Government, signed by Sir Jamsetjee Jeheebhoy, Sir Duishah Petit, and some 45,000 inhabitants of Bombay, and praying that a complete investigation by independent and competent officers should be made into the facts of the case; whether the Secretary of State is aware that the said prayer was disregarded by the Bombay Government; that the man Aslajee was committed for trial upon incomplete evidence; and that he was acquitted; and whether the Secretary of State will order an independent investigation into this case with a view to allay the public alarm, and to clear the good name of the local police administration?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State has no official information as to the facts stated in the question. The Petition to the Bombay Government signed by Sir Jamsetjee Jeheebhoy and others seems to have been presented while the proceedings against the accused man were going on. The Bombay Government very properly refused to interfere with the course of justice, but reserved the consideration of the necessity for further inquiry until the trial was concluded. The whole matter has received, and is receiving, the fullest attention of the Government of Bombay, and the Secretary of State sees no reason for interference.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position now to fix a day for taking the Indian Budget?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): We have thought of putting down the Indian Budget for Monday or Tuesday next; but it is impossible to come to any definite arrangement until we are enabled to see how we stand in regard to Supply.

  WATER SUPPLY FOR OTLEY, SUFFOLK.
  MR. STERN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether complaint has been made to his Department in reference to the neglect of the Wood-bridge Rural Sanitary Authority to carry out the Sanitary Act in connection with the supply of pure water to Otley, in Suffolk; how many cases of illness and death from fever have occurred in that district during the last two years, and will the Local Government Board use its powers to compel the Local Authority to proceed at once with the necessary works?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): In January of the present year the Local Government Board received a complaint as to the supply of water in the parish of Otley. They communicated with the Rural Sanitary Authority, and were informed that the authority had directed that inquiry should be made by the Medical Officer of Health, and that it appeared from his Report that there was ground for complaint. They resolved that the owners should be required to provide a proper supply for the use of their tenants; and that if they failed to comply the authority would order the necessary works to be carried out, and charge the expenses upon them. This reply was communicated to the complainant, and the Board have received no further complaint in the matter. I have since been informed by the Sanitary Authority that they have called upon the owners of the properties in question to provide a proper supply of water. It is stated, in answer to my inquiries, that no deaths from fever at Otley are shown by the Registrar General's Reports during the two years ended 31st December last, but the authority are unable to furnish information as to the number of non-fatal cases of fever. The Local Government Board have not at present any facts showing that their intervention in the way of directing a local inquiry is necessary, but they will communicate further with the authority, with the view of obtaining more precise information as to the action which has been taken by them, and as to its results.

  ENGLISH PRISON OFFICIALS.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether English prison officials are obliged to dress in uniform when off duty?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARIMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): There is no general order on the subject in local prisons. In convict prisons officers are permitted to wear plain clothes when on leave of absence, but on no other occasion.

  TITHE REFERENCE BOOKS.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture why fees are demanded for inspection of the Tithe Reference Books; whether those books were prepared at public expense; and whether he will consider the desirability of permitting the examination of such books without charge, as is permitted in regard to documents at the Patent, the Record, and other public Offices?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Fees have hitherto been demanded for the inspection of the Tithe Reference Books in order to cover the cost of an attendant capable of affording and explaining information respecting them, as well as for taking them out and replacing them. The tithe apportionments and maps were prepared in part at the public expense and in part at the expense of the landowners in the several parishes. It is not the case, I am informed, that the inspection of documents is permitted in the Patent, Record, and other Public Offices without fees, and, so far as I am at present informed, I am aware of no reason for remitting the fees in this case.

  THE ROSS BENCH OF MAGISTRATES.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the remission of one-half of the sentence of imprisonment which was passed upon William Jarvis by the Ross Bench of Magistrates, advised by him in June last, upon statements made to him in memorials and letters from the neigh-
  758
  bourhood, alleging, inter alia, that the punishment was excessive, and that evidence was improperly admitted by the Bench, whether he is aware that, at the recent Herefordshire Summer Assizes, James Green, who had been sent for trial for criminal assault by the same Bench, was discharged as not guilty, and Mr. Baron Pollock stopped the case, saying that it ought never to have been sent for trial; whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Ross Bench is a clergyman 80 years of age, the next Magistrate a doctor nearly 90 years of age, three other Magistrates clergymen, and six military men, and only two lawyers who never attend the Bench, and that the recently appointed Clerk to the Magistrates is a man who has had no legal education, and is not a lawyer; whether Mr. William Hebb, the Registrar to the Newent County Court, who is also a practising solicitor at Ross, wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 22nd June, pointing out that the Magistrates had no responsible-clerk; and whether, under the circumstances, he will point out to the Magistrates on the Ross Bench that it is desirable that they should appoint a trained lawyer as their clerk?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have only seen a newspaper account of the case against James Green, in which there is nothing to indicate that the learned Judge said or implied anything by way of censure on the Ross Bench. I will, however, make inquiry of the Judge on this-point. It must not be understood that, because I advised a remission of part of the sentence in the case of Jarvis, I intended in any way to find fault with the Bench. It was a question of the amount of punishment for an admitted offence, as to which there can properly be a difference of opinion. It is no part of my duty to inquire into the ages and professions of gentlemen holding commissions of the peace; and, with regard to the Clerk to the Justices, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on the 27th of April.

  WHITFIELD CHURCHYARD, DERBYSHIRE.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that an addition has been

  759
  made to the churchyard of Whitfield, Derbyshire, in the diocese of Southwell, the land being conveyed under a private Trust to the vicar and churchwardens as a parish burial ground for the inhabitants of the parish, but to be used only for burials in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, burials under the Burial Act of 1880 being for that reason prohibited; whether he is aware that an addition has also been made to the churchyard of Tettenhall, in the diocese of Lichfield, on the same conditions and with the same result; and whether, in view of the fact that the 9th section of the Burial Act of 1880 provides that such conditions shall not be imposed in any churchyard or part of the churchyard of any parish, he will take steps to prevent the Nonconformist inhabitants of the two parishes named being deprived of the rights secured or intended to be secured to them by such Act?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have made inquiry, and am informed that in neither case is the ground part of the churchyard. These are private burial grounds governed by the terms of the deed of Trust. The Act of 1880 does not apply to such grounds, and it was not the intention of Parliament to interfere with private Trusts of this character.

  COST OF ASSIZE PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the refusal of certain County Councils to reimburse Quarter Sessions boroughs the costs of prosecutions at Assizes of prisoners committed for trial from such boroughs; and whether, inasmuch as Section 35 of "The Local Government Act, 1888," makes all costs of such prosecutions (formerly reimbursed from Her Majesty's Treasury) a charge upon the County Fund, the Government will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent Quarter Sessions boroughs from being placed in a worse financial position in this matter than they were in before the passing of "The Local Government Act, 1888," and of the grants in aid of local taxation?
  *MR. RITCHIE: My attention has not been called to the refusal of any County Council to reimburse Quarter Sessions boroughs the cost of prosecutions at
  760
  Assizes of prisoners committed for trial from those boroughs. I infer from the question that a difference has arisen in some case between a County Council and the Town Council of a borough on this point. If the facts of this particular case are communicated to the Local Government Board the question will receive their consideration.

  BROOMFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the school district of Broom-field, in the County of Somerset, had in 1881 a population of 420, and has now a population of about 380; whether the small population grant (Art. 104 of the present Code) has been paid to the national school in this district since the year 1886; and, if so, for what years; and by what legal authority has this grant been paid to a school in a district whose population exceeds 300?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): A grant of £15 has been paid to the Broomfield School for many years, under the authority of Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, on the ground that the population within two miles, measured according to the nearest road, is less than 200, and that there is no other public elementary school recognised by the Department as available for that population.

  ALL SAINTS' SCHOOLS, WELLINGBOROUGH.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department have entertained the application for annual grants to the new infants' school proposed to be opened by the managers of All Saints' Schools, at Wellingborough, in the Midland Road; whether he is aware that there are at present 700 vacant places in four schools in the immediate neighbourhood, including one Church of England, one Roman Catholic, and two Board schools; whether the Department has also refused to sanction the provision of a new Board school in the neighbourhood of the Northampton Road, at the west end of Wellingborough, although the inhabitants of that growing

  761
  district have petitioned the School Board to provide such a school; whether the Wellingborough School Board have represented to the Education Department that the parents at the west end of the town wish to have a choice of schools, and that the existing accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood is unsuitable, being in denominational schools; and whether he will re-consider these decisions in view of the provisions of the Act of 1870, and especially with the 5th and 18th sections of that Act?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: The new infants' school which the Department have sanctioned is only new in the sense of its having been transferred to new buildings, and it is not the practice to place any obstacle in the way of managers improving their school accommodation, whatever vacant places may be found in neighbouring schools. The Department have not refused to sanction the erection of a new Board school at the west end of the town, but have, after careful inquiry, expressed an opinion that the project should, for the present, be deferred. I am not able to follow the hon. Member in respect to his concluding suggestion, as it was a fundamental principle of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and has since been an axiom of the Department's administration that every public elementary school is, ipso facto, suitable.

  ARMY CONTRACTS.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an order has been given from the War Office to Messrs. Hebbert and Co., of James Street, Haymarket, S.W., for 10,000 pouches and belts for telegraph messengers; if so, whether the contract permits Messrs. Ross & Co., of Grange Mills, Bermondsey, who were struck off the list of contractors, to cut and supply leather for the order; and if the factory clause is inserted in the above contract?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK,): Messrs. Hebbert & Co. hold the contract for pouches and belts for telegraph messengers. Under the contract the contractors are required to have the cutting-out done on their own premises, but there is no restriction as to the source whence the
  762
  materials are procured, provided they comply with the prescribed pattern. The Factory Clause is included in the contract.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Would it be illegal for Messrs. Ross to deal in any way with the material they supply in cutting out the articles, seeing that they have been struck off the list of contractors?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Messrs. Ross and Co. are prohibited from providing any manufactured goods of any sort or kind. But contractors for the War Office have-power to obtain the material in any market, provided the article complies with the terms of the contract.
  MR. HOWELL: Is not that a violation of the pledge-given to the House when the question of contracts was under discussion?
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Were not Messrs. Ross struck off the list of contractors because the material they used for their articles was not of the right quality?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The material can be purchased any where, provided that it is according to contract, and care is taken to see that the conditions laid down are carried out.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Is the standard rate of wages given by these contractors?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The rates of wages are agreed upon and are published in the workshop, where every man can see what he is entitled to.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Why was this proviso made in this contract? If the wages are to be arranged by the Director of Contracts, the whole plan mentioned in the House as having been adopted by the Government falls to the ground.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The proviso was made in this case because the trade is not a general one, but peculiar to the requirements of the War Department. There is no standard rate of wages, and no market for rejections. The War Office found that the wages offered to the people employed in this particular trade were what might be termed of a sweating description. It was felt that the Government ought to prevent their work being executed in that way, and for that reason a price was agreed upon

  763
  between the contractors and the War Office—a price which is known to the workpeople, and which they can obtain.

  THE SHARPSHOOTER AND THE SPANKER.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the finding of the Court of Inquiry appointed to examine into the cause of the burning of the fire-bars of the Sharpshooter, namely, "that it arose from the inexperience of the stokers"; and whether there was any evidence to show that the accident was due in some measure to the use of sulphurous coal; and whether it is true that another vessel belonging to the manœuvring squadrons, the Spanker, has had to return to port through the weakness of one of the boilers and defective machinery, and that, in consequence of these defects, will be unable to rejoin the division this season?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): There was no evidence to show that the burning of the fire-bars of the Sharpshooter was in any way due to the use of sulphurous coal. Welsh coal alone was used. In the case of the Spanker, the accident to the boiler was entirely due to the shortness of water, and not to weakness of construction, while the defect of the machinery was caused by the breakdown of one of the slide valves of the port low-pressure engine, an unaccountable accident in the opinion of the Court of Inquiry, and one in which no blame attached to anyone. The Spanker, after undergoing the necessary repairs, sailed to rejoin the Fleet on the 25th inst.

  A RECENT PRIZE FIGHT.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report in the Standard and other papers of 28th July of the prize fight for,£1,000 between Smith and Pritchard, which took place on the night of 27th July, from which it appears that, notwithstanding that gloves were used, Pritchard was in the first round felled to the ground by a "terrific body blow," and in the third round Smith was twice driven half across the ring "with terrific left-handers in the face," and held on to
  764
  the ropes for support, but that after this Pritchard knocked him down twice, so that Smith was hanging half out of the ring, and Pritchard was declared the winner; whether he is aware that the gloves which are used are mere evasions of the law, and that blows dealt with them are quite as damaging, and in some cases more so, than those dealt with fists; whether he is aware that prize fights under the name of glove fights have been on the increase during the last two years; whether the police were present at, or were aware of, the prize fight in question, and if the names of the promoters of the fight can be given; and whether he will take stringent steps to stop these fights, and to punish not only the combatants but those of all classes who promote and attend them?
  MR. E. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: May I ask whether, if proper gloves were used, these boxing matches are not perfectly legitimate?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen the paragraph quoted from the newspapers as to the prize fight between Smith and Pritchard. The police were not able to effect an entrance in time to be present at the encounter, which only lasted a few minutes, but they inform me that, having entered and seen both the pugilists immediately afterwards, the only injury they observed was a small swelling on Pritchard's face. They saw a pair of ordinary 4oz. gloves, and have no evidence to rebut the statement made by all concerned that these were used in the encounter. The names of the chief persons taking part in the proceedings appear to be correctly given in the newspapers. The law as to what constitutes an illegal fight has been laid down in the superior Courts. If evidence were forthcoming that the fight was of an illegal character, I should not hesitate to direct proceedings, whether it took place with or without gloves.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman must not think I am against boxing, because I used to be very fond of it, but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in future, in any contest with or without gloves in which the finale consists in one of the combatants being "knocked out of time," it will be within the power of the police to interfere and regard it as a prize fight?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not quite sure that I appreciate the exact force of the expression "knocked out of time." I have not the special knowledge of the subject that is possessed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I take it that the distinction is this: If two men for delight or for exercise, or to test their skill,' choose to box with or without gloves, it is not an illegal proceeding. If, on the other hand, they fight for the purpose of doing each other serious injury in order that one might be exhausted—that is, knocked out of time—the case is different.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I wish to know whether, if a man is killed in one of these encounters, it would be held to be a case of justifiable homicide?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid I must decline to answer a question of possible law.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: As a specialist, I must apologise for having used a technical word. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact that these men were fighting for money does not alter the case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think the doing it for money has the slightest influence upon the question at all.

  THE WEST HIGHLANDS MAIL STEAMERS.
  DR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any reduction is made to the Post Office when the mail steamers in the West Highlands are allowed to leave their routes for other than Post Office work in order to earn money for their owner?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I am aware of only one route on which the mail steamer is allowed under special circumstances to make an occasional deviation from her course, and in that case the deviation is a condition of the contract, and the Postal Service does not suffer. Therefore no reduction of payment by the Post Office is made.

  THE FISHING INDUSTRY OF STORNOWAY.
  DR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is he aware
  766
  that serious loss and damage have been caused to the fishing industry of Stornoway, and to Lewis fishermen and others, in consequence of the local Customs officials prohibiting vessels to berth, load, and discharge at the inner quay, lately built along Cromwell Street, Stornoway, by the Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commissioners, until the same is legalised; whether he is aware that several old piers and landing-places formed at one time part of the inner quay now reclaimed and rebuilt by the Stornoway Harbour Commissioners, and that vessels were always permitted to be berthed, discharged, and loaded at these piers and landing-places without any objection on the part of the Customs local officials in the past, and will he give instructions that these objections be not persisted in as regards this inner quay; will he explain why, for the first time in 140 years, a demand has been made by the Board of Customs, on the representation of the local Superintendent of Customs, that the Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commissioners should, at their own expense, construct and maintain a watch-house and boat-house for the convenience of the local Customs officials, when there is a watch and boat house already in existence at Stornoway belonging to, or rented by, the Customs; whether such a demand is usual in the case of small harbours such as Stornoway; whether he is aware that the Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commissioners are at present applying to the Treasury and the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan to help them in providing additional harbour accommodation, which is much required there; and whether such loan was recommended to be granted by the Western Highlands and Islands Commissioners?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Board of Customs have declined to legalise the new quay at Stornoway until the Harbour Board fulfil their statutory obligation to provide proper watch-house and boat-house accommodation for the Customs officers. Such a demand is usual in the case of any harbour as soon as increase of trade or any other reason makes the want of such accommodation felt. At present there is no Customs boat-house at all in Stornoway, and the watch-house (which is not provided by the Harbour Board) is

  767
  quite unsuited for its purpose. I understand that a portion of the frontage covered by the new quay was formerly approved as a legal quay, but this portion has been partly built over, and had been for some time disused as a quay. I have not heard of serious loss being caused to the fishing industry by the prohibition, which only applies to vessels from foreign ports. The Harbour Board have not applied to the Treasury. They have, however, applied to the Board of Trade to sanction an application to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan on easy terms under the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act, 1861, but under the existing regulations loans cannot be made under this Act for mere facilities of trade, such as quays. It is true that the Highlands and Islands Commission recommended exceptional treatment in this case, but they coupled that recommendation with conditions which the Harbour Board has not seen its way as yet to accept.

  TELEGRAPH ENGINEERS.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can hold out any hope that the engineering branch of the Telegraph Service will be placed on the same footing as the commercial branch as regards classification; and, if not, will he state the reason for withholding the concession?
  *MR. RAIKES: The engineering branch performs work of a special character, and there docs not appear to be any reason for making its classification uniform with that of another branch. But proposals affecting the pay of certain classes of engineering officers have been submitted to the Treasury, and are now receiving their Lordships' careful consideration.

  SAVINGS BANK CLERKS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a considerable number of clerks of the Savings Bank Department are still engaged on overtime, in addition to the clerks from other Government Departments, who since January have been working two and three hours a day, after completing a full day's work in their own offices; whether, notwithstanding the overtime at present being
  768
  performed, he has decided, as stated by the Acting Controller of the Savings Bank, to transfer a number of Second Class Clerks from that Department; whether any such transfers have been-made; whether, if further transfers are in contemplation, they will be to other Government Offices, or only to other branches of the Post Office; and whether in every case the clerks transferred will take their seniority to the new Department?
  *MR. RAIKES: At the present time very few clerks of the Savings Bank Department and no clerks belonging to other Government Departments are being employed there on overtime. Since the 1st of January last seven clerks of the Second Division have been transferred from the Savings Bank to other branches-of the Post Office, three on their own applications, and the others in the interests of the Service. At the present moment no other transfers are in contemplation.

  SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate from what date the increase of salary to the officers of the Fishery Board for Scotland, recently intimated by him, will take effect; and upon what principle the officers are in future to be divided into first and second class?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): In reply to the first part of the question, I have to inform the hon. Member that increase of pay is-to date from the 1st instant; and, in reply to the latter part, that the principle on which it is proposed to distinguish the first from the second class of officers is that the former will be composed of those who perform more arduous or more important duties.

  LOWER DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the statement contained in the Treasury Letter to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 19th June,. 1884, with regard to the promotion of Lower Division clerks, the Treasury will endeavour, so far as is possible, to fill up vacancies in the First Division by the promotion of eligible and qualified

  769
  Second Division clerks, many of whom are already in receipt of £200 per annum, thus saving £130 per annum on each promotion, as compared with a direct appointment of a new clerk at an initial salary of £200 per annum?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The "Higher Division" spoken of in the Treasury Letter of 1884, referred to by the hon. Member, is a class of much greater extent than the very reduced Upper Division contemplated by the recent Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, who recommended the simple substitution of Second Division clerks for a large number of the Higher Division as it then existed, improving at the same time the pay of the Lower or Second Division. The Royal Commissioners have themselves considered the question of the promotion of Second Division clerks to the reduced Upper Division, and have expressed their opinions in the passage quoted by me in my answer to the hon. Member on June 29. In these circumstances, I cannot go beyond that answer, or give any such pledge as he desires.

  MAGISTRATES' CLERKS AS SOLICITORS TO LICENSED VICTUALLERS' ASSOCIATIONS.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether magistrates' clerks or their partners are allowed to act as solicitors to any Licensed Victuallers' Association?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am aware of no statutory restriction preventing a magistrate's clerk or his partner acting as solicitor to a Licensed Victuallers' Association.

  ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Charity Commissioners have yet received a reply from the Governors of St. Paul's School to the allegations made by members of the Fulham Vestry and by the late Mr. James Beal; and whether he will communicate its purport to the House?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners have now received a reply from the Governors of St. Paul's School, which demands careful consideration. The
  770
  communications between the Commissioners and the Governors are lengthy and complicated, and it would be undesirable in the interests of the school that, in the present stage of the negotiations, they should be made public.

  THE GARDENERS' COMPANY.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the report of a meeting of the Court of Aldermen of the City of London, held on the 28th instant, at which the Gardeners' Company was granted a livery, not exceeding 60 in number, who will become electors of the City of London; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps by legislation to prevent the manufacture of faggot votes?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot give any undertaking upon this matter. So far as I am aware at present, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of opening up the question of Parliamentary reform next Session.

  PRISONERS' WITNESSES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the following observations of Mr. Justice Wills at the Staffordshire Summer Assizes:—
  "It is the practice at most large gaols for the officials to go round a week before the trial and ask if prisoners desire to have any witnesses sent for. I wish this were customary at all gaols, as it is only right that it should be;"
  and whether he will give directions that this practice shall be adopted at all gaols?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not seen the observations of the learned Judge; but the practice which he commends seems to me to be a good one, and I have no objection to giving an order for its general adoption.

  LONDON WATER COMPANIES.
  MR. HOWELL: I had intended to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the fact that the East London Waterworks Company, and other London Water Companies, have been charging on the new assessment, which came into force in April last,

  771
  increased rates for the three months preceding the date of such assessment coming into force; and whether this demand for such increase by the Water Companies is legal? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to postpone the question.

  THE GRANT IN RELIEF OF SCOTCH LOCAL RATES.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it would be competent for a County Council to apply its share of the sum of £100,000, proposed to be given in relief of local rates in Scotland, wholly and exclusively in relief of the county rates paid by owners only?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is proposed to give to the County Councils complete discretion as to the mode of relieving rates; and it is presumed that this discretion will be exercised in the interests of the general body of ratepayers, by whom they are elected. It would, of course, be competent for them to follow the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or to adopt any other application of the grant; but this is merely another way of saying that we propose to give an unfettered discretion to the popularly elected local administrative bodies.
  MR. HUNTER: Arising out of the question, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the contentious matters that would arise in connection with the distribution of this money in Scotland, he cannot adopt the same course in this case as the Chief Secretary adopted in respect to Ireland, and postpone the application of the money until next year?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Treasury is never unwilling to postpone the payment of money to Local Authorities. If there is a general desire for the postponement on the part of Scotch Members, I think it may be done. I will consult with my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate on the matter.
  MR. HUNTER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell Bannerman), who is unable to be present, has asked me to press the Government to postpone the Vote as suggested.

  BRITISH HONDURAS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information with reference to the difficulties which have arisen in British Honduras; whether the report is true that the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council have resigned in a body, and that their places have been filled by gentlemen holding office under the Government; whether the Supreme Court of the Colony has pronounced a Council so constituted to be unconstitutional, and the taxation levied under their authority to be illegal; and whether, in view of somewhat similar incidents having occurred in other Crown Colonies, the Government will assent to the appointment of a Select Committee or a Royal Commission to inquire into the relations between the Colonial Office and the Crown Colonies?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): No difficulties have arisen in British Honduras, except in connection with the resignation of the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, the grounds for which could not be stated within the limits of an answer. Their places have been provisionally filled by the appointment of gentlemen holding office in order that the Legislative Council may be duly constituted for the despatch of business. Her Majesty's Government were advised that this course was necessary and legal. As regards the third paragraph-of the question, it has been reported by telegraph that the Supreme Court has given such a decision; but the terms of, and reasons for, that decision have not yet been received. It is hoped that the differences between the late unofficial Members and the Government will be satisfactorily arranged; and Her Majesty's Government have no intention of holding any such inquiry as is suggested.

  THE BELVILL ESTATE, COUNTY ANTRIM.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the tenants in the Belvill Estate,

  773
  County Antrim, purchased from Lady Harberton their holdings at 17½ years' purchase in 1887, with an agreement for interest to be paid instead of rent until purchase completed, and the first allowance in accordance therewith made on 1st November, 1887; that the title has been proved and the security satisfactory, and the matter for some time in the hands of the Commissioners; and will he explain what is the reason of the delay, and when will the purchase date from?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Land Commissioners report that none of the applications referred to were lodged until October, 1889, and that they have long since been ruled upon as to security and title. I gather from the Commissioners' Report that if there has been any subsequent delay in completing the transactions it does not rest with them.

  IMPORTATION OF CATTLE INTO IRELAND.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can toll the House the reason why the Lord Lieutenant has lately refused permission for the importation of cattle into Ireland from a district of Scotland which is not scheduled, and from which the cattle could be moved anywhere throughout England, Scotland, and Wales?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Lord Lieutenant grants permission to import cattle from Great Britain into Ireland in all cases where, after due inquiry into the previous history of the cattle proposed to be imported and their surroundings, it is considered safe that such importation should take place. There has been no case, so far as I can ascertain, of refusal where the requisite conditions have been fulfilled.
  DR. MACDONALD: Is it actually the law that cattle cannot be imported into Ireland from England except with the previous permission of the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Lord Lieutenant undoubtedly has power to make such regulations regarding the im-
  774
  portation of cattle into Ireland as he deems necessary, and he can prevent cattle from being imported if he is of opinion that any risk would be involved.

  MEDICAL WITNESSES AT INQUESTS.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Grand Jury of any county have power to select medical witnesses for inquests and compel the Coroner to call in those appointed by them, and, in the event of the Coroner not complying with their instructions, to disallow the fee (£1 1s.) if the Coroner calls in any other registered practitioner residing in the district; whether he is aware that, in the County of Londonderry, the Grand Jury cancels the Coroner's application for the fee of £1 1s. which has been paid by the Coroner to the medical witness at the time of the inquest, if he does not call in the dispensary doctor as such witness; and whether instructions will be given to reimburse the Coroners for the loss and expenses they have thus sustained?
  MR. MADDEN: The Secretary to the Grand Jury of the County Londonderry states that the order of the Grand Jury made at Spring Assizes 1872 in regard to medical witnesses at inquests has been continued up to the present time. That order is to the effect that, in all cases in which medical witnesses are required at inquests, the Coroners shall in the first instance call in the dispensary doctors of the district in which the inquest is held. It appears that order was made after the power of the Grand Jury to do so was upheld by the Assize Judge, who ruled that such order was altogether right and reasonable, the dispensary doctor being, from his position and standing, the most suitable witness to call in in the first instance, and that the Coroners were bound to comply with this requirement and should not deviate from it without giving sufficient reason to the Grand Jury. Where the Coroners fail in satisfying the Grand Jury as to the reason for calling in a medical gentleman other than the dispensary doctor, the Grand Jury disallow the fee. The matter is one in no way under the control of the Executive Government.

  THE IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION BOARD.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Irish National Education Board has paid results fees for passes in book-keeping for the past 10 years in Castle Hill National School, Gilford, though the time always devoted to the subject was only two half-hours per week, and that the Board has never refused to pay fees to this school for passes in algebra, geometry, physical geography, music, or drawing, the time devoted to each of these subjects being two half-hours weekly, will he explain under what rule the Board has this year refused to pay the fees for book-keeping, not because the time given to it was less than formerly or less than that given to any other voluntary or extra subject, but simply because the two lessons in each week were given on the same day; and, considering that the time given to this subject was as much for last year as for any other extra subject taught in the school during the past 10 years, and also considering that 92 per cent. of those presented passed the examination, will the Board, upon reconsideration, pay the amount withheld?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that at the recent results examination the certificate of the teacher mentioned showed that the total number of days in the results year on which book-keeping had been taught was 41, and that only one lesson weekly had been given. The Commissioners regarded this as obviously inadequate, and accordingly declined to pay results fees for the subject. In previous years this teacher had certified that book-keeping had been taught for a number of days, varying from 87 to 94, and on these representations results fees were paid. As regards the other extra branches, the teacher had certified that they had been taught for 88 days in the last results year at the rate of two lessons weekly. This was regarded by the Commissioners as an adequate provision, and results fees were accordingly paid. The Commissioners do not think the case one for re-consideration.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Intermediate
  776
  Education Board expended in the year 1890 34 per cent. of their income on working expenses, and only 27 percent, on results fees, averaging 10s. per head on the students taught; whether the additional grant under "The Local Taxation Act, 1890," must be applied for both or either of the purposes following: for the payment of results fees to school managers, for the payment of prizes to students, the Educational Endowments Commission having strongly urged exclusive application to the former purpose, whether the head masters of the Protestant and the Catholic Colleges have presented a joint Memorial to the Board protesting against the establishment of new grades and the consequent indefinite increase of working expenses, and asking for the application of the grant by way of results fees, which should be paid on students who are above the age limits prescribed for prize winners as well as on under age students; and whether the Board has deferred the consideration of the Memorial until November next; and whether, in view of the fact that the new preparatory grade will come into practical operation in September, when new classes must be formed and teachers engaged to prepare for the new examinations, and thus an obstacle will be created to the free consideration of the Memorial in November, the Board will suspend the rules establishing this new grade until they shall have decided on the Petition of the head masters?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education report that the amount expended on administration by the Board in 1890 was £3,445 6s. 4d., and on "examinations" £7,702 9s. 3d. The amount expended on results fees was £8,894 3s., averaging about £2 17s. per head for each successful student.

  BELFAST MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with regard to the arrangements for the accelerated mail service in connection with Belfast, whether the Belfast sorters at present are on duty from 4 a.m. to 7 a.m., from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., from 12.15 p.m. to 4.15 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.; and whether there is any truth in the report that they are now to be called upon to surrender the forenoon interval of rest,

  777
  and to come on duty, for the second morning delivery, at 9.30 a.m. instead of 10.30 a.m., thus increasing the total amount of daily labour from 10 hours to 11; whether, in the Delivery Department, the postmen are to be required, after the first morning delivery, extending from 6 a.m. to 9.15 a.m., to come on duty again at 9.30 a.m. (without any interval for breakfast), and to remain on duty till 12.15 p.m., this system obliging the men on wet days to remain for six hours without a change of clothing; and whether these men have to do duty again each day from 3.45 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.; and whether the sorting and delivery arrangements at Belfast will be personally examined by him, and such needful addition made to the staff as will secure the efficient discharge of the service without inflicting undue hardship upon the sorting clerks and postmen?
  *MR. RAIKES: I am not aware of the arrangements to which the hon. Member refers, and there has not been sufficient notice of the question to enable me to receive a reply to the inquiry which I have made on the subject. The hon. Member may rest assured, however, that I will take whatever steps may be necessary to provide for the efficient discharge of the service without inflicting undue hardship upon the staff.

  CLONAKILTY AND ROSSCARBERY EXTENSION RAILWAY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Government assistance will be afforded the Clonakilty and Rosscarbery Extension Railway; whether a deputation from the district in question, who went to Dublin and had an interview with the Under Secretary, Sir W. Ridgeway, were informed by him that their request would receive every consideration; whether a similar assurance was given by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at Skibbereen to another deputation on the same proposed railway; and whether, having regard to the benefit of the large fishing and agricultural interests in the district, the Government will give material assistance to the work?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to defer this question until to-morrow.

  THE CORK MAILS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if any further representations have been made to, or communications received from, the Cork and Bandon and West Cork Railway with regard to the proposed acceleration of the mails to Skibbereen, Bantry, and West Cork?
  *MR. RAIKES: No. Sir. But I am quite prepared to consider a reasonable proposal if the company will make one.

  MR. J. E. MEDLICOTT, J. P.
  MR. LEAHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. J. E. Medlicott, J.P., Dunmurrey, County Kildare, attended at Monasterevan Petty Sessions on the 17th instant, and adjudicated upon a case in which his friend Forbes Johnston, Esq., Q.C., was plaintiff, and John Hannon, defendant, and which was for the recovery of possession of the latter's holding at Laghill, Monasterevan, County Kildare; if Monasterevan is one of the Petty Sessions Courts that Mr. Medlicott attends, when he last attended, and how often within the last five years; and will the Government deal with Mr. Medlicott in the same way as they did with Mr. James Byrne, Wallston Castle, Mallow, County Cork?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The gentleman mentioned does not appear to have attended at the Monasterevan Petty Sessions within the last five years, but there is a record of his having attended there previously. He resides in and attends the adjoining Potty Sessions. There is, however, at present a scarcity of Magistrates in the Monasterevan district owing to the death of a Magistrate, and the attendance of the gentleman referred to in that district is of public utility. There is no reason to believe that he attended in the interest of any litigant, nor is there any analogy between this case and the other one referred to.

  ARREST OF MRS. DOHERTY.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Doherty, wife of Pat Doherty, on the Tenalick Estate of Lord

  779
  Annaly, in the County of Longford, was arrested on the morning of the 8th July for taking possession of her house, was lodged in Carrick-on-Shannon Gaol, and still remains in prison without trial; and whether he will take steps to have this woman, who is 58 years of age, and the mother of a large family, released?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet been able to obtain the information that would enable me to answer the question, and therefore I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question.

  POSTAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE AT NOBBER.
  MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the Postal Telegraph Office at Nobber, County Meath, has been closed; and whether he will take steps to have it reopened?
  MR. RAIKES: The telegraph office at the railway station at Nobber was closed on the 28th September, 1886, because the Railway Company were not in a position to carry on the business any longer. I shall be glad to inquire whether the circumstances have changed, and I will let the hon. Member know the result.

  ORANGE PROCESSION AT ROSTREVOR.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, the 12th of July, Mr. D. Dunn, P.L.G., of Rostrevor, County Down, accompanied by another ratepayer of the same place, waited on Mr. Horner, J.P., to swear an information that if an Orange procession was permitted to pass through the village of Rostrevor on Monday, the 13th of July, a breach of the peace would most certainly follow, and that Mr. Horner, though bound as a Magistrate to receive this information, nevertheless refused, and declared his intention of leading the Orange procession in person; whether the information was subsequently sworn before Mr. Charles Leslie, J. P., and notice served on the police that the information had been laid; is he aware that these facts having been brought to the knowledge of Mr. Home, he insisted on the procession passing through Rostrevor when he headed it himself, and
  780
  that a disturbance actually took place as anticipated, and an Orangeman was sent for trial on a serious charge arising there-from; and, if the facts of the case be as stated, whether the Lord Chancellor proposes to take notice of Mr. Horner's conduct?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have not yet received the information, I must ask the hon. Member to defer the question.
  MR. CRILLY: I will put it down for to-morrow.

  BELFAST MAILS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the English night mails for Belfast and other places in the North of Ireland, which have been carried over the City of Dublin Junction Railway (Loop Line) from 4th February until 27th July, have since that date been carted from Westland Row Station to Amiens Street Station, although the through passenger service is still carried on over the loop line; whether the Railway Company offered to continue the mail service as hitherto; and whether their offer has been accepted; and, if not, what arrangements have been made for the carriage of the northern mails over the loop line on and after 1st August, when the accelerated service will commence.
  MR. RAIKES: The conveyance of the Belfast mails over the loop line has hitherto been purely experimental, and at the suggestion of the Railway Companies interested. So long as a fortnight ago I inquired of the companies on what terms they would enter upon a permanent arrangement. Their reply, naming what appears to me an excessive payment, only reached my hands an hour or two ago. The hon. Member will see that it is out of the question that I can make any definite arrangement without consideration. Meanwhile, the mails are being efficiently carried as formerly by road over a distance less than a mile now traversed by the railway as quick or even quicker than by rail.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a binding agreement with the Railway Companies to carry the mails as they were carried up to a recent period?
  MR. RAIKES: If the companies approach me in a reasonable spirit I am prepared to enter into an arrangement with them.

  NORTH OF IRELAND MAILS.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if the arrangements are now completed for sending mails for the North of Ireland viâ Larne and Stranraer; and when it will begin to work?
  MR. RAIKES: The arrangements are practically complete so far as the Post Office is concerned, and the service might begin on the 1st prox. But the draft contract is still before the Railway Companies for examination, and until it is returned by them, approved, I am not in a position to give a definite answer.

  THE NEW SOUTH KENSINGTON BUILDINGS.
  MR. WHIT MORE: May I ask whether any decision has been arrived at in reference to the designs for the New South Kensington Buildings?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The judges appointed to consider the designs for the new South Kensington Buildings held their final meeting to-day, and unanimously chose out of the eight sets of designs submitted to them those which bore the motto "S. K. M." as, on the whole, the best. On opening the sealed envelopes, it appeared that S. K. M. was the motto adopted by Mr. Aston Webb, of Queen Anne's Gate. He is, therefore, the successful competitor. I shall cause his designs to be exhibited next week in the Tea Room of this House.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government contemplate having a Sitting on Saturday, and whether there are any Bills still before the House for the consideration of which a particular day can be fixed?
  MR. COBB: Do the Government intend to proceed with the Clergy Discipline Bill? According to Hansard's Report of July 2, it was there stated by the Government that the Bill would not be proceeded with until the right hon.
  782
  Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) returned to the House.
  MR. CAUSTON: May I ask when the Lords' Amendments to the London Public Health Bill will be considered? There are 11 pages of Amendments on the Paper, which was only issued this morning, and I wish to know whether the Amendments alter the character of the Bill or are likely to receive the support of the Government or not?
  MR. CREMER: There are no fewer than 137 Amendments to the Bill. No doubt many of them are non-contentious and some consequential, but there are others which will cause discussion, and, in view of the number of Amendments, I wish to ask whether the Government cannot fix a particular day next week for the consideration of the Bill?
  SIR H. JAMES: When do the Government propose to take the Lords' Amendments to the Factories and Workshops Bill?
  MR. PICKARD: Are the Government prepared to give a day, or any portion of a day, for the discussion on the Eight Hours Bill?
  *MR. RITCHIE: With regard to the London Public Health Bill, I may state at once that all the Lords' Amendments except two are of a verbal character, and on those two I do not think much discussion or opposition is likely to be raised.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: Will the postponement of the Scotch Vote mean the loss of the £110,000, or will it only be held over to be disposed of in another year?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It will be impossible to give any of the small remaining part of the Session to the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill. With regard to the question of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), arrangements must depend much on the progress made with business to-day and tomorrow. As soon as there is a prospect of Supply being speedily closed the Government will be better able to make arrangements for the convenience of the House with regard to the remaining business to be disposed of next week. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to repeat his question to-morrow. As to the

  783
  Factory Acts Amendment Bill, it will depend on the progress of Supply when it will be taken, and, therefore, I cannot say whether it will be taken on Monday or not. If I receive no serious protests in the course of the evening against the postponement of the Scotch Vote, I think I shall be able to accede to the suggestion, and postpone the Vote till next Session. The Government propose to have a Sitting on Saturday. In answer to the hon. Member for the Rugby Division (Mr. Cobb), I may say that the statement he alleges to be given in Hansard is erroneous. The Government recognised the interest the right hon. Gentleman took in the Bill, but they did not say they would not proceed with the Bill until he returned.
  MR. COBB: I find on reference to Hansard the First Lord of the Treasury is reported to have said—
  "The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian is deeply interested in the measure, and I hope he will soon be able to return to the House in order that we may be able to proceed with the Bill."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I can assure my hon. Friend—the communications having passed a good deal through myself—that he is entirely mistaken. There is no assurance that this Bill is not to be proceeded with in the absence of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who takes a deep interest in the Bill.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Do the Government intend to proceed with the Clergy Discipline Bill, then, this Session?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am reluctant to withdraw the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill until I am thoroughly convinced that the opposition to it is such that it will be absolutely impossible to pass it, but I venture to appeal to hon. Members—others may be able to appeal to them with greater force—not to allow a state of things to continue in which, as was stated yesterday, scandals may occur without any possibility of a remedy, when the passage of a few simple clauses might prevent a state of things which is to the interest neither of the Church nor the community.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: In what order will the Civil Service Estimates be taken?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In their regular order.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: With regard to the Eight Hours Bill, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that an influential deputation of miners waited on the First Lord of the Treasury on this question, and although the right hon. Gentleman gave them no definite pledge, he certainly left in the minds of the vast majority of them an idea that a day would be granted for the discussion of the subject this Session.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Bearing in mind the advanced period of the Session and the business still to be transacted, I doubt if the House would be prepared to discuss the question.

  EAST INDIA (REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
  Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament, relating to the Revenues of India, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House.—(Sir John Gorst.)
  Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into the said Committee.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Amendment to Amendments to Forged Transfers (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment. That they have agreed to Highways and Bridges Bill, with Amendments.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 432.)
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Lords Amendments agreed to as far as the Amendment in page 2, lines 23 and 24.
  Page 2, lines 23 and 24, leave out "and suitable," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sub-section 1 of Clause 4 gives power to the Department, if they are

  785
  satisfied that sufficient and suitable public school accommodation without payment of fees has been provided for a school district, to approve a charge or an increase of fees in a particular school. The Lords have struck out the words "and suitable." I complain that such an Amendment as this has been inserted in the Bill after the Government have voluntarily accepted these words when the Bill was last before the Commons. The words have been struck out by the Lords without a single remonstrance or argument being raised against it by the Minister in charge of the Bill. It looks very like a pre-arrangement; and seeing that 10 or 12 Members of this House had expressed themselves strongly on this point, it does seem strange that the Amendment should have been accepted without argument of any kind against it. There are several grounds—and not merely religious ones—for disagreeing with this Amendment. When I entered the Department Catholic schools were considered necessary, because it was regarded as not suitable that Catholics should be compelled to send their children to Protestant schools; and when I consulted Mr. Forster on the point, he said I was right in holding that that was a proper view to take. What will happen in Lancashire, Cheshire, and the North of England if this Amendment is carried? There are a large number of good Roman Catholic schools in those districts, and the hon. Member for Preston will bear me out when I say that they have accommodation largely in excess of Roman Catholic needs. If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at the number of children in average attendance they will be astonished to find that in Catholic schools, and especially in the North of England, there are vacancies for something like two-fifths of the children in attendance. I take at random the towns of Wigan, Manchester, and Preston, and ascertain what is the attendance at certain schools and what is the accommodation. In four schools at Wigan the number of children in average attendance is 2,271, but there is accommodation for 4,615 children. In five schools in Manchester the number in average attendance is 1,712, and there is accommodation for 3,734. In Preston there are four" schools—I believe they are the best
  786
  schools both in regard to staff and in regard to general management of any in Preston—The English Martyrs', St. Augustine's, St. Ignatius's, and St. Wilfrid's.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The largest is St. Walburge's.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not find that school. Is it St. Wilfrid's the hon. Member means? The average attendance is 3,188, and there is accommodation for 7,224. In all these schools, therefore, the attendance is just half the accommodation. We know that Catholic schools will be among the first to be made free. Now, suppose these schools are made free and the Church of England schools are not made free, do the Government intend to compel the Church of England and Nonconformist children to attend the Roman Catholic schools? It is no use in such a case to say that the Protestant children would be protected by the Conscience Clause, because in Roman Catholic schools the emblems of their religion are to be found everywhere, and the atmosphere of those schools is pervaded by Roman Catholic teaching. The children there are constantly being taught by members of the Religious Orders. I ask the House, is it intended not to consider the suitability of these schools for Protestant children? In my experience the Education Department has always considered that Roman Catholic schools are not the proper schools for Protestant children. When I entered the Department I found that whenever the London School Board applied for additional schools in any district the number of vacant places in Catholic schools was always subtracted from the existing accommodation. Besides religious questions there are other questions of suitability. There is the question as to the quality of the schools, and it would be most unfair to compel a bright child to leave a better class fee school in order to make it attend a lower class free school. Then there is the question of site. Can you ask that infant children shall be taken to schools other than those for children of a larger growth? It is often the custom for the infant to be taken to school by the elder brother and sister. Are you going to say that children who have fee schools in their immediate neighbourhood shall be compelled

  787
  to go to the free schools at the other end of the town? It is highly necessary that the schools selected should be as near as possible to the residences of the children. That is always a consideration with the paying schools, and it should be a still greater consideration in the case of the free schools. The schools should be as convenient for the children and suitable for them from every point of view. Many of us know the sacrifices the poor make on this question of education. I know many distinguished men—some of them on the Episcopal Bench—who have owed their success in life to the sacrifices made for them by widowed mothers. It is meritorious for a poor parent to desire to send a child to a higher elementary school. The First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton), when he was Vice President of the Council, went down to Sheffield and made a very good speech at a prize distribution. One boy was there who looked so clean and smart that the noble Lord said he thought he was hardly of a class to go to an elementary school. That boy turned out to be the son of a poof widow, who earned her living by turning a mangle. He won various scholarships, and is now a distinguished man at his University and the pride of his family. I should like to point out that the word "suitable" was inserted in the clause without a dissentient voice, and the Guardian newspaper has expressed regret at this Amendment, as well as another proposed by Lord Sandford, because it does not properly consider the interests of the children and their parents. If the House votes £2,000,000 for the purpose of giving free education in elementary schools, I protest against its being accompanied with a condition which will harass the children in free schools, and making their schools of a lower order and an inferior status. These cunningly-devised Amendments do not come from a friend of free education, but emanate from those who have denounced the Bill as the proposal of quacks—as a bitter pill, detested but which had to be swallowed. If the Government, after having twice shortened debate and accepted Amendments voluntarily, recognising the sense of the House, accept such an Amendment as this, they will
  788
  be doing that which is equivalent to a breach of faith.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The right hon. Gentleman, having made some remarks which were exceedingly moderate, has concluded with the rather wide statement that if we retain this Amendment we shall be committing a breach of faith. I think that is rather a strong thing to say.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I said if, after twice cutting short the Debate, they accepted the Amendment, it would seem to me equivalent to a breach of faith.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The right hon. Gentleman has changed his statement into an hypothesis. I believe that ample means might be found to meet the case we have in hand. It is perfectly true that in this House the Amendment inserting the word "suitable" was accepted by the Government, and it is equally true that in another place they assented to the word being struck out. But considering the far-reaching character of the Commons' Amendment, I think it may be fairly urged that in the other House the Government treated the matter in a broad and statesmanlike spirit. The right hon. Gentleman has placed upon the word "suitable" a construction which it has never borne before; and if there had been any doubt as to the advisability or otherwise of the course now taken by the Government, I think it has been removed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It is obvious that a word like this must be dealt with in a reasonable and elastic manner by the Department in solving the difficulties' which it has to face every day; and if difficulties had not been so met, these Acts would long since have produced intolerable chaos and confusion. There is, however, a vast difference between construing the word in a reasonable manner and introducing into a Bill for the first time an entirely new meaning. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to free schools being possibly wide apart, and to the fact that infants are often taken to school by their brothers and sisters. These, however, are purely administrative difficulties which will have to be met by the Department. The word "suitable"

  789
  occurs in two clauses of the Act of 1870. Mr. Forster said the object of the Act was to supply sufficient, efficient, and suitable education, and it is clear that by "suitable" he meant schools that were available from the absence of religious or other restrictions or the adoption of the Conscience Clause. Of course, the Department would not, as a rule, put pressure on Protestant parents to send their children to a Roman Catholic school; but there have been cases in which Protestant children have freely attended Roman Catholic schools. ["Where?" and "Give us one?"] In Herefordshire, in 1873, official requirements were satisfied by a Roman Catholic school, which for 13 years was the only school in the neighbourhood; and the Inspector reported that there was no more efficient school under inspection. Before the Royal Commision an important statement was made by Mr. Cumin with regard to the word "suitable." Mr. Cumin said that a school came under that description if it was a public elementary school adopting the Conscience Clause and open to inspection. In these circumstances, I am quite certain the Government are well-advised in asking the House to retain the Lords' Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government passed through this House a Bill which, though there were some points in it to which we took exception, was on the whole a satisfactory one. The House of Lords has dealt with this Bill as it is in the habit of dealing with a great many Bills. It has spoilt the measure of the House of Commons. I am sorry, for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Lords should have introduced this Amendment, because it will go very far to spoil his Bill in the estimation of the country when it is passed. Everybody will remember that there was an almost unanimous feeling in this House as to the introduction of this word. It was not a mere Party question at all, but it was a matter upon which Members on both sides of the House who were interested in education had the same opinion. It is only under the compulsion of men in the House of Lords who are the enemies of free education that this thing has now been done. It is with the express object of injuring and, I might say,
  790
  hamstringing free education that this Amendment has been introduced. I think it is very hard upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should, under the pressure of this adverse Party in the House of Lords, be compelled to be an accomplice in the spoiling of his own Bill. In defence of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman quotes a case in which Protestant children have been forced into a Roman Catholic school. The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman should be driven into such an illustration in support of the Amendment is a condemnation of the Amendment itself. It was for the very purpose of preventing these practices becoming common that these words were introduced. All we can do is to protest against this proceeding. We protest in the name of the House of Commons—on behalf of the unanimous voice of the House of Commons—against this attempt of the enemies of free education in the House of Lords to destroy this Bill in the last stage of its progress. I understand very well the strain and the pressure under which the right hon. Gentleman is placed. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have yielded to it; and I must protest as far as I can against these proceedings, in order that the country may understand the true character of what has taken place.
  MR. S. SMITH: I greatly regret that the Government assent to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President said, "The Education Department will not bring pressure to bear to send Protestant children in large numbers to Roman Catholic schools. That means that the Department may use pressure to send small numbers—
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: Sir, I must really protest against this construction being placed upon what I said. I referred to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella).
  MR. S. SMITH: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn that, but I am here to protest against any pressure being put upon Protestant parents to send their children to Roman Catholic schools. Such a thing would excite the utmost dissatisfaction in the country. Of course, we wish to main-

  791
  tain the rights of Catholics, but we also maintain the rights of Protestants, and I respectfully protest against any construction of the Bill which may lead to a course of conduct that would excite great indignation in the country.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) spoke in one sense in language of moderation, but in another sense he used the language of absurd exaggeration when he said the House of Lords were determined to destroy and to hamstring this Bill. The subject is most difficult, and yet the right hon. Gentleman can only find objection to one Amendment in the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: One at a time.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman confined his objections to one Amendment. The hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) tried to prove that the Bill would have the result of forcing Protestant children in large numbers into Roman Catholic schools. Well, Sir, whatever has been the practice in the last 20 years will continue to be the practice under this Bill. We cannot assent to the retention of a word which would have a different meaning in the Bill from that which has always been attached to it. I can show from an administrative point of view that it is impossible to accept this word "suitable" as it now stands. It is true that we did somewhat hastily assent to the insertion of the word, but, after having had time to consider what it means as it now stands, we have been forced to the conclusion that it must come out if the Bill is to be properly administered.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The word is in the original Act.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: My contention is that the word "suitable" in this Bill has a meaning entirely different from what it has in the original Act. In the original Act the word occurs in two clauses only, and those clauses relate to the supply of schools, and to the proceedings for the supply of schools, and in both refer to schools, which are not public elementary schools. I say that it has in practice never been applied to public elementary schools.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Has the Education Department never deducted vacancies in Catholic schools from the school accommodation of a district?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I assert, as a broad principle, that the Department has never applied the word suitable to public elementary schools. I assert that, as far as Roman Catholic schools are concerned, they are almost exclusively in Board school districts, and, therefore, the children have the option of going to another school. The word "suitable" has never been applied to an elementary school. All the evidence in the matter, both positive and negative, shows that the word "suitable" has never before been applied to public elementary schools, and we are now asked to give to the Act, by the insertion of the word, a meaning it never had before, and which meaning is not in the Act of 1870 or any other Act. Mr. Forster said that by "suitable" he meant schools "to which, in the absence of religious and other restrictions, parents could not reasonably object." If an Amendment moved to Clause 8 of the Education Bill of 1870 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) had been agreed to, the word suitable would have been applicable to a public elementary school, but that Amendment was negatived. It would be impossible for the Education Department to carry out the Act under the procedure of that of 1870 if in the two statutes they have to administer there is the same word having a different meaning in each. In the interests of the Bill itself, as well as of those who will have to administer it, I hope the Lords' Amendment will be agreed to.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: We have been placed in a somewhat difficult position owing to the course pursued by the Government in the two Houses. In this House, nearly a month ago, after full discussion and at the request of many of their own friends, as well as of hon. Members on the other side of the House, they consented to insert the word "suitable" in the Bill, and yet almost directly afterwards they consented, without controversy, without Debate, and without Division, to an Amendment in the House of Lords striking it out. They then come down to the House of Commons at the very end of the Session, when a large number

  793
  of Members who are interested in the Bill have gone away, relying on the good faith of the Government, and ask hon. Members to reverse their former decision on a very important matter. The only defence the noble Lord who has just spoken could make was that the Government had not time to consider the question when they accepted the Amendment. But the Amendment was introduced in Committee, and, therefore, the Government had ample opportunity before the Report stage to take counsel upon it with those who are deeply interested in the Bill. What is the source of this Amendment in the other House? It emanates from a noble Lord who is a most determined foe of free education, and who has always been opposed to it, and it is made in the interests of those who are opposed to free education. It will be neither fair nor straightforward if the Government use their majority at such a late period of the Session to the disadvantage of the Opposition, and in order to carry an Amendment against which there is such a strong feeling as there is against this. Something has been said about the interpretation to be given to the word. I am at a loss to understand the new doctrine that inserting a word in a Bill is equivalent to inserting its interpretation. We want the word inserted; the interpretation will be worked out by the Department. The word was in the Act of 1870, and we want it in that of 1891.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: The word in the Act of 1870 bears a different application from what is intended in this case.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Department in determining the amount of public school accommodation required in a district has under the Act to take every school into consideration, and, therefore, I contend that the clause in the Act of 1870 does apply to public elementary schools. This is not a question of providing accommodation, but of conferring a benefit on the individual parent. You say to the working man: "You shall have the benefit of free education;" and immediately afterwards yon say: "If you will not send your child to occupy a vacant place in a school to which you object, you shall be deprived of the benefits of free education." My right hon. Friend put the case very strongly with regard to Protestants being forced in to
  794
  Roman Catholic schools. I think the converse would be equally hard, and that it would be very wrong to force Roman Catholic children into Protestant schools—which is a thing no Government in this country dare attempt to do in face of the feeling that would certainly be aroused on the question. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the case of a Herefordshire village, where Protestant children had to go to a Roman Catholic school. I think that was a case of great cruelty to the inhabitants of that village. I hope the House will make a strong protest against this Lords' Amendment, and I still trust that the Government will, in conformity with their pledges, see that it would be wise to reject the proposal. When a bargain has been made between the Government and the House of Commons, I do not think it right that the Government should recede from it, and impose upon us that which they could not have imposed upon us otherwise.
  MR. TALBOT: The right hon. Gentleman a little departed from the general moderation with which he has discussed the Amendment when he referred to the noble Lord who is supposed to be responsible for it. It is only fair to Lord Sandford to say that he did not challenge a Division on the Second Reading of this Bill, and that all his Amendments were aimed at making the Bill more workable. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will look into this matter they will see that the insertion of this word, in this particular place, would be the "letting out of strife." The Department might be constantly called upon to say whether, in their judgment, these free places are suitable. The word "suitable" is mainly looked upon from the religious point of view. In other words, it would mean that in every place where there was a feeling that a school did not exactly represent all the religious convictions of the inhabitants of that district, representations might be made to the Government and the Education Department to undertake the very perilous duty of inquiring into these very difficult and delicate matters. It is hardly worthy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk of Protestant children being forced into Roman Catholic schools; the idea is preposterous, and the common sense of the

  795
  country would revolt against it. It would be impossible to do anything of the sort, and I do not think there need be the slightest apprehension. Of course, a number of persons in a district might represent that the religious teaching of a school was unsuitable, and would keep the community in a ferment by constant representation. But I think we may rely upon what has been the practice of the Department. The Commission on Education in their Report quote the interpretation of the Act of 1870 given by Mr. Cumin, to the effect that wherever there is an elementary school, there the accommodation is ipso facto suitable. If you put this word "suitable" into a new Act, you raise the question whether an elementary school is or is not suitable. The only way to avoid perpetual religious discussions is to adhere to the practice of the Department, and the present conditions of the law. It is true that the word "suitable" was inserted by Her Majesty's Government in their attempt to please all parties in the House, but it is not much of a reproach to them to say that they had not probably considered how this word would work. We have seen how it would work, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield and others have let the cat out of the bag. They have told us that this word was introduced in order to prevent the forcing of children into Roman Catholic schools, but it is clear that it would be worked in very different ways from that. The House of Lords acted with perfect discretion and wisdom in removing this word, and, far from introducing discord, they have done that which will facilitate the smooth working of the measure. It will introduce peace and concord in the interests of fair dealing between the different sections of the community. I appeal to the House to support the House of Lords in their Amendment.
  MR. CHANNING: I venture to say that no fair-minded man can interpret the 5th section of the Act of 1870 in the sense which the noble Lord has attempted. The deficiency to be supplied is a deficiency in suitable schools. How can it be argued, when we are supplying the deficiency, that the word does not equally apply to the schools which
  796
  have to be provided? It seems to me plain that the Government have made full use of the conciliatory spirit which we on this side manifested in endeavouring to secure the progress of the Bill; but now that they have secured this Bill, they are unmasking their batteries by means of the House of Lords. Sir, the question of the suitability of schools includes the question of distance as well as that of religious teaching. These are points of great importance, and it is the duty of Members on this side of the House to do what they can to obtain justice for the people. I make a formal protest against the course adopted, and I have some right to protest, as an Amendment which stood in my name was accepted with great fairness by the First Lord of the Treasury. The issue before the House has to a certain extent been lost sight of. It is the question of the power of the Department to raise fees or to authorise the charge of fees in a district where free schools have been established. It will operate chiefly in those large of northern towns which are in the hands the Denominational Party. The removal of this word "suitable" will have this result: Where Inspectors have spoken of schools as sheds, it will leave the general managers to give free education in the worst of their schools, and to deny the use of the best of their schools to the people. I protest against the course which is being adopted, and it is perfectly clear that we are face to face with one of those frequent conspiracies which the noble Lord has instituted against the School Board system, and, from my knowledge of the constituencies, I believe Her Majesty's Government, by this breach of faith, will have firmly driven one more nail into their political coffin.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The hon. Member speaks of the feeling of the constituencies, but I can assure him that Preston does not share his view. The managers of elementary schools in Preston do not entertain the view that Protestant children will be forced into Roman Catholic schools, and I have no doubt that when this Act is passed, though it was not desired by some of us, it will be so administered that none of the risks which are feared will be experienced.
  MR. T. ELLIS: On the question of suitability, I wish to cite

  797
  the opinion of two Permanent Secretaries of the Education Department, Sir Patrick Cumin and Sir Francis Sandford, given before the Education Commission. Sir Francis Sandford questioned Sir Patrick Cumin on the question of the distance of schools. Sir Francis asked: "Then suitability covers distance, fees, and the Conscience Clause, does it not?" Sir Patrick Cumin answered: "Yes; that is so." We are not entering here so much into the operation of the Conscience Clause, although I think the claim of the three right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench is just—that Roman Catholic children shall not be driven into Protestant schools, and vice versâ. I go further, and I say that I do not see why the children of Nonconformists should be driven into Church schools. My fellow-countrymen feel that very strongly. I have quoted the opinion of two Permanent Secretaries that suitability does not depend merely upon the Conscience Clause, but upon the question of distance, and what is a much more pertinent argument in this case, it depends on the fees. In Stockport the word "suitable" has been used to break down the fees, which were so high that the Department felt they were unsuitable; and I say that it is of tenfold importance that this word, which has been so used in Stockport, should be employed with the same object all over the country, whether the parents will not have an opportunity of obtaining free public school accommodation. It seems to me that the contention of the noble Lord and of the Vice President falls completely to the ground in face of the experience of the two Vice Presidents on this side of the House and that of Sir Francis Sandford and Sir Patrick Cumin.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I cannot understand why the word "suitable" should be struck out. The proposal to take it out leads me to suppose that the word "sufficient" will mean sufficient in number, whether suitable or not. We know perfectly well that there are many schools which ought not to be counted in reckoning the accommodation for a district. Sometimes a river may divide a district, and there may be an excess of accommodation on one side of
  798
  the river which is not available for children living on the other side of the river. It has always been the practice of the School Board of London and of the Education Department that they reckon the excess of accommodation in certain schools (say Roman Catholic schools) as unsuitable. Temporary schools are unsuitable, and in many cases the point turns on the question of distance. Now, this clause is really as to a fee school after sufficient free accommodation has been provided. I notice in the 4th sub-section of this clause it is proposed by a subsequent Amendment to take out the word "unsuitable." It seems to me that this desire to take out the word "suitable" and to alter the word "unsuitable" indicates a wish to charge higher fees in certain schools. If that be the object we ought to understand so. The effect is to enable the Education Department to allow fees to be charged in a larger number of schools than would be allowed if the word "suitable" is allowed to remain in. The Government themselves first allowed this word "suitable" and the word "unsuitable" to appear in the Bill, and if the proposal to take them out changes the operation of the word sufficient, it is a misfortune, for "sufficient," as I understand it, means sufficient in the ordinary sense, that is, available and proper. The Education Department have never had a difficulty in defining what is suitable, and I believe they have always come to a just decision upon it. Therefore, the word would not give any more trouble in the future than in the past. If the word suitable is only to apply to non-private schools the idea is new to me. Besides, the words in this section are "suitable public schools." What is the object of introducing the question of private schools at all. Suitable public schools, and a sufficient number of them go together. Therefore I shall have to vote for the retention of the words "suitable" and "unsuitable" wherever they occur.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: When the argument was used by my hon. Friend that Roman Catholic children might be forced into Protestant schools and Protestant children into Roman Catholic schools, the Vice President interposed in a way which showed that he contemplated a

  799
  few children being subjected to the injustice, but not a large number.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: I repudiate the assertion altogether.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: It is all very well to repudiate the assertion, but the fact remains that no other interpretation can be put upon the words he used. Let that fact remain; it is an important fact, and one which the country will take note of. As to the argument of the First Lord of the Admiralty, if all the other schools are full, what does it matter whether it is a School Board district or not, if the Department refuses to act? There may be no accommodation in one part of a district, and apart from whether a river or a mountain divides it, the question remains whether the children of that portion of the district are to be left to travel long distances to find school accommodation. I am rather astonished that the Government should yield in this way, and we shall not only make the most earnest possible protest now, but we shall take care that the country understands the nature of the transaction.
  MR. POWELL J. WILLIAMS: As a Liberal Unionist Member, I regret the course which the Government have adopted in this matter. The argument of the noble Lord was that simply because this word "suitable" might not have precisely the meaning which it bears in other Acts of Parliament, therefore it ought not to be inserted. But it seems to me that if the meaning which the word would bear in this clause is the proper meaning, then it ought to be retained for the reasons which prompted the House of Commons to insert it. If you look into the case closely, there cannot be any real objection to the retaining of the word "suitable," because accommodation is not accommodation in the proper sense unless it be suitable. Accommodation in a Jewish school is not accommodation in the real sense for Christian children. Accommodation in a Roman Catholic school is not accommodation in the real sense for Protestant children; and, therefore, I venture to think that the word "suitable" as inserted by this House is most important, and that the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton is absolutely unanswerable. Unless it is
  800
  retained, it is quite possible that parents in certain districts of England might find themselves deprived of free education because they declined to send their children to schools which are not suitable.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): There have been some very strong attacks made upon the Government in respect of this Amendment, and I think it right to state the circumstances in which we are placed. It is said we have done a very strong thing in having accepted an Amendment in this House and in afterwards supporting the alteration of that Amendment which has been made by the House of Lords. Is it really contended for a moment that because the Government have accepted an Amendment in this House that therefore the Lords are to be deprived of all power to alter it? Since the Amendment has been accepted in the Commons the Government have discovered that it makes a larger alteration in the measure than they intended. If the object of the Lords is, as alleged, to damage free education, they have gone about their work in a most extraordinary manner, because none of their Amendments will have that effect. The Government introduced the Bill with the distinct understanding that they wished to carry free education with the least possible disturbance of the existing system. Now they find the word "suitable" defended on the ground that it is the thin end of the wedge which would produce a disturbance of the religious settlement of 1870. ["No, no!"] It is perfectly clear, from the speeches that have been made by hon. Members opposite, that the retention of the word "suitable" would enable persons to raise religious difficulty in schools in which any religious teaching is given under the Conscience Clause. The Government determined, as I have said, to pass the Bill with the least possible disturbance of existing arrangements, and, therefore, they are consistent in resisting the change which they have discovered would be made by retaining the Amendment to which they assented in this House.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think it would have been more satisfactory as a

  801
  defence of the Lords' Amendment if the arguments now urged in its favour had been used in the other House; then there would be something to be said for the position of the Government. In this House the Amendment was made on specific grounds, supported by good arguments, which led to its acceptance. In the other House the word was omitted practically without discussion; the President of the Council did not say a word about it. At all events, he did not put forward those grounds, which I admit have some strength in them, that are now put forward by the Government. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this Amendment, coming from Lord Sandford, and taken in conjunction with his other Amendments, is intended not to strengthen but to weaken the Bill. Coming from that noble Lord it is readily accepted by the President of the Council, who, in his Second Reading speech, did not show that he had any particular love) for free education. We are, therefore, entitled to believe that this Amendment of the Lords is introduced with some ulterior motive, and the speeches we have listened to show that it is necessary that the Amendment should not be accepted. So far from its opponents wishing to raise the religious question, they wish to prevent the religious difficulty from arising by parents being forced to send their children to schools which are not suitable to them. Does the Vice President wish that parents should be forced to send their children to unsuitable schools? If he does not, what possible objection can he have to the retention of this word? As to this being only a departmental question, it must be remembered that the Bill produces a state of things very different from that existing under the Act of 1870. The question is whether the free schools are to be inferior to the fee paying schools, and it is on that point, apart from the religious difficulty, that I desire to retain the word "suitable." In many towns where the fees are very high, and where there is no School Board, it must be greatly to the interests of the managers of the voluntary schools to keep free schools out of their towns, or, at all events, to have as few free schools as possible. Their object will be to associate a sense of inferiority with the
  802
  free schools, and more especially will they do that if a great extension of the grouping system is adopted, because they will provide as free schools those which are most inferior in building and equipment, and which will not really be "suitable" as free schools. I, for one, shall very heartily vote against the omission of this word by the House of Lords. It is clear from the discussion we have had that the Vice President himself is in favour of the retention of the word; and, putting aside the extreme Voluntaryists, it has the support of the general body of the House.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: When this clause was in Committee I very strongly supported it, and I still believe it is very valuable; and when it is attacked I reply by pointing out the safeguards, namely, that there is to be sufficient and suitable free accommodation, and that the right to charge fees in certain cases is limited to those in which the population has shifted, or in which the charge would be for the educational advantages of the district. If the words "and suitable" had never been introduced, I suppose that the word "sufficient" would have implied suitability. But that may not be the case now. I attach no importance to the argument that the word would have a different meaning in the Act of 1870, if that be so. The meaning of any word depends to some extent on the context. I cannot agree with some of my hon. Friends who blame the Government. I cannot find fault with the Government, who had perhaps difficulty in carrying Amendments in another place. At the same time, I regret they will not agree to the retention of the word "suitable." That is the view held by the hon. Member for Woolwich, who has certainly great experience, and who is entitled to speak on the matter. I venture to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will re-consider the matter, and will agree to the retention of the word "suitable."
  *COLONEL BLUNDELL: I venture to think that originally it did not matter whether the word was in or out, but I think the Government would be unwise to reinsert it in the Bill now that by the Debate of to-day it has been made an ambiguous term.
  (6.44.) The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 86.—(Div. List, No. 401.)
  Subsequent Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 2, line 31 and 32, agreed to.
  Lines 31 and 32, leave out "Fee for any such child," and insert "ordinary fee for such children," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
  MR. MUNDELLA: I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment. The words proposed to be left out were inserted on the Motion of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, with the object that no child attending an elementary school should be charged more than 6d. a week, bringing it up to the limit of 9d. I want to know why these words have been taken out and others substituted, which allow an average fee?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: Not average, but ordinary.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Ordinary; an ordinary fee is an average fee; and if the right hon. Gentleman considers what it means, he will find that in the higher standards higher fees can be charged. In the infant school you may have no charge, in the lower standards you may have a 3d. fee, and in the higher standards you may have a 9d. fee. It was not the right hon. Gentleman who accepted the Amendment in this House, but it was the Vice President himself, who, after a short discussion, volunteered to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. I ask him what has occurred since that this matter should be changed? We know what has happened elsewhere. In Scotland, for the first time during the last 20 years, the higher standards have fallen in number. Why? Because high fees are charged. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to have the Government paying £2,000,000 a year in freeing schools and still to have a continuance of these hardships, to use no stronger term? I therefore move to reject this Amendment, and to restore the clause to its original condition.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: The word "ordinary" has been inserted to be in accordance with the words of the Definition Clause in the Act of 1870, which says that the ordinary payment for instruction shall not exceed 9d. a week. Now, this is a scheme whereby we say, after the fee grant of 3d. a week, the ordinary fee shall not exceed 6d. per week—that is to say, it may be the balance of fee.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The effect of the Amendment of the Lords would be to bring the Bill back to substantially the form in which it originally was in this House, and on which the right hon. Gentleman accepted my Amendment. Whether the word is "average" or "ordinary," I think it will be clear that the mischief which I pointed out would equally accrue, namely, that the managers of schools would be able to charge differential rates or fees amounting to more than 6d. to children whom, for any reason, they might be unwilling to admit to their schools. Therefore, the argument now is as strong as it was when I moved the Amendment which was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will resist this alteration.
  *SIR B. SAMUELSON: It seems to me that the argument of my right hon. Friend the Vice President is difficult to follow. In 1870 we had not this Free Education Bill, and we limited the fees. Free-education is now to be the rule and payment the exception. But if you sanction the Lords' Amendment there will be no limit whatever, and you will have fees of 9d. and 1s. imposed. I am surprised that the Government should have assented to this Amendment after having accepted in this House the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. If I may say so, these changes are calculated, to damage the Party of the Government outside very much indeed. If we wish to treat this matter from a Party point of view, it is the very best thing that could happen to us, but I should be sorry to take that ground. This Bill is introduced with the purpose of free education, and it is our duty to see that we are not diverted from that object. I hope the Government will still their way to disagreeing

  805
  with the alteration made by the Lords; their doing so certainly could not involve any question of finance that could injuriously affect the voluntary schools.
  MR. T. ELLIS: It is much to be deplored that the Government should take this reactionary step at the bidding of the House of Lords. In the original Bill there was a valuable clause that no higher fee than 3d. should be charged, but now it seems to me that, having omitted that clause from the Bill, it would be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to the Amendment accepted readily when the Bill was last before us. By this Amendment Parliamentary sanction will be given to a most vicious system of differentiating between one child and another, differentiating in the very worst form. In previous discussions it was urged several times that we should expect school managers to give some quid pro quo for the magnificent grant Parliament was giving, and a most moderate demand was that no higher fee than 6d. should be charged for any child. The original clause plainly indicated the intention that the fee was to be brought down as low as possible, and I do hope the Government will not now acquiesce in this reactionary step taken by the House of Lords.
  MR. ADDISON: I have listened to the speeches made in which hon. Members have declared that this is an attack on the system of free education; but this remains a Free Education Bill, because for every child between the ages of 3 and 15 may be demanded a free place in a school; and this being conceded, if parents are willing to pay a high fee for a better form of elementary education in a higher grade school, why should they not be allowed to do so? How can this in any way affect the fact that those who desire free education can get it?
  MR. PICKARD: For the Government to accept this Amendment will be equivalent to taking away with one hand what they give with the other. Too much regard is paid to the alterations made in another place. If it is intended to give free education to the country, then give it in the form we have decided it should be given after it has been thoroughly discussed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I doubt if the hon. Member has read the clause, for his remarks, as have been the remarks of the other hon. Members, are entirely wide of the actual proposal. The effect of the clause is that in certain cases—not frequent cases I think—where ample provision has been made in the district for free education, after that we may have a graded school.
  MR. MUNDELLA: But a fee above 6d.?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: A higher grade school may be established; but as there must first be sufficient free accommodation in the district, not a single working man need send his children to the school charging fees above 6d. My right hon. Friend will see that it is only when the Department is satisfied that sufficient accommodation is provided without the payment of fees—that is, if you have given free education in every district—that a school may be established charging a fee above 6d.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, but the Elementary Education Act says the fees shall not exceed 9d.; but this will be exceeded, taking into account the 10s. grant.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: This is really a small point. There may be certain cases—they will be rare cases—in which ample free accommodation having been provided, then if school managers choose they may set up a school of this kind. How can it be said this is taking free education from the working classes In these circumstances, how can it be said that the Government are taking away with one hand what they have granted with the other? I protest against the insinuation. It seems to me as if hon. Members opposite, on the strength of the very small changes made in the Bill by the House of Lords, intend to start an electoral campaign in which they will indulge in even greater exaggerations than they utter in the House of Commons. We have had gross exaggeration as to the effect of the Amendment, and I must protest against the importance sought to be put upon a very small change. I do not attach very great importance to the change, but I do attach importance to these imputations of motives.
  *MR. M'LAREN: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot deny that this allows the raising of fees in what he calls graded schools from 9d. to 1s. That, as a matter of fact, is the effect of the clause, because the limit is now 9d., and the future limit will be 9d., plus the 10s. grant. What is, therefore, proposed is that where there is now a limit of 9d., there shall be in future the limit of 1s. Our objection is to the fees of high grade schools being raised after the 10s. grant has been made to reduce the 9d. fee by 3d. We strongly object to any educational authority still continuing to charge 9d. after the grant in aid has been given.
  (7.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 71.—(Div. List, No. 402.)
  Line 34, after "sanctioned," insert "or refused," the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 3, line 6, leave out from "desired" to "and," in line 8, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
  MR. MUNDELLA: This is one of the most important Amendments made in the other House. As the Bill left this House it read thus:—
  "If at any time after the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act it is represented to the Education Department that there is in any school district, or in any part of a school I district, an insufficient amount of public school accommodation without payment of fees for children over the age of three years and under the age of fifteen for whom such accommodation is desired, or where such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population"—
  the Department shall make inquiry, and so on. The Lords have struck out the words—
  "Or where such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population."
  I am only repeating what I have said as to other of these Amendments, that these words were inserted in this House with the assent of hon. Members on both sides, with the assent of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—who does not back up his words by his vote. It was agreed that the
  808
  words were not harmful, but necessary and desirable, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury stopped discussion after there had been four or five speeches, remarking "We do not object to the insertion of these words, as there appears to be a general desire for their insertion." Now, I do not wish to re-enter upon the argument we have had upon the word "suitable," but I do say that when it is represented to the Department that the provision is unsuitable, then the Department ought to listen to such representation, and it ought to be put into the Act that the Department shall listen to such, representation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has said we are raising again the religious difficulty, and the hon. Member for Oxford University said he was surprised to hear the "No Popery" cry from this side of the House. The hon. Member is not quite fair in using that language. We have said we are not in favour of forcing Catholic children into Protestant schools, or Protestant children into Catholic schools. We say it ought to be fair all round, and the question of whether a school is suitable to the public local wants ought to be fully considered. My hon. Friend has quoted Mr. Cumin's evidence to show that unsuitability might exist on religious grounds, topographical grounds, or on the ground of fees. These words were freely accepted in this House, and yet without a word of protest the Government allow them to be taken out again in the other House, and now in the last days of July, and a few days before Prorogation, when the Government are always proportionately stronger in numbers than the Opposition, they come down and force upon us, in spite of their own promise, in spite of their voluntary concession, these Lords' Amendments, against which they raised no protest in another place. What is the objection to these words, "unsuitable to the wants of the population?" It is most unreasonable to take these words out without cause shown. Accommodation may be sufficient, and yet wholly unsuitable, as the Vice President knows perfectly well. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the statement I have made. There are two other ex-Vice Presidents sitting opposite, and I put the question again—Has it not been the

  809
  rule during the past 21 years for the Department, in estimating the amount of accommodation, to deduct the Catholic schools as unsuitable for the general public wants? It is not reasonable that the Department should force Protestant children into these schools, and I say again, in common fairness to all parties, there should be some test applied as to whether a school is suitable or not.
  MR. CHANNING: As the words were inserted upon my motion, I may be allowed to add my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, that he should allow them to remain. I think if he will consider the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and by himself on a previous Amendment, he will see that that argument affords some ground in support of my proposal. The contention from the other side was that the word "suitable" did not run on the same lines as it does in the Act of 1870. Now, I contend that striking out these words and the word "unsuitable" in the 4th sub-section is really drawing the Bill on different lines to the Act of 1870 and the governing section of that Act. There the word "suitable" is used in regard to deficiencies of school accommodation, and here the words are applied exactly on the same lines, and with the same general reasoning behind them as in the Act of 1870. I remind the right hon. Gentleman, also, that there was considerable discussion on another Amendment which pressed the Government, perhaps, rather further in this direction, and it was on the suggestion of the Government—the First Lord of the Treasury, I think—that these words were accepted. This Amendment, of course, raises a much wider question than the previous one—a question of more vital importance, a question, I might say, of local rights, of local option in educational matters—the power of the inhabitants to make representation to the Department that the school accommodation is unsuitable, as well as insufficient. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will decide to retain the words.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I cannot see the force of the argument of the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It appears to me we have already discussed this point fully in all its bearings, and have come to a decisive vote on the question of the
  810
  word "suitable." The right hon. Gentleman has challenged me to say what has been the policy of the Department, and to give any case where the Department has forced Catholic children into Protestant schools.
  MR. MUNDELLA: No; I asked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it had not been the custom of the Department, in considering the question of supply of accommodation in elementary schools, to deduct the Roman Catholic supply as unsuitable.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: That has been the case as regards the Metropolis, but not, generally speaking, as applied to the rest of the country.
  MR. MUNDELLA: It has in large towns.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: But what I want to point out is that this has been adopted as part of the policy of the Department, and why, then, in the name of common sense, not leave well alone? Why not be satisfied with the result of experience—why emphasise this? I am tempted to believe—I wish to give every consideration to my opponents—but if you are not content to let well alone and rely on the well established practice of 21 years, if you will not do that, and wish these words inserted, then I am forced to the conviction that you mean something more than you are now stating. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire says it is a much wider question than the one we have already dealt with; and if he frankly tells us that, surely it is not the right way to tempt us to come to a different decision from that we arrived at on the last Amendment after exhaustive discussion. The rejection of this Amendment will seriously affect, or may seriously affect, the future policy of the Department as regards the working of the Act. I have shown that in the past policy of the Department there is no cause shown for the insertion of these words, and we are content to base our demand for the acceptance of the Lords' Amendment on the administration of 21 years, which has worked extremely well. The words are not necessary as applied to schools receiving the Government grant and protected by the Conscience Clause.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I cannot but feel disppointed with the

  811
  speech just made. This is a much wider question—a totally distinct question—to that raised before. The right hon. Gentleman said the word "suitable" has a technical meaning in the Department, and, therefore, he objected to introducing that word in a previous section of the clause. He says the Department ascertained this difficulty too late to state it to this House, and, therefore, they inserted that Amendment in the House of Lords. But this Amendment is a totally different matter, and I will endeavour to show that the right hon. Gentleman's speech just now was not applicable to this Amendment at all, although it was to the previous one. It is worth while to note that the support to the Commons Amendment came from the other side quite as strongly as from this side, and this is a question which raises much broader issues than the last Division. This is the crux of the whole situation dealing with whether you are or are not to have free education, bonâ fide, throughout the whole Kingdom. Sub-section 4 of Clause 3 says—
  "If at any time after the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act it is represented to the Education Department that there is in any school district, or any part of a school district, an insufficient amount of public school accommodation without payment of fees for children over three and under fifteen years of age, for whom such accommodation is desired, or that such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population," &c—
  then, and then only, are the Education Department to interfere and compel the provision of free education. Now, what does the House of Lords propose? The words "or that such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population," are to be struck out, and there is to be simply an arithmetical problem, and nothing else. There are a certain number of children in a district, there is a certain amount of accommodation, and though it may be, from distance or quantity, entirely unsuited to the district, yet these people are to be deprived of free education. If I were arguing this question from a Party point of view, I should desire nothing better than that this Amendment should remain. The Amendment of the House of Lords reverses the spirit of the whole Bill as a Bill for free education, and I congratulate the hon. Member for the
  812
  Evesham Division, the hon. Member for Salford, and the noble Lord the Member for Darwen on the fact that by the acceptance of the Amendment a great part of the virtue of the measure is taken out of it as far as free education is concerned. The intention of the Amendment is to put free schools and free scholars at a disadvantage. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that these words have a technical meaning in the Education Department. Not at all. These words never appeared in an Act of Parliament before. You say you are to provide for a certain district a certain number of free school places, and that these are to be available for all the children in that district; but now you strike out those words and say that if in a large parish there are a certain number of places free, even though the school is unsuitable for the needs of the population—even though a river may divide the parish, or a mountain, as an hon. Member pointed out—the parents are to avail themselves of it for their children. I thought there was some force in the argument of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary for War, that the Government have discovered a certain kind of technical meaning in the word "suitable" as applied to the 1st sub-section of this clause, and that, therefore, they felt in a difficulty in dealing with it; but they are now introducing an entirely new principle into the measure, which has nothing to do with suitability. This is a question of providing proper accommodation in each district. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this is the mode in which Public Business is to be conducted in the House of Commons—that the Government are to accept an Amendment here and strike it out in another place for no reason whatever? It is due to the House of Commons and the character of the Government that they should consent to reinstate the words.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that this is a fatal stab in the back to the whole system of compulsory free education. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has sufficiently looked at the wording of the clause. If he will do so, he will see that the clause only deals with the case of a representation being made to the Department.

  813
  Where no representation is made, the Department will act according to their traditional practice, and with that practice the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have expressed themselves satisfied. It is asked why the Government now wish to omit these words, which they accepted before. It is because a great deal of new light has been thrown on these words by the speeches we have heard. We see that it will be possible in the future that a representation will be made, "this is a denominational school, and, therefore, is unsuitable."
  MR. MUNDELLA: That is an afterthought.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should give utterance to a misrepresentation of our motive. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire that these words will give an opportunity for a kind of religious local option. What does that mean? It means that, after the Bill has passed, a certain number of the ratepayers in every district will come together and say, "We will now make a representation to the Department that the public elementary schools in this district are unsuitable to the wants of the population. We do not consider them suitable, because they are denominational." In the interests of education and of peace, I think it would be most unwise that words which will give rise to such a religious difficulty should be left in the Bill. We have seen sufficient evidence of this.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Nobody else has.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Then what does local option mean? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the force of that argument, even if he does not agree with it. This point only refers to representations to be made to the Education Department. It does not fetter their hands. They will proceed as they have done hitherto. They will not allow unsuitable schools—schools that are unsuitable in the true old sense—to take the place of schools that are suitable. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with difficulties which do not exist, and has ignored the real difficulty, which is the religious one.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I would suggest that it would be possible so to word the clause as to remove the objection of the right hon. Gentleman
  814
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The "representation" might be left out, and the clause might be worded somewhat as follows:—
  "If the Education Department are satisfied that in any school district there is insufficient accommodation, or that such accommodation is unsuitable to the wants of the population."
  According to my understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that would meet his point.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I said that was unnecessary, because it is already the practice of the Department, and we do not wish to interfere with the practice.
  *MR. C. S. PARKER: If so, why not word the Amendment so as to recognise that such is the practice of the Department?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I do not know whether I may, by leave of the House, point out that the Education Department are to act under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1870. It is clear, therefore, that the Department will take far more into consideration than simply to remove the mere insufficiency.
  MR. ADDISON: I do not consider the reproach addressed to me by the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) to be well deserved, because while it is quite true that when the matter was under discussion I added my voice to urge the Government to accept these words, I did so on the ground that they seemed to be harmless and unobjectionable. But after reading what has been said, and after having heard the Debate to-night, it is plain to me that to some extent I was deceived by the ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen who brought forward the Amendment. Now it appears that this Bill, which is ostensibly a Bill for free education, is to be made a Bill for the establishment of universal School Boards. According to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, what is the meaning of the word "suitable"? Something was faintly said about its being suitable topographically—that is to say, suitable as to distance; but I should have thought that that would have been covered by the word "sufficient." It is absurd to say that a school is sufficient which is too far off for the children to attend it. The education authorities have themselves said that every public elementary school shall be

  815
  sufficient in that respect. If there is any school in England that is not suitable in that respect it ought not to receive the grant. We are told, again, that the word "suitable" means suitable to the feelings of those people who do not like religious education. It is plain that if that argument is good, whatever dislike Protestant children may have to going to Roman Catholic schools can hardly be dispelled by the dislike of hon. Members who represent Wales to any sort of denominational schools, especially those of the Church of England. I voted with the Government that the public elementary schools supported out of the taxes should be in every case suitable for all children sent to them; and when we are told that we ought to view with suspicion all that comes from the House of Lords in the matter of education, we ought to remember that the leader of the Government is in the House of Lords, and that no responsible Party leader has taken up the matter of education as Lord Salisbury has done, and his having done that for the last five years seems to be a special annoyance to the right hon. Member for Sheffield.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The two principles on which we supported this Bill were that it adopted the principle of free schools, and that where the fees were not to be entirely abolished it admitted the right of the parent to demand free places where they had not been provided; and in regard to the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this will lead to local difficulties and local friction, unfortunately the principle which has been adopted of retaining fees in certain schools will inevitably lead to local friction. It seems to me that the right of the parent in regard to this matter is a very strong one. He is entitled to demand not only free accommodation, but that it shall be suitable for the wants of himself and his children. That is all we ask for in this matter. We know that in a large number of towns the fees are very high, and the managers of voluntary schools will not voluntarily introduce a system of free schools. It will be necessary for the parents to demand free places, and it will be an advantage to the Department to know whether it is a question of accommodation and whether the accommodation is suitable or not. We on this
  816
  side believe these words are quite as essential as the word "sufficient"; and that if the accommodation is to be supplied it must not only be sufficient, but suitable for the wants of the parents.
  MR. POWELL J. WILLIAMS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put it that these words apply only to the representations which are made by the public to the Department upon the matter of the suitability of the accommodation. At the same time, when he tells us that the Department, acting for themselves without the interference of the public, are accustomed to take into account whether the accommodation is suitable, I should have thought, if the Department of its own motion did that, it might allow the public to do it of their own motion when acting without the Department. The fact is, we are giving a very large amount of money for the purpose of education without representative control, and everything that tends to give the persons interested in it a full right to appeal upon every point by which they are affected be desirable to retain. Therefore, I am in favour of the retention of the words in the Bill which the House of Lords have omitted.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Addison), I pressed on the Government the insertion of these words, but, unlike him, I have not changed my opinion, and hope sincerely that the Government may yet give way and allow them to be retained. There seems to be no doubt as to what the traditions of the Department have been in this matter. It is said that cases have occurred in which Roman Catholic public-elementary schools have been held to be unsuitable, and I think it right that they should so be held according to the manner in which they are conducted. But I do not stop there. It seems to me that it is possible for a public elementary school to be unsuitable for the wants of the population. A certain number of people live in a neighbourhood; they represent to the Department that a certain public elementary school is unsuitable for the wants of the district; the Department are convinced that that is the case, and, in spite of that, according to this Amendment, they are not to have the power to alter the state of things. We are told

  817
  that they say that every public elementary school must be suitable, but I am sure it is not so in the Act. I believe cases have been referred to where the education given in these schools is such that children of Nonconformists could not be sent to them with any sense of self-respect on the part of the parents. I say that such schools are unsuitable for the wants of the population. It seems to me to be of the utmost importance that where a foolish clergyman or manager acts in such a manner as to necessitate it, the Department should be enabled to come down upon him and say, "If you do not alter this mode of procedure we shall be compelled to put the Education Act of 1870 into force." I am content to leave it to the discretion of the Department to determine whether the complaints made to them are just. What I want to see done, and what I hope every Member in this House desires to see, is that the teaching provided shall be such as is suitable to the wants of the neighbourhood; and where the teaching-is found to be unsuitable, I hope it will be in the power of the Department to put a stop to it.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I do not see that there is any ground for mistrust as to whether in the future the words inserted in the clause may be used in a manner contrary to the practice in the past. Of course, the ratepayers will complain if the schools are found to be unsuitable to the wants of the neighbourhood. I do not think so badly of the future Presidents and Vice Presidents of the Education Department as to suppose they will extend the construction of the word "suitable" in such a way as to declare that a Wesleyan school is not fit for a Baptist child, and so forth; and I have no doubt that if the word "suitable" is re-inserted, the Department will simply follow the practice it has observed all along.
  *MR. ROBY: The question of the use of the word "suitable" has given rise to a good deal of contention as to the mode in which it may be applied. In my opinion, there would be no difficulty in using it in any sense in which it ought to be used for the purpose of carrying out the intentions of this measure, and I think the Government are pressing much too strongly the argument they have used
  818
  with regard to the technical meaning of the word. A word of general meaning, such as the word "suitable," ought not to be considered a technical word except for some very strong reason; and all their argument comes to this: that hitherto they have been in the habit, in accordance with the construction of the Elementary Act, of interpreting the word in a particular sense. The Government admit that you may say the school or the accommodation is sufficient, but you must not say it is not suitable for the wants of the neighbouring population. Do they mean to say that for the future a locality is to be debarred or discouraged from addressing the Department and pointing out that a school, say in a large town like Stockport or Preston, is badly situated in point of site, or wretched in point of attendance, or insufficient in point of construction, or, generally, not adapted to the wants of the people, having regard not merely to the denominational, but to the special character of the population? The Government say, "We strike out this word 'suitable,' and will not allow the people of the locality to come to us and say they have a statutory right to object to the suitability of the school." Surely there should be no such objection to the use of this word as will prevent our securing that, when this great boon of free education is given to a district, it should not be made illusory or frittered away in the management of the school. I cannot, think that, having regard to the security of the public in this matter, and to the good reputation of the Government, that they are wise in abandoning at a late period of the Session an Amendment which they accepted some time ago. On the contrary, I think they would do well to make some concession on this question.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: The defence of the Government for this Amendment is that it is unnecessary to re-insert the word "suitable"—because the Education Department acts on the principle of the clause as it stood, and, therefore, the word is unnecessary. The Vice President of the Council says, it is wise to let well alone, and that the word "sufficient" in the mind of the Department includes the word "suitable." If that be so, we are

  819
  letting well alone, because we only emphasise a practice which the right hon. Gentleman declares to be a good one. All we propose is to give legislative force to a practice which he says is already adopted by the Department. If this be so, what objection can there be to our proposal? The opposition offered to the introduction of the word "suitable" seems almost to prove that the Government have some ulterior motive, and that they intend in future to change the previous practice. If not, they would admit the introduction of this word. I cannot understand why, at this late period of the Session when time is so valuable, the Government should insist on forcing this Amendment upon the House.
  *MR. LOGAN: The arguments which have been used by those who have opposed the Lords Amendments appear to me to be unanswerable, and I do not intend to repeat them. I might have rested content to register yet another silent vote against these Amendments, but my duty and the trust imposed on me by my constituency bid me to protest in the most solemn manner against the other House vetoing a decision deliberately arrived at by the chosen Representatives of the people; and while, in one sense, I welcome these Amendments as helping us to educate the masses of the people as to the folly of a free people allowing any body of men by the mere accident of birth to—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going beyond the question raised by the Lords Amendments, and is not entitled to make these observations.
  *MR. LOGAN: If you had not stopped me, Sir, I should simply have said—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to continue these remarks.
  (8.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 62.—(Div. List, No. 403.) (8.24.)
  Page 3, line 9, after "case," insert—
  "Which inquiry shall, on the request of the same persons as are entitled under section nine of "The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' to apply for a public inquiry, he a public inquiry if the district is under a school board,"
  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the
  820
  Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
  MR. MUNDELLA: I want to point out that this is simply a dilatory Amendment. It has no other object in the world than to prevent free education coming into operation as soon as possible. It restricts the action and freedom of the Department. If it does not do so, why did not the right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced the Bill, insert words like it? Why is a public inquiry necessary? The Education Department has to find out if there is a sufficient supply of free school accommodation. If the Amendment is accepted, a year or two will be wasted in departmental and public inquiries before the Department will be in a position to require the establishment of a sufficient number of free elementary schools, and thus free education will be prevented from coming into operation as soon as it ought. The Amendment will work in this way. First, after the lapse of one year the Department will come to the conclusion that there is good ground for holding an inquiry. After that inquiry six months must elapse before an order can be issued requiring the provision of further free accommodation, and, instead of hon. Members being justified in wooing the constituencies by saying, "Remember the 1st September and see what we have given you," they will have to say, "Wait until the 1st September, 1893 or 1894, before you benefit by our policy." I appeal to the Government to support us in disagreeing with the Lords Amendment and in making the Bill what it was when it left this House. It surely is an extraordinary thing that the Government have to be compelled to support the principle of their own Bill.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I think that the right hon. Gentleman must have altogether misunderstood the scope of the Amendment. In order to allay the alarm of the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that the only object of the Amendment is to place the Board schools on the same footing with the voluntary schools as far as regards public inquiry. It will be very rarely, indeed, that such an inquiry will be required. When the right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment is a dila-

  821
  tory one, and intended to prevent free education coming quickly into operation, I say it is nothing of the kind. The inquiries are to be public, but they will probably only be necessary in the rare cases of recalcitrant School Boards. The Amendment is a very small one, and I am utterly astonished at the extraordinary complexion the right hon. Gentleman has placed on it.
  *MR. ROBY: I do not quite understand the Vice President's argument. If the Department think fit they can order a public inquiry. How many of these public inquiries are we to have? Why make this inquiry compulsory? It will assuredly lead to delay.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I should have thought hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have preferred that there should be a public inquiry in these matters. But my right hon. Friend does not attach an undue importance to the Amendment; and if it will facilitate matters, we will consent to a disagreement with the Lords Amendment. We shall do so with regret, because we consider a public inquiry is important. In any case, we trust it will not be imagined that the Amendment was made with any sinister object.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Other Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Line 11, after "1870," insert "and every other section enabling them in that behalf," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: This is a purely drafting Amendment, and I am not going to criticise it; but I must say I prefer the original wording.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: Sections 9 and 10 are most drastic in their operation, and the object of the Amendment is to call special attention to them. The Amendment meets, to a considerable extent, a good many of the arguments with regard to "suitability," because it enables the Education Department to take into consideration many of the points raised by hon. Gentlemen.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Line 14, after "fees," insert—
  "Provided that whenever, and so long as any deficiency in public school accommodation in any district is in course of being supplied with due despatch, no requisition or order shall be issued in that behalf of the Education Department,"
  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I should like to ask you, Sir, whether this Amendment is not outside the scope of the Bill? This Bill was founded on a Resolution of this House to supply public money for the purpose of making a fee grant. The Government resisted any discussion in respect to the 17s. 6d. limit, and any other question affecting the Act of 1870, on the ground that an Amendment of the Act of 1870 was outside the purview of this Bill. This is an Amendment to settle such controversies as those which have arisen at York and Salisbury, with which this Bill has nothing to do.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: On the point of order, I think these words refer exclusively to the Bill before the House. My noble Friend the Lord President took the opinion of the highest legal authority in the country as to the effect of these words, and he was assured the words do apply exclusively to this Bill, and not directly or indirectly with the Act of 1870.
  MR. MUNDELLA: In order to remove any doubt, I beg to move to insert, after "in," in line 2, the word "free."
  Amendment proposed, after the word "in," in line 2, to insert the word "free."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'free' be there inserted."
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: We are prepared to accept words which will make it perfectly clear that under no possibility should this proviso refer to the provisions of the Act of 1870. But I am not sure that the Amendment, with the proposed addition, will read well. I would suggest that we should insert after "in," in line 2, "such last mentioned."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am quite prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment, after "in," in line 2, to insert "such last mentioned."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as amended."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
  *MR. CHANGING: I must protest against the Amendment even as amended. It is quite obvious the Amendment is made in the spirit of some words which fell from the noble Lord the Member for Darwen (Viscount Cranborne), namely, "any delay is of value." I protest against this Bill being used to enlarge the powers of voluntary schools with regard to the provision of public school accommodation. The words accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield do not cover the issue. We all know that when this Bill is passed the present system will rapidly become a free school system. Ought we not to give a ready means of bringing the choice of schools within the reach of the people by the School Board system?
  MR. T. ELLIS: If the Government are sincere, the principle of the Bill is to give free education as soon as possible. We on this side are irreconcilably opposed to any obstacle being placed in the way of having, as soon as possible, free public school accommodation. I therefore hope my hon. Friend will divide the House against the Amendment.
  *MR. TALBOT: There is no intention by this Amendment to delay the provision of free school accommodation. What is intended is that where the inhabitants of a district prefer the existing voluntary system, they should be enabled to provide free accommodation under that system.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I also object to the words "with due despatch," and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him.
  *COLONEL HUGHES: In a parish in which I am a lessee we have paid large sums of money to prevent a School Board being established, and we are prepared to pay more with that object in view. In 12 months we may not be able to complete the school
  824
  accommodation. If that is so, it would be very hard on us if a School Board were set up. I think this act of grace will encourage voluntary efforts.
  *MR. ROBY: I do not know what the object of the Amendment is. It is already provided that a School Board is only to be formed when the school accommodation that is wanted is not being supplied with due despatch.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes) that if the clause was necessary to carry out his views there would be a great deal to be said in favour of it. But there is to be an expiration of 12 months; then there is to be an inquiry, and then the Education Department are to direct that the deficiency shall be supplied. This is a provision which is totally outside the Bill. I shall certainly divide against the clause.
  (9.22.) The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 48.—(Div. List, No. 404.)
  Subsequent Amendments as far as the Amendment Clause A agreed to.
  Clause A—
  (Grouping schools)
  "(1.) Where the managers of two or more public elementary schools in the same or neighbouring school districts, not being schools provided by a school board, agree to associate, and elect a committee for the schools in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Education Department, the schools may be treated as one school for such of the purposes of the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1891, as may be mentioned in the scheme, and the committee may for such purposes be treated as the managers of the associated schools.
  (2.) Where two or more public elementary schools are under the same managers, the said schools shall, if the managers so desire, be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be one school,"
  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: This is an entirely new clause. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation of it?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: This was inserted in another place with the assent of the leaders of the Opposition there. The clause enables voluntary schools in any district to form themselves into groups with the approval of the Education Department for the purposes of this Act. The object is to make more operative Clause 5, which empowers managers

  825
  of two or more voluntary schools to pay the fee grants into a common fund. The new clause enables the Department to deal with these as one school for financial purposes when grouped together. The principle of grouping was accepted in Committee on both sides, and on this principle the clause is based.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The 2nd subsection of the clause not only admits the principle of grouping; it provides that—
  "Where two or more schools are under the same managers, the schools shall, if the managers so desire, he deemed for the purposes of this Act to he one school."
  There is, then, no consent or control of the Education Department. I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman means to do about that; I do not think he means altogether to abdicate the functions of the Education Department.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: The earlier portion of the clause says that it "hall be in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Education Department.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Not in the 2nd sub-section.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: What we ask is the course the right hon. Gentleman means to take in reference to both subsections. I can quite understand Subsection 1 as carrying out the principle of grouping, but Sub-section 2 contains a new principle, where two or more schools are under one management they shall, at the desire of the managers, be deemed one school, so that the schools of one denomination in a town may all be put under one management and be treated as one school, though there may be degrees of fees, high and low, and the grant applied to the whole as one school. The effect would be unjust, and I think before we pass from Sub-section I we ought to know what the Government propose to do with Sub-section 2.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think the two sub-sections need necessarily be taken together; they may be considered as two Amendments.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I personally was in favour of the clause as proposed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Cranborne), for I favour the system of grouping, because, though some of my hon. Friends think it will strengthen the position of voluntary
  826
  schools, I think it will be a gain educationally, putting schools under a better Board of Management than now exists. But I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the provisions of Clause 5—or, as it now is, Clause 6—as to the 17s. 6d. limit govern these two sections? If he will add a proviso to that effect at the end I have no objection to the principle of the clause, but if it is intended to group together schools and by taking the average of subscriptions to augment the grant under the 17s. 6d. limit, I do see considerable objection. But I imagine the right hon. Gentleman will not object to the addition of the proviso.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I understand the proviso to Clause 5 is to guard against the danger of a double claim to exceed the 17s. 6d. limit being made in respect of the same sum of money. If schools were amalgamated under one management no such danger could arise, and if this new clause were inserted the result would be that voluntary schools might group themselves together, and when so grouped they would have similar advantages to those which Board schools have under a single Board management. It is true that by the grouping of schools there might be some cases where the 17s. 6d. grant would be exceeded where it is not exceeded now, but similar facilities are already possessed by the School Board. ["No, no!"] Yes; a School Board has at its disposal a fund received from the rates, which it can distribute among the various schools according to their necessities. This power will be obtained by voluntary schools in the same way as it is now possessed by Board schools.
  MR. T. ELLIS: It seems to me that in accepting this Amendment we shall be taking a very long step. No doubt the clause will be the realisation of the fond hope of certain supporters of voluntary schools of having what is called Church School Boards, and that is a question which can be discussed on its own merits. We think that such a Board of self-elected managers is a very poor control indeed to have over vast sums of public money. But that is not the point I wish to call attention to. Here we have a great change proposed in the organisation of the educa-

  827
  tion of the country by means of a scheme of the Education Department, and I should like to call attention to what Members on either side have always insisted upon in regard to re-organisation by means of these schemes. Under the Endowed Schools Act and the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, under which local bodies make schemes of re-organisation, it has always been the rule for Parliament, not satisfied with the schemes made by local bodies and the Department, to insist that the schemes shall be open to every form of governmental and public inquiry, and ultimately be submitted for the sanction of this House. Now, I consider that to give power to a certain number of self-elected managers to draw up schemes relating to such a number of schools in a town or county without Parliament having any sanction or supervision of those schemes is a new step, and one not to be taken without great consideration. Therefore, I hope, whether the clause is accepted or not, this House will insist that anything in this nature shall be coupled with the condition that it shall be subject to Parliamentary as well as departmental sanction. There is a procedure in an Act passed some two years ago, the Technical Education Act, which should be followed in such schemes as are here contemplated, dealing with a large amount of public money, that the consideration of Parliament should be invited. Whatever the House may decide in regard to the first part of this clause, I hope there will be a strong opposition to the second part of it which may induce the Government to withdraw this second part. But before we come to that, I hope the Government will say they will agree to a proposal that all these schemes shall before becoming operative be laid before Parliament.
  MR. MUNDELLA: We want to know the effect of this clause—whether Section 19 of the Education Act is to be applied to it. If it is not applied, then this is simply a device for evading and defeating the 17s. 6d. limit. Now, the hon. Member for Leeds says that School Boards have this power of grouping—of taking the average; but he is quite mistaken. Every school stands upon its own separate account, the object being to
  828
  secure that a certain amount shall be expended on education in every school, failing which a reduction is made. Surely it is not the intention of the Government that schools which do not by the maintenance of a staff keep up efficiency are to remain in a state of inefficiency. Unless the proviso is introduced this will really repeal the 19th section of the Education Act.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman has not explained how this proposal would repeal the operation of the 17s. 6d. limit, if the schools were to be treated as under one management and as administratively and financially one school. I cannot see any objection, if you have a certain number of schools in different buildings but practically one school, to treating these as one school. That seemed to be desired by several hon. Members opposite when it was discussed in Committee, and I cannot see any objection unless the desire is to kill a school by its poverty. There is no objection to introduce words in the second part of the clause to require the approval of the Department if that is desired, but I do not understand there is any objection to the principle of grouping on its merits.
  MR. CALDWELL: The object of the Bill when introduced was that no fees in any fee-paying school should charge more than 9d., 3d. being paid by the grant; but by the amalgamation of a number of schools, though in some schools the fee may exceed 6d., the average of the whole number may bring them within the 17s. 6d. limit. To prevent this, I move that Sub-section A shall be subject to the proviso at the end of Clause 6 of the new Bill:—
  "Provided that the fee grant received by each school in the first instance shall alone count as income of such school for the purposes of this Act and of Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876."
  If the object of the promoters of the new clause is to secure uniformity of management and facility in management, this will be secured, but evasions of the 17s. 6d. limit will be prevented.
  Amendment proposed, before the first word "Where," to insert the words "Subject to the proviso in clause five."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MUNDELLA: In reply to the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I ask the right hon. Gentleman does he intend, by an evasive and indirect method, to repeal Section 19 of the Act of 1876? He said a number of schools in different buildings might be regarded as one school; but does not the right hon. Gentleman sec that by taking the whole of the schools of one denomination in a town and combining their revenues, there may be a certain number of schools with a poor staff and low expenditure, which, if they stood alone, would come under the operation of the 17s. 6d. limit, but which, under the clause, could be starved in the interest of other schools. If the right hon. Gentleman will insert words requiring that each school shall receive a share of the expenditure, we shall be content. We want to secure that the grant shall not be so distributed that it goes to the benefit of the fee-paying schools, leaving the free schools inefficient.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The object of the proviso was to prevent the same money constituting a claim to exceed the 17s. 6d. limit in two schools, but this cannot arise under the new clause. The 17s. 6d. grant cannot be obtained unless it is earned, and if it is earned the school cannot be in an inefficient condition.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Member for Leeds says the proviso was put in to prevent the fee grant being given twice over, but with all respect to him, I think he is mistaken. The object is to prevent the danger that might arise from the fee grant being made a common fund. If the fee grant to school A amounts to £50, and the fee grant to school B £100, and the grant is shared, then school A may receive £75 instead of £50. I protest against this attempt of the Government to abolish indirectly the 17s. 6d. limit. The Government have declared over and over again they would allow no interference with that limit, and yet now they are proposing to group schools together for the avowed purpose of doing away with the limit.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman is in error. There are many
  830
  purposes for which it is desirable to group schools together.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: In an indirect way the grant of public money will be increased to certain classes of schools, although there is no Resolution of the House on which such a grant can be made. By this combination of schools—it may be schools in quite different parts of the country—the whole purpose of the Act will be evaded.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: If this clause passes without the proviso, even though one school receives the fee grant earned by the other school, it would not be able to count that grant as against the 17s. 6d. limit. The 17s. 6d. limit was established to prevent schools, even though they earned large grants, from getting the advantage of the grant unless they showed contributions from other sources. If they can produce income from other sources that objection falls to the ground. Under the grouping scheme you may be able to secure, not only the voluntary subscriptions and the other income, but part of the fee grant of the richer schools may be given to the poorer schools. The whole scheme of the 17s. 6d. limit rests on two considerations; in the first place, that the school earns the grant, and, secondly, that it earns it without ill-treating the children. There is no reason why these two conditions should not be fulfilled. Under the Amendment as it comes to us from the Lords they must be fulfilled. Well, if the proviso of the right hon. Gentleman were inserted, and if it were provided that the grant handed over by the richer schools to the poorer ones should not count as against the 17s. 6d. limit, the House would be taking a step not at all founded on reason. The right hon. Gentleman said the clause was far-reaching. It is true that for all purposes of the Act if a scheme is set on foot it must be treated as a single one. I see no objection to that. The principle thing to do is to give elasticity to the system, which is in the interests of free education. The system we contemplate is this, that under the grouping system, where, say, six schools agree to work together, it will be quite possible to make five of them free, the remaining school to continue a fee-paying school, It seems an ideal system that the fee-paying

  831
  school which does not want the money should hand it over to those which do in order to make them free. Unless, however, the Amendment is passed in the form in which it has been sent down from the other House—that is to say, if the proviso is inserted, it will be impossible for that one school to charge adequate fees, because it will be limited as to its fees to its own excess of the fee grant.
  MR. J. ELLIS: I believe that in regard to large towns such as the one I live in, if you group the denominational schools, such as the national schools, you will do away with subscriptions altogether. There is great diversity in the parish schools, and each parish takes special interest in its own school, and if you group the whole of the schools in a town together in pecuniary matters you must fail. Educationalists have wondered why national schools in large towns have not grouped themselves together for educational purposes. They have asked, "Why have they not grouped themselves together for the purpose of training the teachers? Why have they not grouped themselves together for the purpose of securing the advantages that the Board schools have?" Well, they have never done it, but when money is offered they always grasp at any scheme to make use of it for their own purposes. I believe that if they accept the money under the proposed grouping system they will fail, for when you draw from the whole locality for the support of the whole of the schools, local interest will die out, and the subscriptions will no longer come in. If the Amendment is passed I believe it will be fatal both to denominational, schools and denominationalism. It seems to me that it is too great an alteration to make in a Bill which has passed this House, gone up to the House of Lords, and come back here. We do not know, nor can we know, what the effect of the clause will be, but it certainly seems to me that it will be injurious to many Church schools, and ought not to be passed.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I would suggest that, if it will facilitate matters, the Government should propose to leave out the 2nd sub-section altogether, but we cannot accept the proviso of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Leave out the 2nd sub-section, but insert the proviso.
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, we cannot accept that.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not see that there is much in the suggested compromise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because Sub-section 2 will have very little effect if Sub-section 1 is carried. Sub-section 1 is by far the more important of the two. A few minutes ago, when I first asked a question as to this, and when I discovered that the matter was governed by a proviso as to the 17s. 6d. limit, the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave his consent to the proviso by nodding his head. I should like now to ask him what his views as to the question are. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are mixing up two things, and are endeavouring by a side wind to obtain larger concessions than were originally intended as to the grouping of voluntary schools. We thought to strengthen the Amendment by this proviso, but it appears they meant something different. It seems to me a curious commentary on our proceedings that whilst we were precluded in this Bill from discussing the 17s. 6d. limit, we are now entitled to do so on a Lords' Amendment. I do not think that such a matter ought to be introduced into the Bill—at any rate in this form. I was not one of those who thought that the 17s. 6d. limit in itself was a satisfactory mode of obtaining subscriptions, but, at the same time, when hon. Gentlemen argue as though the 17s. 6d. limit had been introduced to injure the poorer schools, I think they forget that it was introduced—to see that subscriptions to these advanced schools would be properly maintained—by a Conservative Government. If under the clause all the voluntary schools of the Kingdom were grouped, the 17s. 6d. limit would disappear. What we desire is that while giving the fullest possible power of grouping of management to voluntary schools, each individual school shall be treated as an individual item in regard to the grant and in regard to the fee grant. I do not think the Government in a matter like this should depart from principles that have governed elementary education since 1876. If we are going to reform the 17s. 6d. limit, let us discuss it on

  833
  its merits, and not have it practically abolished by a side wind in this way. I hope the proviso will be accepted, so as to enable us to support a clause with which, in principle, I cordially agree.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGE&c.): I wish to ask, if the Amendment has been moved in a bonâ fide spirit, and if it is simply intended to carry out Section 5, why not insert the proviso in that section? If it is incorporated, I should have no objection to the proposed alteration. The noble Lord the Member for Darwen tells us that this is an ideal system, because it will enable groups of schools to be formed in order that while one of the schools is fee-paying it may assist the others, the whole of which may become free. But the noble Lord ignores one very important possibility and contingency—that not only is it possible by the section to make one school fee-paying, but it is also possible, by the process he proposes, to make the whole of the schools in a group fee-paying. The noble Lord has been very free in his suggestions that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House do not understand the Bill. I am sorry I must retort by a sort of tu quoque, that the noble Lord not only does not understand the Bill, but does not understand the very section he supports. I shall support the proviso which has just been moved, and shall, when the time comes, move two or three Amendments to the same section.
  (10.23.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 97.—(Div. List, No. 405.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I propose to omit the words "or more." It will be possible under the clause that two or more schools may be grouped together. Inasmuch as this grouping is not to be subjected to the proviso of Clause 6, it is desirable that this grouping should be restricted as much as possible. An unlimited power of grouping may permit the combination of schools in distant parts of the country where the public interests are widely distinct. There is nothing to prevent any number of schools in England and Wales combining under one scheme; there is nothing to prevent the trustees meeting in London
  834
  and agreeing to associate all the national schools of the Kingdom, and then, if there is a Government in power as ready as is the present Government to meet the views of its clerical advisers, there will be no difficulty in getting the approval of the Government to any scheme, however inimical to the general public interest.
  Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the words "or more."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or more' stand part of the Amendment."
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I think the question of the number of schools to be grouped together may be fairly left to the discretion of the Education Department, by which every scheme will have to be approved.
  MR. MUNDELLA: We do not doubt the discretion of the Education Department, but we do feel very strongly that the increase of grant should not be allowed under the form of these Lords' Amendments. I shall have to appeal to the ruling of the Speaker on this point later on.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question now is the omission of the words "or more."
  MR. T. ELLIS: I should like to know whether it would be possible under the clause for the whole of the schools of one denomination in a county to combine under one scheme? If that is so, it should be carefully considered, for it seems to me a step outside the scope of this Free Education Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The clause itself supplies a limitation, "the neighbouring district."
  (10.42.) The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 52.—(Div. List, No. 406.)
  MR. ROBY: I beg to move as an Amendment to the same clause to omit in line 2 the word "neighbouring," and to substitute "district" for "districts." The words as they stand are far too wide and indefinite, and a limit ought to be imposed. "Neighbouring districts" may extend from one to the other all across England.
  Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words "or neighbouring."—(Mr. Roby.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or neighbouring' stand part of the Amendment."
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: The same phrase occurs in Clause 6, and the Amendment is unnecessary. When hon. Members seek thus to make the clause restrictive, I can only repeat that as to what are neighbouring districts, or as to the number of schools to be grouped, it must depend on the Department to deal in a common sense, practical way with any difficulties under this head. I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: We have not yet heard a reply to the suggestion of my hon. Friend that these schemes should be laid before Parliament. The objection of the hon. Member (Mr. Roby) is a valid one. "Neighbouring districts" might be made to include districts extending from Cardiff to Holyhead, but the objection might be met by a proviso that the assent of the House should be required to every scheme.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: There is, as we know, a great disadvantage in the custom of bringing on educational schemes after midnight when they cannot be adequately discussed. I shall be quite prepared, if the desire is that Parliament should have early information, to present it in the form of a Return.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: That would not be sufficient, because unless the Government were to take the initiative it would be impossible for any Member to raise the question of any particular scheme with the object of getting an expression of opinion in the House. I certainly think some closer definition than "neighbouring districts" is required.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what limit the Government propose to put on the word "neighbouring," and also whether they will admit Board schools into the grouping arrangements?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In point of policy there is no objection to the grouping of Board schools, but there is a departmental difficulty in regard to rating which with voluntary schools does not arise. That is the only objection. There is no idea of including groups of schools over vast areas, and I think
  836
  discretion may well be entrusted to the Education Department.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are as anxious as he is to make progress, and I think he knows that when this Bill was going through Committee of this House we facilitated it at every stage. We are anxious to promote grouping for educational purposes, and we have no objection at all to giving power for it, provided that the grouping is not a mere cover for obtaining money which ought not to be paid.
  MR. MORTON: I have been very anxious to see this Bill passed, and I have refrained from speaking upon it, but I think it is time to protest against the spirit in which the Government are trying to shove it down our throats to-night. Here we have a new clause brought up from another place, and we are not allowed an opportunity of discussing it thoroughly. I do not object to two schools being joined together if they are in the same district. I know from experience that that would probably be an advantage. I have for 20 years been manager and hon. secretary of the Church schools in my own parish, and, therefore, I know something about the management of these institutions. But what I do object to is the grouping together of different districts, or even of several counties as might occur under this clause. The word "neighbouring," I hold with my hon. Friends from Wales, should be taken out of the clause.
  (11.6.) The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 55.—(Div. List, No. 407.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move to insert, after the word "district" in the second line of this clause, the words "being within the same poor law union." I think there should be some sort of limit to the word "neighbouring." I think the powers under this clause ought to be confined to the districts within a Poor Law Union, and surely that would be ample for the purposes of this Act. If the Government desire to make progress with this Bill, they will be willing to accept this Amendment. I do not think it possible they can contemplate the grouping together of two or three counties for educational purposes; and unless they

  837
  do contemplate such a thing, they cannot have any objection to confining the operation of the clause in the manner I suggest.
  Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word "districts," to insert the words "if within the same poor law union."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HART DYKE: It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to acquiesce in the hon. Member's proposal. I have already indicated what the policy of the Department is to be in respect of this clause, but the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would cut at the very principle of the clause. I am, however, willing to expunge the words "not being schools provided by a school board." The Government do not wish the House to be detained very long over this clause, and they are anxious to meet hon. Members opposite in a fair and candid manner. I must say that the Amendment I have suggested will throw some trouble and labour on the Education Department, but we are prepared, in the interests of peace and harmony, to consent to it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to agree that no School Board schools shall combine with voluntary schools?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: Yes, Sir.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman will move the Amendment he has indicated, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. GOSCHEN: We will add words to the following effect: "Providing that schools provided by school boards shall not be grouped with other schools."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: I have to move the omission of the words in lines 2 and 3 "not being schools provided by a school board."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words "not being schools provided by a school board."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I beg to propose an Amendment that, in line 5, after the word "department," the words "forthwith be laid before Parliament," be inserted. I may point out that this Amendment simply carries out the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Agreed.
  *MR. TALBOT: But what will be done if Parliament is not sitting? It is not desirable that these arrangements should be delayed because they happen to be made in the Parliamentary Recess.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It will have to be presented as soon as Parliament meets.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have now to move an Amendment which raises the whole effect of this clause, and if accepted it will prevent my submitting a point of order as to whether it is competent for the House of Lords to insert an Amendment authorising a grant of money. I think it will be admitted that the effect of the clause is to do away with the 17s. 6d. limit contained in the 19th section of the Elementary Education Act of 1871. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members opposite say "No," and in that case I shall bespeak their support for my Amendment, which will put the point beyond all question. I propose to add after "1891," in line 7, the words "except section 19 of the Elementary Education Act of 1876." If it is proposed to repeal that clause and to increase the grant by means of the amendment made in another place, then it will have the effect of largely increasing the education grant. This, I contend, the Lords have no right to do; it can only be done by a previous Resolution of this House in Committee of Ways and Means authorising the grant of public money for the purpose.
  Amendment proposed, in line 7, to insert, after "1891," the words "except section nineteen of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1876."—(Mr. H H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat unreasonable in the arguments he

  839
  has put forward. What is the proposal before the House? It is that under certain conditions several schools shall be treated as one school. The hon. Gentleman says they shall not be treated as one school because of a particular section of the Act of 1871. I have listened to the Debate which has now been going on for some hours, and it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman does not grasp what Clause 5 actually does. What it does is to enable one school to subsidise another. I deny that the clause which has come down from the Lords will upset the 17s. 6d. limit. It will do nothing of the kind. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a considerable increase in the Education Estimates, but the total amount involved by the 17s. 6d. limit is under £40,000 a year. He has suggested that our object is to legislate for the education of the classes as against the education of the masses. I believe he concluded his first speech with words to that effect. But what is the practical effect of this proposal? There is no hardship whatever in any case where a school earns a grant. But sometimes a school does not do that, and then this clause will enable a rich school to assist a poor school to earn the money. I quite accept the objection urged against any extension of the 17s. 6d. limit, that it would prevent voluntary subscriptions coming in; but I wish to point out that this provision will simply enable the managers of schools in the same neighbourhood to combine their funds, and that the result will be that a poor school will benefit by being able to meet all the educational requirements laid down by the Code. The clause will only take effect in a limited number of cases, and recollecting that in the cases where higher fees are charged it is by the voluntary action of the parents, and bearing also in mind the spirit in which the Government have met hon. Gentlemen opposite, I hope they will not think it their duty further to delay the progress of the Bill by pressing this Amendment.
  (11.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 105.—(Div. List, No. 408.)
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to move the insertion of the words "until the Education Department shall withdraw such approval" after "scheme,"
  840
  in line 7. In the course of events, it may be discovered that the grouping has led to abuse, and I want to give power to the Education Department, in case such a discovery is made, to withdraw approval. It is impossible in a matter of this kind to foretell the exact working of the grouping of schools. The discussion to-night shows it is very difficult to ascertain what the effect will be with respect to the different Acts of Parliament relating to education and the regulations of the Department.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment, after "scheme," line 7, to insert "until the Education Department shall withdraw such approval."—(Mr. J. Bryn Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: I recognise the spirit in which the hon. Member has moved the Amendment, but he seems to have the idea that once the Education Department approves a scheme the scheme cannot be altered. The hon. Member's fear is an exaggerated one. The Department must always retain a power to modify arrangements they have approved. For instance, if there be any such abuse discovered they can refuse the grant to a school. I therefore think the insertion of these words is unnecessary.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I submit that the Education Department ought to have power to abrogate a scheme. I cannot see how, if a new scheme is found unsatisfactory, the right hon. Gentleman or any other Vice President can fine a particular school for the bad working of a grouping scheme; it is impossible to withhold the whole grant. Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to have power to abrogate a scheme if it is-found not to work well in practice.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. It is very necessary that the Education Department should have some power to revise or, if right, to withdraw a scheme. Ten or fifteen schools may be grouped together, and to withhold the grant may disorganise the whole educational facilities of an entire district.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, and will only

  841
  say that it is perfectly obvious that if the Education Department find a scheme is working badly they must have the power to try another. I confess I do not like the words the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I will accept them on the understanding that, if necessary, they will be amended in another place.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: In accordance with the promise I made, I beg to move to omit Sub-section (2) and to add at the end of the clause—
  "Provided that schools provided by a school board shall not be grouped with any other public elementary school."
  We are working under pressure to-night, and, therefore, if these words are not deemed sufficient by the Government draftsmen, we shall reserve to ourselves the right to amend them.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, to add at end of the Amendment—
  "Provided that schools provided by a school board shall not be grouped with any other public elementary school."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I think that the adoption of these words would prevent any Board school combining with another Board school. I would, therefore, suggest that the Amendment should read—
  "Provided that no board school shall be associated with any public elementary school other than a board school under this section."
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, that is better.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, at end of the Amendment to add—
  "Provided that no board school shall be associated with any public elementary school other than a board school under this section."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said
  842
  Amendment as amended."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I now beg to ask you, Sir, whether it is competent for the House of Lords to insert an Amendment of this character, the effect of which will be to increase the grant under the Act of 1870?
  *MR. SPEAKER: As I have said before, the question is one of inference and construction; but I have no hesitation in saying that if the 17s. 6d. limit will be exceeded in any particular school, the Lords have exceeded Privilege.
  MR. MUNDELLA: In face of your ruling, Sir, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not think it desirable to safeguard this clause by adding a proviso?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will not argue the point now, because I am bound to admit that after the Speaker's ruling the question requires grave consideration.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I fully appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman's position. He is Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, bound to carefully guard the financial operation of the Bill, and at present he is leader of the House and bound to guard its privileges to the fullest extent. I do not think it would be right to press for a decision now, and, therefore, I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned. The Government will, therefore, have an opportunity of considering their position with reference to what is a very serious invasion of the privileges of this House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  *MR. G. BALFOUR: Sir, I understand your ruling to be that if this Amendment will have the effect of increasing the grant of any school it is a breach of Privilege. I wish to ask you whether, if that is only a contingent and indirect effect, the question of Privilege arises?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the indirect effect of the Amendment will be such as is ascribed to it, the Amendment will be a breach of Privilege.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Under the circumstances, I must assent to the adjournment of the Debate.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.
  Consideration of Lords Amendments to be resumed to-morrow.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1891–2.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1891–2.

    CLASS IV.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,075,357 (including a Supplementary sum of £806,225), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for Public Education in England and Wales, including Expenses of the Education Office in London."
    MR. MUNDELLA: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he makes his statement, whether the fee grant should be included with the result grant in one Vote. It seems to me that they should be separate. We shall want to discuss the grants separately, and to watch the progress under the application of the grant from year to year. I submit, as a question of order, they should be separate. It is true we can discuss the fee grant though joined with the result grant; but I think unless they are separated, we shall have a state of confusion worse confounded.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This is not a question of order to be decided by the Chair; it is a question for the Committee.
    MR. GOSCHEN: If the right hon. Gentleman will not object to the combination this year, I will undertake that, if there is a general feeling in favour of that course, next year the Vote shall be divided as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: The duty now devolves upon me, though at rather a late hour, to make the statement as to the educational work of the year ending August 31st, 1890. I have a twofold duty to perform; for while I have to deal with what has been done in the way of educational work in the year ending August 31st, 1890, I have also
    844
    to deal with the amount required under the Estimate for the financial year 1891–2. I will not dwell at very great length on the educational work, because, no doubt, the chief educational interest of the day centres in the new work and the operation of the Code of 1890. Therefore, I shall content myself with a general statement as to the work done by the Education Department and the advance made in elementary schools. The grant for the financial year 1890–1 was £3,782,224, and the sum expended was £3,782,057, leaving a surplus of £167. That shows, at all events, a somewhat careful supervision on the part of the Education Department. The sum allowed for annual grants for day and evening scholars was £3,418,366, and the sum expended £3,415,183. The grant per day scholar under the old Code, up to September 1st, 1890, when the new Code came into operation, was 17s. 10¾d. per head. Under the new Code it was 18s. 3¾d., together amounting to 18s. 1¼d. or 1¾d. more than the Estimate, which made no provision for increased grants under the new Code. But the average attendance fell short of the estimate by some £30,000, and thus the Department were enabled to meet the increased charge under the new Code. The Expenditure in 1890 includes a sum of £3,530 for grants in respect of day training colleges payable under the Code of 1890, and not provided for in the Estimates. Now I turn to the Estimates for 1891–92, the first framed to meet the new Code. The sum asked for is £3,919,132, an increase over the year 1890–91 of £136,908. The increase of annual grants for day and evening scholars is £120,817, and there is also a considerable addition to meet grant for Day Training Colleges estimated at £11,150 for 1891. The remainder of the increase is due to increments in the salaries in the Department and outdoor staff, and also a not inconsiderable increase in the number of pensioners, something like 60 more teachers having received pensions. In 1890–91 the teachers receiving pensions were: 57 at £30, 272 at £25, 313 at £20; and now there are 82 at £30, 292 at £25, and 328 at £30. The average number of children on whom the grant will be paid is 3,794,156—an

    845
    increase of only 11,600 as compared with the Estimates of the previous year, but an increase of 40,000 as compared with the actual results of that year, which were foreseen when the Estimate for 1891–2 was prepared. The rate of grant per day scholar is estimated at 18s. 6d., being an increase of 6½d. over the Estimate for 1890–91, and of 7¼d. over the rate per scholar during the last half-year of the old Code. But as the Estimate for 1890–91 was based only on the Code of 1889, the comparison should be with the rate actually earned under the new Code in the seven months of 1890–91, during which it was in force. Thus compared, the increase is 2¼d., the rate actually paid in 1890–91 under the new Code being 18s. 3¾d., and the Estimate for 1891–92 being, as before stated, 18s. 6d. The increase of 2¼d. is required under two heads: the normal advance in proficiency and increased grants to small schools, under Articles 104 and 105, where the population is less than 500. A large number of these schools are inspected in the summer months, and, therefore, have not yet received these grants. It may here be interesting to compare the additional grants to small schools paid under the new Code up to the end of April last with corresponding grants paid during the same period in 1889–90. The additional grants to small rural schools paid under the new Code from October, 1890, to April, 1891, amounted to £26,875, and the additional grants paid under the old Code in the corresponding period of 1889 were £13,956—an increase in 1890–91 of £12,919. The rate of grant per day scholar under the new Code has come very near the estimate given when the Code of 1890 was prepared. The figures I am giving represent only the commencement of an entirely new departure for the whole educational system, and it is, of course, perfectly obvious that in many cases the managers of schools have not appreciated the advantage which is afforded them in the new Code. In 1889 the number of schools inspected was 19,310, in 1890 19,419, increase 109, or ·56 per cent. School accommodation in 1889 was 5,440,000, in 1890 5,539,000, an increase of 99,000 places, or 1·82 per cent. The scholars on the register in 1889 were 4,755,000; in
    846
    1890, 4,804,000, an increase of 49,000, or 1·03 per cent. The average attendance stood at 3,683,000 in 1889, and at 3,718,000 in 1890, an increase of 35,000, or ·95 per cent. The percentage of average attendance to the number on the register was nearly stationary. The percentage of passes in standard examinations were in 1889 89·10, in 1890 89·66. The scholars examined in Standard IV. showed an upward tendency, and exhibited an increased proficiency. In 1889 there were 973,000, and in 1890 there were 979,000, an increase of 6,000, or ·62. With regard to cookery, the number of girls is steadily increasing. In 1889 there were 57,500, and in 1890 66,800, an increase of 9,300, and there is likely to be a still further increase. The number of certificated and assistant teachers had increased by 2,781, the numbers being in 1889 70,752, in 1890 73,533, but there had been a decrease of 787 in regard to the pupil teachers, so that the opportunity which is offered by the new Code to those who are unfit for the profession to devote their energies to other occupations has thus been made use of. There is nothing startling, I admit, in the rate of progress. It is satisfactory, no doubt, except in one point. The accommodation has increased largely, but I am bound to admit that the percentage of increase as regards attendance has not come quite up to expectations. Whilst the percentage of increase in the number on the register occasionally exceeds the percentage of the increase of accommodation the average attendance has fallen below the normal rate. Thus, the increase in the scholars on the resister was in 1888 52,000, in 1889 68,000, and in 1890 49,000. During the same years the increase in average attendance has been 88,000, 68,000, and 35,000. This may, no doubt, be accounted for in one or two ways. In the first place, the estimate of population we made has not been realised by the Census. We may, perhaps, be taking too sanguine a view in regard to population, but there is an increase of 6,000 more than on the school register. There is one other element—that perhaps the scholars pass too swiftly through the standards. It is satisfactory to note that there is a considerable increase in the number of scholars in Standard

    847
    IV. I think there is also every indication that not only the standard of our education will be materially raised, but that efficiency in the schools is being greatly increased. With regard to the cookery classes, it is satisfactory also to notice how steady the increase is there. But I am not quite content with the progress made in the rural districts. Much remains to be done by combination and by peripatetic teachers in country villages in the same manner in which advantage has been taken of the Technical Education Act. Fair progress has been made in standard examinations and in the percentage of passes. The percentage of passes is 89·66, or 0·56 higher than in 1889. As this is the last record under the system of the old Code, I should like to give the percentage of passes according to the number of scholars in elementary schools in quinquennial periods from 1875 to the present date. In 1875 the percentage of passes was 79·74; in 1880 the percentage of passes was 81·20; in 1885 it was 85·14; and in 1890 we raised it to 89·66. I think this is a very valuable statement to be able to make with regard to the efficiency of our elementary schools. The old Code has done noble work in its time, and I trust that the new system which we are inaugurating will rather hasten than retard the progress of elementary education. During 1890 the number of pupil teachers fell from 39,397 to 29,610; whilst certificated assistant teachers, as was to be expected under the altered conditions, showed an increase of 2,781, or 3·9 per cent., compared with 2,069, or 3 per cent., in 1889. School expenses and the cost of maintenance per scholar in average attendance show an increase. In Board schools the increase has been from £2 4s. 6½d. in 1889 to £2 5s. 11½d. in 1890, or an increase of 1s. 5d. per scholar. In voluntary schools the increase has been 7d. per scholar, namely, from £1 16s. 4½d. to £1 16s. 11½d. Excluding London, the figures for 1889 are—Board schools £1 19s. 7¾d., voluntary schools £1 15s. 9¾d.; and in 1890, Board schools £2 0s. 7¼d., voluntary schools £1 16s. 5d., an increase of 11¾d. in the first place, 7½d. in the second place. In London the cost in Board schools has been, in 1889 £2 19s. 8¾d., in 1890 £3 2s. 7½d., an increase of 2s. 10¾d., and in voluntary schools there has been an
    848
    increase of 5½d., namely, from £2 3s 7½d. to £2 4s. 1d. This, generally speaking, is the statement which I have to make in regard to our educational progress up to August, 1890. It is true that I have no record in the shape of statistics to give to the Committee in regard to the alterations introduced by the new Code, but as far as the Education Department is concerned every indication we have tends to show that a great educational success will be achieved. The Inspectors, who are enormously relieved by the new Code, spoke well of it in every regard. There is not a single item in the Inspectors' Reports which have been presented to the House that can be produced in order to show that there is likely to be any failure connected with the Code as far as inspection is concerned. Again, the teachers in every case are making loyal use of the freedom which has been given to them in regard to classification and other matters. The Code had been in operation since September 1, 1890, and there are only very few instances which can possibly indicate that the teachers have failed to recognise the responsibilities imposed upon them under the new Code. In regard to this new Code, a difficulty meets us which I have already mentioned with reference to the school year 1890, the falling off in attendance. The change inaugurated by the Bill which we have been discussing to-night will place some onus upon the Education Department for watching very carefully the question of school attendance. Mr. Synge, the Inspector for the Eastern Division, which includes the Counties of Bedford, Cambridge, Norfolk, Lincoln, Suffolk, and Essex, has referred to the obstacles in the way of ensuring regular attendance; the insufficient number of attendance officers, and the haphazard and unequal working that results from these officers having indefinite instructions and being left too much to their own initiative; the confusion resulting from differing bye-laws in adjoining districts; the dislike of Magistrates to enforce the law; the unwillingness of the Local Authorities to Prosecute employers; the fact that the Act of 1876 mentions one age and the bye-laws another for total exemption. With regard to securing school attendance, it will be the duty of the Department

    849
    to watch closely the obstacles which may present themselves. In regard to the dislike of Magistrates to the enforcement of attendance by the law, I think the Bill which we have been discussing to-night will remove the chief cause that has prevented the attendance of children, namely, the poverty which can no longer be pleaded as an excuse for their non-attendance. We have heard on all sides that the freedom given to school teachers in regard to the classification of scholars is working admirably under the new system. I want to point out to the House what a valuable relief results from the freedom given to the teachers in regard to the general treatment of the curriculum. I stated long ago in this House my earnest wish to carry out the changes so as to give relief to the Inspectors. I have long been of opinion that there has been something vicious in our system hitherto, and I have always felt that the schools should be open to inspection any day and every day. Unless that is done we shall never perfect our school system as we ought to do. There can be no doubt that the new Code will give greater relief to managers, to teachers, and also to a great extent to Inspectors. We have done away with the system of payment by results on individual examination, and that alone will give immense relief to the Inspectors with regard to the disposal of their time. I should like, if the Committee will bear with me, to read a Circular issued on the 16th July, giving advice and instruction to Inspectors in carrying out this important duty.—
    Sir,—It is hoped that the time which has been hitherto employed in recording in greater detail the results of the annual examinations may now he employed in paying visits without notice. Such visits will in future form an important factor of your annual Report upon a school, and will differ from the annual visit of inspection chiefly in this, that the character and intelligence of the lessons, which may be given in your presence, and the order, neatness, cheerfulness, and general bearing of the scholars will constitute the principal objects of your observation. Some time should also be spent in friendly conference with the managers (whose presence is very desirable) and with the teachers on the general character of the education given, and on special detailed points of school management or teaching on which your advice may be sought."
    Now, Sir, I think that is a very im-
    850
    portant document, and I merely quote it in order to show that the Department are determined that the improvements instituted in the new Code shall not end in any futile manner, but that they shall be real and solid improvements as regards the education given in the elementary schools. Another point of considerable interest to which I wish to allude is the relief which is given in the Code of 1890 in respect to the teaching of English as a class subject. That relief has been alluded to by a very large number of Inspectors as a most important provision. Mr. Howard, one of our Inspectors, states this in his Report—
    "Grammar has always been an unpopular subject, more especially in the rural portion of Dorsetshire. It is generally found to be too difficult a subject for the rustic children, and will in future, I think, be gratefully relegated in many instances to the second place, if not discarded altogether. The compulsory precedence of English as a class subject has for years been looked upon as a grievance by managers, teachers, and parents in this district, and the removal of this condition will be cordially welcomed by them."
    What has been the result of this change? In the first place, it enables us practically to revolutionise our school system—that is to say, it enables us for the first time to deal in a broad and liberal manner with the intelligence of our children—to deal with the children as reasonable beings with hands to use and eyes to see, and to give them a class of education that will bring out their general intelligence and usefulness. It has been well said, all educational experience went to show that whatever they could do to cultivate the eye, hand, and the faculty of observation, quickened the interest and intelligence of the children, and would tell upon the whole course of education. This is the point I would emphasise here—that this relaxation in regard to English will enable managers and teachers of rural schools to give the children some kind of elementary agricultural education, for under this head agriculture will aptly come, and I venture to say the relaxation cannot be more profitably applied than in this direction. It has been said that we shall be overburdening the brains of the poor children, but I contend that the change will do nothing of the kind;

    851
    on the contrary, it will for the first time really relieve the pressure, and at the same time "will enable the children, after they have learnt the three R's, to acquire a knowledge of elementary agriculture, which will enable them the better to get their living in future in the rural districts in which they live. Another point on which the Department has been much criticised is in relation to the teaching of drawing in the rural schools. There, again, we come to the point to which I have alluded. I venture to assert that there is many a child in a rural school who, though he would be much distressed if pressed far beyond the three R's, would be happy to continue to learn with the pencil in his hand—the pencil allied with the pen in his education. It is true that there is a difficulty with regard to teachers for drawing, and the subject cannot be applied to every school. But when I mention that the Science and Art Department has had to put a large increase on the Vote for drawing in the elementary schools, and that there has been an increase of 36 per cent. during the past few months in the number of scholars being instructed in drawing in our elementary schools (the total number being 43,650), it will be seen that the advantage is highly appreciated. What is it we wish to do with these rural children? Do we wish for ever to send them into the towns to struggle for a living, and to add to the population of districts already congested? Do we wish to see them continually pursuing this will-o'-the-wisp, a clerkship in the towns. No; we want to make them useful in the country districts. For 15 years I have been an unfortunate agriculturist. I have been among agricultural people nearly all my life, and I say advisedly that no better provision, no more important change, has ever been introduced into our educational system than that of drawing supplemented by manual instruction, and, as I have said before, a general elementary education in agriculture. If I wanted to employ a lad on my farm I should say, "Give me a lad who has been trained up in this system, who knows how to use his eye and hand; who knows how to trim a hedge straight; who is handy, and who would rather mend a gate (knowing how to do it) than be so
    852
    clumsy as to break one, and I will take him on my farm, and will take care to retain him there, however much his parents may think that by some patent of their own he would be able to make a fortune in a town. I will not detain the Committee longer. It is a late hour, but I hope I may be forgiven if I have dealt, and dealt with some warmth, with regard to these changes, because they are important changes; and when the new mode is criticised, when it is said that it overburdens the children, it is, I declare, a libel upon it. It is a Code which gives freedom that no Code ever gave before. It introduces a change of a vast character, which will enable the children not only in towns but in the country to become useful citizens, and to get for the first time an adequate living in honest employment in the localities in which they were born and bred. There is one other matter I must allude to, and that is the question of evening schools. With regard to them great advance is being made. I have alluded already to the fact that the attendance has not risen according to the actual needs of the population, and I have alleged as one reason the swiftness with which the children now pass through the standards. It is of the utmost importance that the evening-school system should be largely increased. Mr. Blakiston, one of our Inspectors, says—
    "Evening schools which had almost died out in Bradford seven years ago are now rapidly increasing. They have, however, changed their character. Whereas their object used to he the rescue from ignorance of those whose education had been neglected in childhood, their present purpose is to extend the knowledge which has been previously acquired in some of the many excellent day schools. This year the number of scholars will be more than 2,000. It is very satisfactory to find that in four years the number enrolled has more than doubled itself."
    The London School Board has made great efforts in regard to evening continuation schools. In 1889–90 the average attendance of evening schools was 6,779, and in 1890–91, in the winter, it increased to over 10,000, an increase of 49 per cent. In the towns in Lancashire, too, there is an equally good record of improvement. I hope that this is only a commencement. These changes the Department can only inaugurate. We can only do our best

    853
    by the changes we make to tempt school managers to undertake evening schools. The relaxations made in 1890 as to the subjects taught in evening schools are thoroughly appreciated, and I hope that within a year or two an enormous increase will be recorded throughout the country. It is one of the most important branches of the educational system, and it is perfectly lamentable to think how long this method of meeting the difficulty, which has met educationists at every turn, as to what is to happen to a child in the interval between passing the standards and going out to work, has been neglected. I hope school managers will take to heart the observations I have made, and that they will speedily, where they have not done so already, inaugurate a perfect system of evening schools. I do not think I ought to detain the Committee any longer, and I feel I must apologise for the disjointed nature of my observations. The time of the Session and the hour of the night at which I have had to make my statement are unfortunate for any one placed in my position. I hope the Committee will appreciate that, and forgive the disjointed nature of the remarks I have made. I have had to compress two or three subjects of the greatest importance into a very small compass, and all I ask the Committee is this, that they will give fair play to the proposals I have put forward. The Department have always had fair play from Parliament hitherto, and I am sure that they will have it in the future. I ask for the plaudits of the Committee for what is good in these proposals, and for their honest criticism of what is bad. I ask, further, for their confidence in the changes the Department have made, and for their encouragement in carrying out a work which is of vital importance to every man, woman, and child in this country.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I think it would be a cruel infliction on the Committee to detain them for long at this late hour of the night in criticising the speech of my right hon. Friend. It is due to him to say that there is no occasion for any apology on his part. Having regard to the long hours the right hon. Gentleman has been in the House and the laborious duties which have fallen on him, I think
    854
    he is to be congratulated both upon the physical and intellectual vigour which has enabled him to hold out so long. I venture to hope that this will be the last time when the Minister for Education in this House will have to rise after 12 o'clock to make his annual statement, and I trust he will never be called upon again to make his statement so late as July 30. It ought to be made much earlier in the Session, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman that next year he shall try to give the House the Report of the Committee of Council on Education two or three months earlier. I cannot understand, too, why the Reports of the Inspectors should not be delivered as early as March. They are sent in in January, and therefore it is only a question of printing. The right hon. Gentleman has to-night asked for a Vote unprecedented in amount. Such a Vote has never before been asked for in this House, and, moreover, no State, no Government, in the whole world has ever voted in one year so large a sum as this country is voting this year for education. The French Government, under M. Gambetta, made very large Votes, but they were for a special year, and no State has ever given so much as England is giving for ordinary purposes. The present Vote is for no less a sum than £4,750,000, and when free education comes into full operation the Vote may in two or three years be expected to reach the figure of £6,000,000, irrespective of the amount required for Scotland and Ireland. These are very big figures, and the question is, Are we getting value for the immense sums we are spending I wish I could say we were, but there still remains a great deal to be done. The Department, I think, has been a little dilatory in seeing that adequate school accommodation is provided wherever it is wanted. The Reports of the Inspectors show that in many districts, in the North-Eastern Division especially, the accommodation is insufficient. There is one parish near Harrogate where there are 200 children who have to go by train to school. I should like to see a little more vigour and less dawdling on the part of the Department in exercising its powers in this respect. The Report I have in my hand says the School Boards of Leeds,

    855
    Sheffield, Bradford, Hull, Halifax, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, and other manufacturing centres have been and are still building new schools and enlarging old ones, but in many cases have failed to keep pace with the growing demands. The Inspector complains that at York, although a School Board has been in existence two years, the schools lack sufficient class rooms, cloak rooms are required, and the ventilation is unsatisfactory. In many places, too, there is an actual deficiency of school places. I have received a letter from a clergyman, who states that at Colchester there are many children of 13 years of age who have not even passed the First Standard, and, unfortunately, it is in the sacred name of religion that the diffusion of education is in many cases impeded. He adds that the compulsory clauses are practically inoperative. I am well aware that much good work has been done, but we ought not to flatter ourselves that we have done all or half of what we ought to do.
    MR. TALBOT: I cannot allow this Debate to close without congratulating my right hon. Friend on the interesting statement he has made under such adverse circumstances. There is one point which I wish to press upon the attention of my right hon. Friend. Much has been done in the way of securing pensions for the older class of teachers, but there is a small body of them—deserving, although small—who having entered the profession as pupil teachers between 1846 and 1851, now find themselves in some cases shut out from a claim to these pensions because they went to Training Colleges, and so deferred the period of their actual work. If they had begun to teach with less preparation, they would have had their claims recognised at once. It does not seem to be fair that they should be lost because they devoted longer time to their preparation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was, I think, a little impatient in the observations he has thought fit to make. He should remember that there will necessarily be some deficiency in any system that is adopted, and also that the large sum of money it is proposed to vote, and which is greater than that which is paid by any other country in the world for educational purposes, might be enormously increased
    856
    if great care were not exercised in consideration of these matters. Of course, there are weak points in our educational system; but what we say is that those weak points are becoming yearly less and less, and it is somewhat discouraging to those who have the management of our elementary schools, and who are doing the great work of educating the people, to be met by this annual complaint that we are far behind every other nation. On the contrary, I say that there is no other country which has made so much progress in education as we have made during the last half century, and that England at the present moment is not far behind other nations. I should like to press on my right hon. Friend the necessity of considering the rating question, which is one deserving of great consideration from two points of view. The excessive rating of the School Boards is undoubtedly a great burden to the ratepayers, and I trust that the rating of the school buildings will not be lost sight of, and that we shall have some assurance that it will not be overlooked. This assurance has been already given, as I understand, in answer to questions; but I shall be glad to receive a renewal of it upon the Estimates.
    MR. MORTON: I do not agree with the remark of the right hon. Member for Sheffield in saying that we devote the largest sum of money given by any civilised country to educational purposes. I believe I am right in saying that a larger sum is spent upon this object in America.
    MR. MUNDELLA: In America it is entirely a local contribution; not one penny is granted by the Central Government.
    *MR. MORTON: It does not matter how you get the money, whether from the Local Authorities or from the State, as long as the amount is all right, and there can be no doubt that the amount spent in America is much larger than in England.
    MR. MUNDELLA: More than double.
    *MR. MORTON: The right hon. Gentleman says it is more than double, and I have no doubt he is right now, although he was wrong before. If I had not corrected him when I did a wrong impression would have gone abroad to the country, but what I want to do is to

    857
    increase this Vote as far as may be necessary. As I have said, we are not doing half what the Americans are doing. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council what he meant the other day when he told us, in answer to a question put to him, that there was a rigid audit of the accounts by the Inspectors when they inspected the schools. I have had 20 years' experience in these matters in a practical way, which probably they know nothing at all about at the Head Office, and I say that even supposing there ought to be a proper audit, it is not likely that any one of the heads of the Department know anything about auditing accounts. With regard to the rigid audit spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman, I say unhesitatingly that during my 20 years' experience there has been no such audit in the schools with which I have been connected, and if there had been, I am quite sure a great many items would have been struck out of the accounts, and there would probably have been some struck out of my own accounts. I wish to ask whether it is proper that fees should be charged for religious and sectarian examinations, because one wishes to be careful as to what is done in this way. We know that the Diocesan Inspector regularly inspects the Church schools, and of course the Inspector has to be paid by someone. But we were told the other day it was wrong to put into these accounts anything for the Sunday schools or religious teaching of any sort; and, therefore, I wish to know whether it is right that these fees for diocesan inspection should go into the accounts submitted to the Department. I wish further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be wise to insist upon having successful teachers who are fitted for the work appointed as Inspectors of these schools instead of gentlemen who are appointed simply because they are clergymen or the sons or relatives of the aristocracy, but who know nothing whatever about elementary education. Another question I wish to ask has reference to the annual grants to the Training Colleges. This appears to be a new item. I believe that all the 44 Training Colleges mentioned here are sectarian, with three exceptions, and I do not think that that is a very satis-
    858
    factory state of things. I would add that we in this country are not so far advanced in elementary education as Canada was in the year 1860. The children there not only receive their elementary education free, but they also go to the Grammar Schools free, and if they pass a satisfactory examination, and their friends are willing, they can then go to the Colleges almost free. Moreover, in the northern States of the United States there is a much greater advance in connection with education than we are able to show. I do not expect we shall reach the level attained either by our own Colonies or the United States for many years to come, but we are advancing by rapid steps, and I for one should be glad to vote more money for educational purposes which we might easily be enabled to do by reducing our military expenditure.
    *SIR W. HART DYKE: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) that the Department is fully alive to its obligations in regard to seeing that adequate school accommodation is provided. This and the other questions as to auditing accounts, and so forth, will be carefully considered. There are various articles in the Code of 1890 which provide the necessary securities, and I shall be happy to give the hon. Member a copy. It will be more convenient both for him and me that he should read them than that I should wade through them here at this hour of the morning.
    MR. MORTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman might as well have suggested that we should adjourn this matter now. He says the hour is too late to go on with the discussion. I agree that he has had a very hard night's work; but the Government of the country must go on. I therefore move, Mr. Courtney, that you do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I am anxious that the business of the Session should be brought to an early termination, but I want to go into these matters properly. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered any of my points satisfactorily. I do not press him to do so to-night as I am willing to go into the matter to-morrow, and, therefore, it is that I move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Morton.)
    MR. MUNDELLA: I would appeal to the hon. Member not to persist in his Motion. The House has spent a good deal of time on the question of education this Session. It was, I think, very unfair that the right hon. Baronet should have been called upon to make his educational statement at so advanced an hour of the night and at so late a period of the Session. I think it a very-bad precedent and one which should never be followed in the future. The House is jaded. For myself I feel that I have been here too long to-night, and I hope that we shall now allow the Government to take the Vote. There will be nothing gained by our delaying it.
    COLONEL NOLAN: If the Government get this Vote, will they consent to report Progress? As the right hon. Gentleman will see, most of the reporters have withdrawn. If the Government get this Vote will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be satisfied?
    MR. GOSCHEN: It is not a question as to whether I shall be satisfied, but whether the Committee generally will be satisfied. I do not wish to take too many Votes to-night, but there is a great desire to make progress, and I think we might be allowed to proceed with the Estimates.
    *MR. MORTON: I would ask leave to withdraw my Motion, but, of course, I must go on with my criticism of the accounts.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MORTON [Cries of "Divide!"]: If there is any impatience on the other side, I must persist in my Motion for adjournment. I am willing to go on with the discussion of the Estimates, but I must not be interrupted. As to the audit of these accounts, the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that there was a very rigid one carried out. It was on that statement that I based my question. He now says that it is an "adequate" audit. I do not say it is necessary that there should be a "rigid" audit, but it does appear
    860
    to me that it was deceiving the country to say that there was a rigid audit, when, as a matter of fact, there was nothing of the kind. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not go into the question of appointing teachers to the position of Inspectors. I regret that he neglected that point, because I know he is thought a great deal of by the teaching staff outside, and I do not think it is fair to them that they should not have an opportunity of getting some of these appointments.
    *SIR W. HART DYKE: That has been effected long ago.
    *MR. MORTON: There may have been one or two of these appointments given to teachers, but there have been very few. And now I desire to ask two or three questions on the figures themselves, and to move a reduction. I do not understand at all the case of the London Office. I do not object to the salary of the Vice President. He does his work pretty well, but I find that he has a secretary at a salary of £1,800, and it is on that item that I am about to move a reduction, because I find that the secretary in Scotland only gets £1,200. I see that this salary is "personal" to the present secretary, meaning, probably, that when there is a vacancy in the office the salary will be reduced. But I do not think the English secretary should be paid more than the Scotch. I do not believe there is more work to be done by this gentleman in the English Office than by the gentleman in the Scotch Office, for the latter is also a senior examiner. Altogether we pay much more for educational business in England than we do in Scotland. So far as I can see we pay quite enough for the Scotch business, and I think, therefore, there ought to be a reduction on this Vote. One of the senior examiners gets an allowance of £100 per annum. What does he receive that for? It seems to me an extravagant and unnecessary payment beyond the £1,200 a year salary. This senior examiner has assistant examiners, of the salaries of £800 a year. There are junior examiners at £600 a year, one of them being usually employed in connection with the Science and Art Department, and another in connection with the Civil Service Commissioners. [Cries of "Divide!"] This extra work is done, generally speaking, in office

    861
    hours, therefore it is unfair that these officials should get extra payment. [Cries of "Divide!"and interruption.] should also like to know whether the architect gives the whole of his time to his office. I do not want to detain the Committee, but in order to obtain an answer I move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That Sub-head A Salaries, be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Morton.)
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I wish to ask the Vice President of the Council a question with reference to Inspectors being promoted from the ranks of schoolmasters. Although when I raised this question a year ago, I got a promise that the claims of schoolmasters to these appointments should have favourable consideration, I believe no such appointment has been made.
    *SIR W. HART DYKE: Since it has been decided to consider the claims of teachers to these appointments, there has been no vacancy in the Inspectorate which has not been absorbed.
    MR. CREMER: Having listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough, I do not think he asked any frivolous questions, and I hold that he is entitled to an answer. At the same time, considering the lateness of the hour, I hope he will not press the Motion to a Division. I trust that next year the Estimates will be discussed at an earlier stage of the Session. It is not, however, advisable that we should now lay ourselves open to the charge of obstruction in connection with the passing of this Vote.
    DR. TANNER: There has been no obstruction. The hon. Member for Peterborough ought to have an answer, and we should have been spared a good deal of trouble if the Vice President of the Council had done his duty. I hope my hon. Friend will take a Division.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MORTON: As I did not trouble the Committee to divide, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now give us an explanation with regard to the Inspectors under Sub-head C. Will he give us an assurance that qualified
    862
    teachers shall be eligible for these appointments in the future? It is only fair that those who do the hard work should have a chance to get the well, paid offices.
    *SIR W. HART DYKE: The school teachers of this country know that they have always had my sympathy. I have stated already that we have decided to adopt the policy of not excluding teachers from these appointments, but since that decision has been come to no vacancy has occurred which could have been so filled.
    *MR. MORTON: These gentlemen want and are entitled to something more than the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman; they want these offices. Now, 1 desire to get some explanation with regard to the allowance of £250 per annum to the Inspectors for travelling and personal expenses. The gross amount of that item is £20,000, but, in addition to that, there is an additional charge of £14,000 for travelling and incidental expenses. Is not the £250 a year sufficient?
    SIR W. HART DYKE: I can only tell the hon. Member that the question of travelling expenses is carefully watched by the Department. They are necessarily considerable, but none are incurred that can be avoided.
    *MR. MORTON: I think we ought to have further explanations than that. If the agreed allowance of £250 is not sufficient, it should be increased. Why are there two items; why is not the whole sum properly set out.
    *SIR W. HART DYKE: The Estimate is in its present form to enable Parliament to distinguish between the money paid for travelling and that for personal expenses.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I feel very strongly on the question of the promotion of school teachers. The right hon. Gentleman says there has been no vacancy in the Inspectorate. According to the Estimates there were 67 Inspectors last year, while there are only 65 now. Are there not two vanancies to be filled up? Again, there were 42 sub-Inspectors last year, while there are 45 now. Are the sub-Inspectors being made to do the work of the Inspectors, and are promotions to the superior ranks avoided?
    *SIR W. HART DYKE: When I said there were no vacancies I referred to the higher division of Inspectors. I will inquire further into the matter.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000 as a protest against the appropriation of a sum of money to denominational education in this country. It is very remarkable that while some of the supporters of the Government are engaged in opposing denominational endowment of Roman Catholics in Ireland, they sanction the spending of Imperial money upon Episcopalian Colleges in this country.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item H be reduced by £1,000, part of the cost of Training Colleges."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When the hon. Gentleman says some of the supporters of the Government are opposing the endowment of Roman Catholics in Ireland, let me point out that in Ireland we have a mixed system of State education, and that it is proposed to infringe upon that system. In England and Scotland the system is denominational. I am against denominational education, hence the position I have taken up.
    DR. TANNER: The hon. Gentleman says he is opposed to denominational education. Trinity College, Dublin, is a standing protest against his remarks. I shall support the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs.
    MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to support my hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George) in the Motion he has made. The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that the schools in this country are denominational. The schools in Wales are only denominational in the sense that they are controlled by one denomination.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I hope the hon. Member for Carnarvon will withdraw his Motion. That Motion is based on the fact that a certain amount of opposition was raised to the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill the other day. I cannot stretch my conscience to vote against denominational education in England, because we are badly treated on that point in Ireland.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: I trust the Government will not come to the conclusion
    864
    that we do not feel strongly on this matter because more Members from the principality do not take part in the discussion. I assure the Government that this is a matter on which we feel very keenly indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon is perfectly justified in bringing this subject forward, and I hope he will not be deterred from going to a Division by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway.
    (2.15.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 88.—(Div. List, No. 409.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MORTON: I am aware that indentures are sent from the Education Department, and that they provide that there shall be no Sunday labour? We in our parish have always stipulated that none of the teachers need do any Sunday work. After what we have heard to-night and what we see in the papers in regard to the employment of teachers, especially in rural districts, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that the condition as to Sunday labour shall be carried out.
    *SIR W. HART DYKE: I assure the hon. Member I shall do everything to see that the provision is carried out.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £327,067, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for Public Education in Scotland."
    MR. CALDWELL: This is one of the most important of the Scotch Votes, and I am surprised we should be asked to take it at this hour of the morning. On every previous occasion when this Vote has been taken we have had a statement made by the Minister in charge of it. When the Government boast of having carried legislation, the people of Scotland will realise that it has been carried at the expense of attention to the affairs of Scotland. The attempt to force through this Vote shows the people of Scotland the absolute impossibility of their country's affairs being conducted by the Imperial Parliament. The Education Vote is the only Vote which is really of interest to

    865
    the people of Scotland, and seeing that the Government are not prepared to make a statement by way of explanation, I beg to move that yon, Sir, do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. If the Government resist the Motion, I will not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. I am prepared to go at length into the Vote, but I protest against us being expected to do so at this time of the morning. The people of Scotland will see that if these are the circumstances under which the Scotch Representatives are to conduct business in the Imperial Parliament, it is nonsense to have their work done in the Imperial Parliament. We cannot possibly get the Vote to-night, but I can go on for an hour.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: We may be able to come to some arrangement. I would suggest that we should postpone this and the Irish Education Vote, and make some progress with the non-contentious Votes in Class V.
    MR. CALDWELL: This Vote is in its order, and I know a number of Members have left on the understanding that it was impossible that this Education Vote could be finished to-night, and the Votes in Class V. taken. I am ready to go on with the Vote, but if it is not proceeded with, I do not think the Government should ask us to take the Votes in Class V.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: I must ask the Committee to consider what is the attitude of the hon. Member. In the first place, he objected to proceeding with the Vote. If we had opposed him he would have denounced us. We agreed to postpone the Vote, and suggested we should make progress with the Votes in Class V.; but, no, the hon. Member objects to our doing that. We will go as far as the Committee generally is willing to go, and no further.
    MR. C. S. PARKER: I certainly support the view that we should put off the Scotch Vote until to morrow. It is unprecedented that the Education Vote should be taken at such an hour as this, and without a full statement from the Lord Advocate, which we cannot expect at this time of night. As to taking other Votes, I may observe there are several to which Notices of opposition have been given, and Members giving those Notices have left the House, naturally supposing the Votes would be
    866
    taken in their order, so I do not think we should proceed with those Votes.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: We will take the Votes to which there is no objection.
    MR. SEXTON: I think the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Caldwell) is perfectly justified, and I protest against the unwarranted construction put upon the hon. Member's action by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The whole proceeding is one of give and take, and, as the hon. Member has expressed his readiness to proceed, I do not see that there is any justification for the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is the first time I have heard the Votes in Class V. described as non-contentious. There must certainly be Debate upon them, and I think it would be sharp practice to take the Vote for the Consular and Diplomatic Service unexpectedly in the absence of the hon. Member for Northampton, who we know takes great interest in that Vote. There are Votes in Classes VI. and VII. not the subject of Notices on the Paper, and these, perhaps, might be taken.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Let us then proceed. I do not wish to force any Votes, and I accept the suggestion that we shall go on with Classes VI. and VII., excepting such as have Notices against them.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS VI.
    2. £250,116, to complete the sum for Superannuation and Retired Allowances.
    3. £6,600, to complete the sum for the Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.
    4. £9,647, Friendly Societies Deficiency.
    5. £900, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
    6. £3,114, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £9,447, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for Hospitals and Infirmaries, and certain Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances in Ireland."
    MR. SEXTON: We shall have to raise a question upon this Vote, and it

    867
    would be convenient to postpone it now.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £14,809, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions and Committees, including Special Inquiries."
    MR. CALDWELL: This Vote includes the Scottish Universities Commission, upon which there is something to be said. I now move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think we might first take this Vote.
    MR. CALDWELL: There is a matter to raise in reference to the Scottish Univerities Commission. I do not oppose any Vote without reason.
    *MR. MORTON: We want to discuss the Royal Commission on Vaccination, and upon these Miscellaneous Expenses there is a good deal of information required; for instance, there are the fees for honours and dignities, an interesting topic. I hope Progress will now be reported.
    DR. TANNER: I think it would be reasonable to report Progress now.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [29th July] reported.
  Resolutions 1 and 2 (see pages 646 and 674) agreed to.
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £390,986, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Science and Art, and of the various Establishments connected therewith."
  MR. SEXTON: There are two questions I recently asked in relation to this Vote, and I take the opportunity to recall them to the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury. I mentioned the mean
  868
  and unsuitable character of the furniture in the National Library, Dublin, which does not harmonise with the permanent wood-work of the rooms; and secondly, the imperfect state of the supply of Ordnance Maps in the Library. As I mentioned, the only Ordnance Map of the City of Dublin is so old as to have only historical interest and it is useless for reference, for it would only mislead those who consult it. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give attention to these matters.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): As to the furniture I cannot give any answer, but I take note of the hon. Member's observation. As to the maps, if I remember rightly, I was informed that it was usual to wait until sets were complete before renewing them, but I will refer to the matter again.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions (see page 690) agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No 417.)
  Read the third time, and passed.

  LAND REGISTRY (MIDDLESEX DEEDS) [PAYMENTS].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the remuneration, pensions, and allowances that may become payable under any Act of the present Session to transfer the Middlesex Registry of Deeds to the Land Registry, and provide for the conduct of the business thereof."
  Resolution agreed to.

  (LAND REGISTRY (MIDDLESEX DEEDS) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 428.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendments; as Amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 416.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    MR. LEA: I wish to refer to a particular Act which is included in the schedule, and in which I take a particular interest. For nine years the Act has been renewed in this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and the circumstance has on one occasion

    869
    been referred to by the Chief Secretary as "discreditable," and upon another; occasion as "disgraceful." It is a discredit to the House that year after year we fail to deal with the question by a permanent enactment. The pledges we have had from the Government time after time have come to nothing. Once more I ask the Chief Secretary is it the intention of the Government to deal with the subject next year?
    MR. FLYNN: The hon. Member has referred to some Act, but as to what Act it is he has left us in ignorance.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understood the hon. Member's reference to be to the Irish. Sunday Closing Act.
    MR. LEA: I said the Act in which I am particularly interested.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Undoubtedly. I adhere to the words I used, and which the hon. Member has quoted. I do not withdraw from what I said; but when the hon. Member asks me to promise Government time next Session, I can only say that such a pledge might have very wide-reaching consequences if the Bill should be opposed with the vigour it has met with in past years. I still think the Bill has a chance of passing in the hands of a private Member, but I will confer with my right hon. Friend and see if we cannot find means of putting an end to a disagreeable and troublesome state of things from a great measure such as this being included year after year in the Continuance Bill.
    Verbal Amendments made.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].—(No. 403.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  SCHOOLS FOR SCIENCE AND ART BILL [LORDS].—(No. 425.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  LUNACY BILL [LORDS].—(No. 430.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND) [LOANS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any annuity that may be created for the repayment of any Loan made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland under the provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to Expenditure by Training Colleges in Ireland."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not consider that it is expedient to do anything of the kind. Moreover, it is neither expedient nor reasonable for the House at a quarter past 3 o'clock in the morning to be asked to enter upon contentious business. If the Government resolve to carry this Resolution they will do so only after a great struggle. I now beg leave to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member is hardly acting fairly in this matter. I can quite understand his feeling that he ought to have an opportunity of expressing his views on the Bill. But what the Committee is asked to do now is not to pass the Bill, but to pass the formal Resolution which is necessary before we can take operative steps in the Bill as to money. We have determined to proceed in this way, because, in reply to hon. Members who objected to the Bill, I said I would alter the source from which this money is to be drawn. It was to have been advanced—not spent, but only in the first instance advanced—out of the Irish Church Surplus Funds, but I have now agreed that it shall be advanced from funds in charge of the Public Works Department in Ireland, and the hon. Member actually thinks that in spite of the concession we are making it is unreasonable to take the question at this hour of the night. I can assure the hon. Member we will not press on the Committee stage of the Bill at an unreasonable hour of the morning. We do not wish to deprive him of the opportunity

  871
  of discussing Amendments before 3 o'clock. If the hon. Member is going to attempt to make this formal stage an occasion for defeating the Bill, he is descending to tactics which can only be described as sheer obstruction—tactics which I have always thought the hon. Gentleman would be the last person in the House either to practise or defend.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think that is a fair statement for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to make with regard to me. He has no right to say that I am descending to tactics of obstruction.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said that if he opposed this formal stage, which only comes into existence in consequence of the concession I made to the opponents of the Bill, I snail regard it as obstruction.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then I am afraid I must descend. There are occasions when a Member is bound by the duty he owes to his constituents, and to a great community beyond his constituency, to object to a Bill root and branch, even though he incur the risk of such a charge as that brought against him by the right hon. Gentleman—though I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman will be able to find anyone outside this House to agree with him that I ever joined in obstructing any measure. In the past I have seldom taken part in opposition to a measure the Government have introduced—and I am proud to acknowledge it—but this is a Bill the object of which is to hand a blank cheque to Archbishop Walsh and a similar blank cheque to Archbishop Plunket. We are to endow a Roman Catholic Training College and a Protestant Training College, and I am informed that the Protestant College it is proposed to buy under the Bill was presented to the Church Society when the Kildare Street Society was abolished, so that it is now proposed to buy back that which was given for nothing. I shall oppose this Resolution and the object with which it is proposed through every stage by every means in my power.
  MR. KNOX: I do not wish to discuss this Motion, and so aid the hon. Member in his obstructive tactics, but I would urge the Leader of the House to divide against the proposal to report Progress.
  MR. H. BYRON REED: I shall resist to the utmost this attempt to endow the Church of Rome. On most occasions I support the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but I must tell him that there are many of his best friends in England who will resist to the utmost of their power this attempt at bargaining with the Church of Rome. He may seek to conciliate the Church of Rome; and I imagine that in his attempt to buy them he will be successful, but, in the long run, he will lose his best friends, and will find that the Church of Rome will sell him—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Motion before the House is to report Progress.
  MR. H. BYRON REED: Then, Sir, all I will say is that at such an hour as this contentious business should not have been taken.
  MR. FLYNN: I hope the Government will persevere with the measure.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I regret that the Government should think it necessary to proceed with the Bill at this time of the Session against, the wish, pretty strongly expressed, of every supporter they have from Ireland. My objection to the Bill has not been removed by the concession made. I object to the measure as framed altogether, as it is merely giving a blank cheque to the ecclesiastics who have been mentioned.
  SIR E. J. HARLAND: I also must express regret at my right hon. Friend having brought forward this Bill at this period of the Session. I can assure my right hon. Friend that in the North of Ireland the objectionable character of the course he has taken will be very keenly felt.
  MR. RENTOUL: The only reason the Ulster Unionist Members are opposing this is because they regard it as the thin end of the wedge of the endowment of denominational education in Ireland.
  MR. KELLY: I support the Motion, because we have never yet discussed this Bill, and because we should do so at an hour when we can get reports of our proceedings in the newspapers to awaken, the conscience of England to the real purport of the Bill. I do not think it

  873
  right, after all the pledges the Government have given not to take contentious business, that this measure should be taken this Session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must say I have been a good deal surprised and a good deal pained at many of the remarks which have been made this evening. I will not say I am pained by the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, but I am certainly very much surprised at it; for the change I made in the measure was to meet the views of the hon. Member and his friends, and I had reason to believe that it would meet with his support.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I have the greatest objection to religious endowments of every kind, and I certainly must protest against entering upon a new one at this time of night.
  MR. LEA: The right hon. Gentleman says he brings this Resolution in as a concession to those who oppose the Bill, but I hold that he could very well have brought in this Resolution at a later stage. I cannot conceive what his object can be in endeavouring to force it on now when he could easily put it down for a later stage. It is absurd to expect us to discuss it when we have been sitting 12 or 13 hours.
  (3.23.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 50.—(Div. List, No. 410.)
  MR. LEA: As it is now half-past 3, I beg to move that you, Mr. Courtney, do now leave the Chair.
  MR. H. BYRON REED: I beg to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Lea.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Motion will not be pressed. Hon. Members must see how important it is that we should finish this business to-night, because we cannot take two stages at one Sitting; and if the present stage be deferred until to-morrow, the next stage would have to be taken on a subsequent occasion, and the business would thus be prolonged.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If we have to go on and discuss this Resolution to-night it will have to be discussed at great length. [An hon. MEMBER: "Why?"]
  874
  Because some of us think such a course necessary, and we are determined to have the matter fully discussed. I do not wish to use threats, but I have been accused of obstruction—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not use the word "obstruction" in reference to the hon. Member, but simply to describe certain conduct which deserved that characterisation.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Under all the circumstances, and notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall support my hon. Friend in his Motion.
  (3.35.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 52.—(Div. List, No. 411.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think this is the most unreasonable course the Government have ever pursued, namely, that they should call upon me and on many of their best supporters to continue this Debate at the bidding of their bitterest enemies. The charge which has been made against myself, and, of course, by implication hurled at every man who has supported and stood by the Government in their bitterest hour of trial, is one which I and my friends resent and repudiate. The Resolution which has been put from the Chair declares that it is expedient to authorise the expenditure of a certain sum of money for a certain purpose which I need not recapitulate. I shall show to the House that this sum is not named in the Resolution, nor is it named in the Bill, and that is one of the great objections I have to the whole operation. We are called upon to give blank cheques to Archbishop Walsh and Archbishop Plunket, and to leave it to those gentlemen to fill up these cheques as they may think proper, and as the Board of Works may think proper. If it be expedient to expend this money we ought, first of all, to know how much we are to spend; and, secondly, we ought thoroughly to understand what it is to be spent for. We cannot do the first, because the Bill does not tell us, and we can only find out what the money is to be spent for by examining the objects the Government have in view. What are the objects of the Government as indicated by this Resolution and the Bill on which it is

  875
  founded? The system of national education in Ireland is 60 years old. It is a mixed system, as the Chief Secretary knows. It has been attacked for the last 30 or 40 years; but, notwithstanding that, it has done enormous good in Ireland. What are we asked to do now? We are asked to supply money to attack one of the outworks of that system, which has been so long assailed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I say it is not wise or expedient to do this, and that we ought not to be called upon to do it at 20 minutes to 4 o'clock in the morning. Where is the promise of the Government about contentious business to-night? How can they expect that we can treat with anything like respect the promises which come from that Bench in the future? We were told no contentious business was to be taken. Here is a question on which nearly half the House will to-night vote against their own Government, and yet, in face of the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, who is not here to take care of himself and his own honour, we are asked to go into this contentious business which one-half of us are determined not to go into if we can help it. The system of Training Colleges to which the Resolution points, and with which the Bill deals, was first assailed in 1883 by the then Government, and an arrangement was made by which certain denominational colleges received three-fourths of the cost of the teachers. This is practically what has been done in England, but it is not satisfactory. Nevertheless, we are asked to authorise a grant under this Resolution to enable these two right rev. gentlemen to recoup themselves for the buildings, the sites, the appurtenances, the fixtures, and, if some gentlemen below the Gangway get their way, the furniture also. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to make no concession, but I say his proposal to take this money out of the Irish Church surplus outrages the feelings of a large portion of the Irish people. It is a proposal that is not creditable to the Government. The first attack was made under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton. We are now called on to complete the work, and to do this at the bidding of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and against the opinion of every supporter the Government have in Ireland. Is this
  876
  reasonable or fair? The House has been sitting for 13 hours, and yet the Chief Secretary forces me and others to remain here for some hours longer by pressing this Resolution. I say it is not only unreasonable and unfair, but in the course he is taking the right hon. Gentleman is inflicting great injury on the Government, because it is a course which does not commend itself to many of their supporters. I shall resist this Motion to the very last.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the hon. Member for Tyrone ought to be ashamed of himself for describing this Resolution as contentious business. The hon. Gentleman objects to taking this business after 12 o'clock, I presume, because he was afraid his speech would not be reported if it were delivered after that hour; but I would remind the House that in my presence and hearing the hon. Member for Tyrone appealed to the hon. Member for Camberwell to withdraw his opposition to the Bill, and that being so, it will require more cogent arguments than the hon. Member for Tyrone has employed to explain his own position in regard to this matter, and how it is he has been led to take two positions diametrically opposite to each other in as many weeks. The hon. Gentleman has taunted the Chief Secretary with accepting this measure at the suggestion and bidding of hon. Members on this side of the House. He does not seem to have taken the trouble to have read the public letter on which the Bill is founded. He does not tell us that the Resolution is supported by the unanimous vote of the Education Board itself. The hon. Member thinks himself a more valuable defender of the mixed system of education than the regular garrison. Who are they? The Education Board-gentlemen of undoubted status. These gentlemen unanimously supported the resolution of the Synod of Dublin, and have pressed it on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It is, indeed, at the instance of all the clerical representatives of the Protestants of Dublin—Protestants appointed to guard the interests of education—that this Bill is introduced. The hon. Member says this Bill is a blank cheque given to the Archbishops. I say it is nothing of the sort. He calls it an attack on the outworks of the mixed system of education. I say that neither in

  877
  Ireland nor in England has it ever been possible to apply the mixed system of education. If he refers to the Report of the Commission of 1870, he will find that they were unanimous in stating that it was of no use to attempt to do this. With regard to the 44 training colleges referred to, three only are secular, 41 being denominational. These colleges and buildings were provided 40 years ago at the cost of the State, and yet, at the present moment, the hon. Member sees something revolutionary in the proposal to apply this system to Ireland. All that is asked by the Chief Secretary is that what is done in England and Wales with the view of treating denominational colleges on an equal system should be done in Ireland, and in the opposition the hon. Member has offered to this proposal I can only infer that he is influenced by motives which he is either ashamed or afraid to avow.
  MR. H. BYRON REED: I do not propose to enter into the merits or the demerits of this question at this hour of the morning. I merely rise to move that you, Mr. Courtney, do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is disqualified from making that Motion, as he has already seconded a similar Motion.
  MR. KELLY: I desire to point out that the Synod of the Church of Dublin never made any such proposal as has been stated. What is all this anxiety about? Why is it thought necessary to declare that grown up Catholics cannot go to mixed training colleges without enormous danger to their principles? Again, what is it the right hon. Gentleman is going to pay for? Is it the buildings, and everything on the premises? I may be told that the money is only going to be lent, but there is no real security; the only security will have to be taken from the money necessary for the support of the colleges, and if that security is enforced, then the colleges will have to be shut up. It is absurd to look at this otherwise than as a gift, and I say it is a gift at the thought of which a large proportion of the English people will shudder. The people of England are strongly Protestant; they have no wish to attack their fellow Catholic subjects; they have no desire to inflict pain upon their
  878
  fellow-countrymen; but they will not support, either directly or indirectly, the errors as they believe of the Catholic faith. In voting against the Resolution I wish to explain that while I stated my principal objection to the Bill in its original form was that the money was to be taken out of the funds of the Disestablished Protestant Church of Ireland, I also declared it was a most unfortunate proposal to endow Roman Catholic training colleges in any shape or form, because the teachers of those colleges were among the most active propagandists of the Catholic faith.
  MR. LEA: The hon. Member for West Belfast has censured my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone for having, on a recent occasion, objected to the Training Colleges Bill being taken after 12 o'clock. I wonder how many times he has himself used the 12 o'clock Rule to stop Bills being proceeded with. He has done so hundreds of times, and I submit he has no right to charge my hon. Friend with vanity, because he desires that this Bill should be discussed at a time when the Debate may be reported in the Press. I know that my hon. Friend has a large amount of Blue Book evidence which he wishes to lay before the House regarding this Bill, and he certainly could not reasonably be asked to do that at 4 o'clock in the morning. I think the evidence he has to adduce will startle the House. This is a proposal to take the money of the Irish Church and to apply it to the support of denominational training colleges. I voted in 1868 for the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and I venture to say that no follower of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian ever contemplated that the funds of that Church should go to the support of Roman Catholic training colleges.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Are we not discussing a Resolution the very pith of which is to prevent the money being lent out of the Irish Church Fund?
  MR. LEA: At any rate, it is a Resolution to give the taxpayers' money for the support of Roman Catholic training colleges. The college buildings and appurtenances are to be purchased, and I should like to know if these appurtenances include altars and crosses? Why should the taxpayers of this country have to pay

  879
  for such things? The funds are to be advanced by the Board of Works. Is it not strange that hon. Members, who for 23 years have in this House attacked and condemned that Board—as the hon. Members for West Belfast and North Longford have done—should now be so enthusiastic in support of a proposal to entrust the Board with these powers in connection with training colleges? I think it is very hard the right hon. Gentleman should try and force this Resolution through at this time of the morning. I trust that Progress will be at once reported, so that the wearied officials of the House may get some rest.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Member for West Belfast assumes a position towards Members of this House which he has no right to assume. He has no right to ask why I dare do this or that. As a matter of fact, he is wrong in what he says, and I will now explain to the House the position I have taken up in this matter. The Bill has, no doubt, been before the House a very long time, but I think many Members have not had time to examine its provisions. After the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury on the 15th June I assumed the Bill would not be pressed, as it was not included in the right hon. Gentleman's list. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to take active steps to oppose it. But when we found the Government determined to force it through the House, the Ulster Members were compelled to take active measures. The pressure from our constituents was such that we could not resist it. We know that hon. Members below the Gangway have shown they are quite as open to such pressure as we are. The hon. Member asks how I dare do such and such a thing. I ask him, in return, "Who made him ruler over me, and who gave him authority thus to question me?" I dare do it because it is my duty to do it, and I deny his right to question me in such a tone and such a manner. In 1883 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton said the Government were prepared to encourage and facilitate the establishment of training colleges under local management in Ireland by authorising the Commissioners to make grants towards their maintenance, and as the English system of training colleges was the outcome of
  880
  vast official experience the Government were of opinion it might with advantage be adopted by the Commissioners of National Education.
  MR. SEXTON: The difficulty is this: In England all colleges are treated alike: in Ireland one college is placed on a different footing from the rest.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The English principle is to give grants in aid, and this was done under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton.
  MR. SEXTON: No.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It was up to a certain point.
  MR. SEXTON: The Marlborough Street College was treated differently from the rest.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And one of the main reasons for opposing this Resolution is that the Marlborough Street College will be destroyed. By carrying this Bill you will cause the undenominational system to be doomed. The Catholic Bishops of Ireland were the first to strike at that system, and it was their action which necessitated the action which the Synod of the Protestant Church took in 1885. I wish to urge on the House that we are already doing in Ireland what is done in England. We are giving grants in aid. It is quite true there is an undenominational College in Dublin maintained by the State, but that is a result of the system. But if this Bill is carried we shall be going further than we have gone in England. Buildings have never been paid for in England.
  MR. SEXTON: Yes they have.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Only partly.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then give us a part.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That is not the object of the Resolution, which is to give the whole cost of the building and appurtenances. That is entirely different to the English system, and I shall oppose it by every means in my power.
  MR. CREMER: Fifty minutes have now elapsed since the last Division was taken. I beg, consequently, to move that you do now report Progress. It is monstrous that the House should be called upon to sit here till 20 past 4 discussing a question of a very contentious character. I think the Government will be wise in consenting to my Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Cremer.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have now had an opportunity of judging the merits of the case put forward by the opponents of this Bill. I will not discuss it now, but I shall be prepared at the proper time to show that this is not an attempt to promote Popery, as has been suggested, and that it will not effect a breach in the system of mixed education which now obtains in Ireland. I will further pledge myself to show that the Bill has been brought in in the interests of the Marlborough Street Training College, of which the hon. Member for South Tyrone seems to regard himself as the special guardian. But this is not an occasion on which to deal with these particular issues. I put down the Amendment transferring the duty of granting the loan from the Irish Church Surplus Fund to the Board of Works at the instance of that friend of denominational education the Member for North Camberwell. It was done to meet the objections of those opposed to the Bill, and that attempt to meet their wishes has been received in this way: that a Motion which is universally recognised as a formal Motion has been employed at a time when the House of Commons is utterly exhausted by its protracted labours, has been made use of to compel us to sit an indefinite period, and to force us—by a process of torture—to abandon the Bill. But I do not hold that I am obliged, after what has occurred, to adhere to this particular provision. I shall not ask the House to continue the

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1889–90.
  ACCOUNTS considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Resolved, That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1890, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—
  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £359,504 7s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended;
  contest. I shall adhere to the Bill in its original form, and shall not renew the proposal made to-night, and I shall take care to make it thoroughly known that those who are responsible for returning the Bill to its original form are those who have chosen to pose this night as the special friends of Protestantism.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I heartily welcome the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman. A proposal to pay the money out of the Irish Church Surplus will give us better fighting ground. Any Motion to give money from that Fund for the support of Roman Catholic training colleges will outrage a good many people. I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman would have said to such a proposal when he sat below the Gangway on this side of the House? What did he say when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian disestablished the Irish Church?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was an undergraduate at that time.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Well, what would the right hon. Gentleman have said to such a proposal as this if he had been in the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. H. BYRON REED: I am inclined to think that, in the long run, the right hon. Gentleman will find his old allies are his best friends, and I hope, therefore, he will not press this Bill against their wishes.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress.
  while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £741,897 12s. 5d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £382,393 5s. 1 d.;
  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £23,040 11s. 7d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such

  883
  receipts by a total sum of £32,078 11s. 6a., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £9,037 19s. 11 d.;
  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  737,348

  1

  4

  Total Deficits

  345,916

  16

  4

  (2.) Resolved, That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  (3.) Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
  (4.) Resolved, That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1890, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £136,273 19s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the Estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £354,636 12s. 0d. as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £218,360 12s. 3d.;

  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £77,400 18s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £206,861 16s. 5d. as shown in Column No. 4 of the

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1889–90, Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  General Staff, Pay Regimental Pay, &c.

  45,741

  9

  3

  ..

  ..

  164,798

  5

  6

  2

  Chaplain's Department Pay, &c.

  750

  7

  9

  ..

  34

  10

  0

  3

  Staff of Military Prisons, &c., Pay, &c

  ..

  104

  9

  0

  ..

  56

  0

  4

  4

  Medical Establishments Pay, &c.

  ..

  11,638

  12

  7

  462

  15

  5

  5

  Militia Pay and Allowances

  ..

  5,775

  7

  11

  ..

  2,126

  2

  11

  6

  Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances

  ..

  2,011

  17

  4

  ..

  7

  13

  5

  7

  Volunteer Corps Pay and Allowances

  ..

  3,301

  9

  9

  ..

  26

  3

  8

  8

  Army Reserve Force Pay, &c.

  ..

  23,212

  4

  8

  585

  0

  4

  9

  Transport and Remounts

  ..

  39,861

  9

  6

  ..

  1,424

  0

  1

  10

  Provisions, Forage, Fuel, and other Commissariat Services

  ..

  35,827

  8

  5

  2,284

  10

  4

  11

  Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies

  ..

  45,066

  6

  0

  59,541

  0

  3

  Carried forward

  46,491

  7

  0

  166,799

  6

  0

  62,907

  16

  4

  168,438

  5

  11

  said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £129,460 17 s. 11 d.;
  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  445,486

  8

  0

  Total Deficits

  97,664

  17

  10

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

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1889–90, Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as comapred with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Brought forward

  46,491

  17

  0

  166,799

  6

  0

  62,907

  16

  4

  168,438

  5

  11

  12

  Warlike and other Stores, Supply and Repair

  ..

  110,400

  3

  5

  ..

  20,375

  15

  6

  13

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs, Cost, including Superintending Establishment

  ..

  46,200

  12

  4

  12,013

  9

  7

  14

  Military Educational Establishments Pay, &c

  ..

  4,373

  15

  8

  ..

  2,720

  6

  8

  15

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  ..

  19,707

  19

  5

  ..

  209

  15

  10

  16

  War Office Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

  1,134

  0

  10

  ..

  30

  3

  1

  17

  Rewards for Distinguished Services, &c

  1,216

  0

  6

  ..

  179

  0

  0

  18

  Half Pay

  ..

  5,256

  4

  10

  19

  Retired Pay, Gratuities, &c.

  46,735

  10

  8

  ..

  ..

  7,206

  0

  0

  20

  Widows' Pensions and Compassionate Allowances

  ..

  142

  4

  10

  2,270

  8

  9

  21

  Pensions for Wounds

  427

  13

  6

  ..

  ..

  411

  0

  0

  22

  Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals (In-Pensions)

  ..

  788

  9

  8

  ..

  141

  1

  1

  23

  Out-Pensions

  38,935

  16

  8

  ..

  ..

  2,074

  13

  10

  24

  Superannuation Compensation and Compassionate Allowances

  ..

  967

  15

  10

  ..

  5,260

  7

  7

  25

  Retired Allowances, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Forces

  336

  10

  5

  ..

  ..

  24

  10

  0

  Amount written off as irrecoverable

  998

  10

  2

  136,275

  19

  9

  354,636

  12

  0

  77,400

  18

  6

  206,861

  16

  5

  Net Surplus, £218,360 12 3

  Net Surplus

  £129,460

  17

  11

  Sum to be surrendered to the Exchequer,£347,821 10 2

  —(Mr. Jackson.)
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Jackson,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at half after Four o'clock a.m.