Commons Sitting of 22 June 1891

QUESTIONS.

  THE CEYLON PADDY TAX.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has now come to a decision as to the abolition of the paddy tax in Ceylon, and the substitution for it of taxation which does not press upon the most impoverished class of cultivators in that island?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Her Majesty's Government have not yet completed their consideration of this difficult question.

  MADRAS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONdeferred his question to the Under Secretary of State of India as to whether the Government will print and lay upon the Table the Reports of the Governor of the Madras Presidency on the progress, resources, and capabilities of that portion of Her Majesty's dominions?

  SCOTCH HIGHWAYS.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the administration of the highways under "The Local Government Act, 1889," Section 77, it is competent to the

  1055
  County Council of Zetland to constitute the whole county one district for highway purposes, not with standing that the county contains more than six parishes, and has been divided into districts for the purposes of the management and maintenance of highways under the Local Road Act in force prior to the enactment of the Local Government Act of 1889.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have not yet received information to enable me to answer this question.

  INSPECTORSHIP OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AT MARGATE.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Inspector of Weights and Measures at Margate was dismissed some weeks ago, and that the Town Council have not yet appointed his successor; whether he is aware that, in the meantime, a large number of the Margate tradesmen are waiting to have their scales stamped under the recent Act of Parliament, and that, as the season is now commencing, the matter is urgent; and whether he will communicate with the Town Council, and urge them to appoint an Inspector at once?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The hon. Member is aware that the Inspector of Weights and Measures is the officer of the Local Authority, and not of the Board of Trade; but I have communicated with the Mayor of Margate and he informs me that there will be no unnecessary delay on the part of the Town Council in taking steps to insure that the provisions of the Weights and Measures Acts are properly administered in their district. Since the vacancy referred to by the hon. Member, one application only has been made for stamping a weighing instrument.

  GAMBLING IN THE ARMY.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a Return, if moved for, of all the cases of non-commissioned officers and men who have been punished by reduction to the ranks, or otherwise, either for allowing card playing or gambling to take
  1056
  place, or for taking part therein with those of inferior rank to themselves?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The Return could only be given by calling upon every corps in the Service to search through all the defaulters' sheets for an indefinite period, and I hardly think the value of the information would justify the labour involved in its collection.
  MR. COBB: I omitted in the question to ask for a Return for three years only. May I ask whether these punishments would not be mainly by court-martial; and whether it would not be easy to obtain a Return of them for three years?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: That is a new proposition. I will consider it.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consult with the Commander-in-Chief as to the desirability of calling the special attention of officers in the Army to those of the regulations which relate to gambling, and of informing them that in future they will be strictly enforced?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The regulations upon this subject are well understood in the Army, and are strictly enforced, and I therefore see no necessity for an order calling special attention to them.
  MR. COBB: May I ask whether I was right in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to say last week that in the case of one officer of very high rank the regulations were not understood, and that this caused him to commit an error in judgment?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The order in question relating to gambling has not, I believe, been broken in any respect.

  SCOTCH LEGAL PROCEDURE.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Sheriff of Caithness has issued an order for Caption against the Procurator Fiscal of his Court for the non-production of certain papers given out of his custody by order of the Crown Agent; whether it is true that, in the case out of which this action against his Procurator Fiscal originated, the Sheriff of Caithness appended the following note to his interlocutor, authorising the abandonment of a summary complaint:—

  1057
  "The Sheriff has granted this motion to the extent aforesaid, only at the request of the Lord Advocate. He is hopeful that his Lordship will still relieve the rogue money of this county, now the general assessment of the expense of a trial by certifying, by his deputies or otherwise, the charge against Exchequer;"
  whether it is proposed to act on the suggestion put forth in this interlocutor; and, if so, under what head of the Estimates the sum certified against Exchequer would be included; and whether the expenses of the Procurator Fiscal, incurred in defending himself against imprisonment at the hands of the Sheriff for obeying the order of the Crown Agent, will be defrayed out of moneys voted by this House; and, if so, under what head of the Estimates?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The fact in the first paragraph and the quotation in the second paragraph of this question are correctly given. Whether the expenses referred to will fall to be defrayed out of moneys voted by this House depends on the result of legal proceedings now sub judice, and this question has not, therefore, arisen.

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether such divergence of views has arisen among the Chief Officers of Justice in Inverness-shire, namely, the Sheriff Depute, on the one hand, and the Sheriff Clerk, Procurator Fiscal, and Chief Constable, on the other, as to involve incriminative reference by the first mentioned to the Secretary for Scotland; whether he feels at liberty to indicate the nature of these differences; and whether he can give assurance that he has taken, or will take, all steps open to him, to ensure that the carrying out of justice, law, and order in Inverness-shire be not in any way prejudiced or hampered?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Certain differences of opinion have arisen between the Sheriff of Inverness-shire and some of the county officials, but I do not think it would be for the public interest for me to indicate the nature of those differences. There is no reason to fear that the carrying out of justice, law, and order will be in any way prejudiced or hampered.

  ALLEGED FRAUDULENT SALE AT WORCESTER.
  SIR E. LECHMERE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a sale, held at Worcester, on the 21st of April last and five following days, which was advertised by circular as a private treaty sale by command of the Court of Bankruptcy, but which proved to be fraudulently so advertised, the Inspector General in Bankruptcy having no knowledge of the alleged order of the Court, or of the firm to which it was stated to relate; whether such advertisement is a contempt of Court; and what course will be adopted to prevent such fraudulent abuse of the name and authority of the Court in future?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My attention has been called to the case referred to by my hon. Friend, but I am advised that it would not be probable that any Court would hold that the publication of such an advertisement would constitute a contempt of Court, and that the Board of Trade have no power to interfere in the matter. If my hon. Friend is correct in applying the term fraudulent either to the advertisement or to the transactions which followed from it, I apprehend that the attention of the Public Prosecutor should be directed to the case by some person aggrieved.

  THE SUPREME COURT.
  MR. BRISTOWE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain why compulsory retirement at a fixed age, and promotion by merit as recommended by the Legal Offices Committee, 1887, and the Order in Council of 13th August, 1890, has not yet been introduced and enforced in the Central Office of the Supreme Court?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am assured that due regard is paid to the consideration of merit in all promotions made in the staff of the Central Office. It is more than doubtful whether the terms of the Order in Council of August 13, 1890, apply to the staff of the Central Office, but I am in communication with

  1059
  the Lord Chancellor upon the other matter referred to in the question—namely, the compulsory retirement of officers after a fixed limit of age.

  POST OFFICE PROMOTIONS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been drawn to the case of a first-class sorting clerk in the Birmingham Post Office, named Westmorland, who was, in January last, appointed to the post-mastership of Goole, and, a few weeks afterwards, to the more lucrative post-mastership of Chorley; whether the appointment to Goole was offered to Westmorland by a letter from the third Secretary to the General Post Office, without the heads of the Department and his official superiors at Birmingham being consulted, and was afterwards confirmed without their sanction, although Westmorland has been passed over in making promotions about 30 times on account of alleged incompetency, and, on the last occasion, as recently as August last; whether, on occasions when Westmorland has been passed over, the local postmaster has reported to the General Post Office the reasons for passing him over; whether the vacancies in the post-masterships at Goole and Chorley were announced by a notice in the weekly official circular; whether he is aware that the appointments have caused great dissatisfaction among the other clerks in the Birmingham Post Office, many of whom are of higher rank, as to whom no incompetency has ever been alleged, who were in every way fitted for the vacant post master ships, but who had no opportunity given to them of applying for the posts, and were thus passed over by Westmorland, who was junior to them; and whether he will make full inquiries into the cases, and state what steps it is proposed to take?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the several questions of the hon. Member, I have to state that it is the fact that I appointed Mr. Westmorland to be postmaster of Goole, and shortly afterwards transferred him to Chorley, which, instead of being a more lucrative office, is of less value, the salary at Goole being £200 and that at Chorley £170. Reports were obtained from Mr. Westmorland's superior officers
  1060
  at Birmingham; but their sanction to an appointment made by me is not required. The Postmaster of Birmingham has reported when vacancies occurred in his office his reasons for not recommending Mr. Westmorland for promotion, but those reasons would not hold good in the case of appointment to a small post office; and, in fact, the reports made it desirable, in my opinion, to move Mr. Westmorland from the Birmingham office. The vacancies at Goole and Chorley were not announced in the Post Office Circular. I am not aware of the alleged dissatisfaction at Mr. Westmorland's appointment, and so far from any eagerness having been displayed for such promotion, the post was refused by another officer to whom it was offered, on the ground that Goole was not a desirable place to live in. Being so familiar with the facts, it is not my intention to make any further inquiry.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the detailed and precise information given by Mrs. Bishop as to the failure of the Sublime Porte to carry out (in accordance with the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, 1878) the ameliorations and
  "Reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds, and to periodically make known the steps taken to this effect by the Powers, who would superintend their application,"
  from which failure has resulted within the last few months grievous oppression, rapine, and murder of the Armenians resident in the North-Eastern Provinces of Asia Minor, and in view of the expected armed interference by Russia, Her Majesty's Government will take into-consideration the duty of applying practically, in concert with the other Powers, the adequate careful provision against future misgovernment in those provinces which was made by that Treaty, as started by the Marquess of Salisbury in his Despatch to the Secretary of State, enclosing a copy thereof, and dated Berlin, 13th July, 1878?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Her

  1061
  Majesty's Government have no ground for believing that the European Powers would be willing to join in a forcible intervention in Armenia. Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte has always reminded the Turkish Government of its Treaty obligations in this matter whenever such a representation appeared to him to be required, or to be likely to lead to practical advantage.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think that the information which has unfortunately come to us recently may show the need of redress?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; I do not think that any change has taken place.

  IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Alien Act of William IV., which provides for aliens on their arrival at British ports producing their passports and making a declaration as to their names, nationality, &c., is still in force; and whether, if these provisions are enforced, a Return can be laid upon the Table, founded thereon, showing the nationalities and number of such aliens as come to this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed that the officers of Customs do not require the production of any passports which may be in the possession of aliens, but the declaration required by the 2nd section of the Act is always made at certain ports and forwarded to the Home Office under Section 5. These declarations are sent by the Home Office to the Board of Trade, and the information they supply is tabulated by that Department, and appears in the Statistical Tables relating to emigration and immigration which are presented to Parliament from year to year. There will be no objection to a Return giving the number and nationalities of destitute aliens who have arrived in this country without through tickets to America at certain ports during any particular month or months of the present year, and I shall be happy to confer with my hon. Friend as to the exact form of his Return.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that these Returns are usually very imperfect, and whether, if the powers of the Government are inadequate, further powers will be asked for?
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is no intention of asking for further powers.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Then I beg to give notice that I will put a further question to the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject.

  ENGLAND AND THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement of the Berliner Tageblatt is correct, that England has taken diplomatic action favourable to the renewal of the Triple Alliance; whether any communications have recently taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, or with any Agent of the Italian Government, or with any other Foreign Government, or Agent of any other Foreign Government, in respect to the policy of England in the event of Italy being involved in war owing to her being a member of the Triple Alliance; and, if so, whether he will communicate them to the House; and whether Her Majesty's Government is aware of the terms of the Triple Alliance, and will, if so, communicate them to the House?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government having no part in the Triple Alliance have taken no part in connection with it. I can add nothing to the statements already made in regard to our foreign engagements. The hon. Gentleman can hardly be serious in suggesting that Her Majesty's Government should communicate to the House any matter which could only have become known to them confidentially, and which the Governments concerned have not thought fit to publish.

  BRITISH GUIANA.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communication has been received from the Governor of British Guiana, since his appointment, with reference to the

  1063
  granting of a charter to Georgetown; and, if not, whether, provided a Petition to Her Majesty be received from the Mayor and Council, unanimously supported by the inhabitants, the Secretary of State will give the same his favourable consideration?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The communication referred to has not been received, and the Secretary of State can express no opinion on the subject until the Petition has been transmitted by the Governor with his Report.

  TRINIDAD.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a change in the Governorship of Trinidad is about to take place; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state if a new appointment has yet been made?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: No steps have been taken with respect to the appointment of a new Governor to Trinidad. In the ordinary course the present Governor's term of service would extend to October next.

  NEWFOUNDLAND ARBITRATION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if steps have been taken to proceed with the Newfoundland arbitration and push it on as rapidly as possible, in view to the continued strained relations between the Newfoundlanders and the French on the Newfoundland shore?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The actual state of the case is that when the Agreement for arbitration was signed both Governments reserved the approval of their respective Parliaments before the arrangement was put into execution. Her Majesty's Government have obtained the approval of the Imperial Parliament. The French Government have as yet only obtained the approval of their Senate, and have, up to this time, abstained from bringing the Agreement before the Chamber of Deputies. Her Majesty's Government are doing what is in their power to bring the negotiations to a speedy and satisfactory issue.

  HIGH BUILDINGS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether
  1064
  his attention has been drawn to the great height to which a building is being carried in High Street, Kensington, bordering on Kensington Gardens; and whether he has any power to limit the height to which buildings may be carried which are immediately contiguous to the public parks, and which are likely to prove an eyesore, and decrease the value of the amenity and lessen materially the enjoyment of the parks by the general public?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): My attention has for some time been directed to the building in the High Street, Kensington, mentioned in the question. I have only indirect means of exercising any control in such cases: but such as they are, I have employed those means, with the result that the intended height of the building has been reduced by about 20 feet, and I have obtained some further concessions from the owners of the house.

  THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of Sir John Fowler to the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway as to the bridges, includes a Report as to the stability of the bridge over the Thames; whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a General Order, under the provisions of Section 32 of "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," directing the companies to furnish a statement of the condition and stability of the bridges, and as to the dates of the inspection and testing of such bridges; and whether, having regard to the evidence that the bridge which failed at Norwood Junction had not been inspected from below for 10 years, he will represent to the companies the urgent necessity of adequate inspection of railway bridges every year?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member will find in the Report of Sir John Fowler—a copy of which was presented to Parliament on Thursday last—that it is stated that
  "The Victoria Bridge is a strong and good bridge in every respect, and will be so for very many years. The timber of the permanent

  1065
  way now requires renewal, and this is being done; being an arched bridge, passing trains cause a movement which may be termed a 'vibration' as distinguished from a movement or deflection of an ordinary girder bridge, which has less vibration although probably more movement. No anxiety whatever need be felt about the Victoria Bridge."
  In 1885 the Board of Trade issued a Circular calling the attention of all Railway Companies to the subject of railway bridges constructed of iron, and it appeared from the replies to that Circular that the companies were carefully and continuously watching the bridges. During the period which has elapsed since that Circular was sent, the Railway Companies, generally, have, to a large extent, renewed and repaired the bridges upon their systems. The whole subject is now receiving my careful consideration, and I may have occasion to address a farther Circular to the companies generally on it.
  MR. CHANNING: Is the point which the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating the propriety of calling the attention of the company to the desirability of a periodical inspection?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have in-formed the hon. Gentleman that I am considering the propriety of addressing a further Circular to the companies.

  3RD BATTALION OF THE WELSH REGIMENT.
  MR. D. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether complaints have reached him that the supply of ammunition recently sent down for the 3rd Battalion of the Welsh Regiment was only sufficient for class firing; and if he will order an additional supply for practice also to be provided?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If the hon. Gentleman will repeat the question on Thursday, it is probable that the Report which I have called for will have been presented.

  SEVERE SENTENCE.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a woman, named Lydia Cook, of Rayleigh, Essex, as reported in the Daily Chronicle of the 19th instant, who was sentenced by the Magistrates to pay a fine and costs,
  1066
  amounting to £1 7s. 6d., with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour, for an offence against the Vaccination Laws; and whether he will inquire into the case, with a view to remitting the fine and costs?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Lydia Cook was sentenced to pay a fine of 1s. and £1 3s. 6d. costs, to be levied by distress, and in default of distress seven days' imprisonment, without hard labour. I am in communication with my hon. Friend the Member for the Division, who has interested himself in the case, and am expecting a Report from the Justices. On receiving it I will decide whether any action can and should be taken.

  NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE.
  SIR H. ROSCOE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has decided to grant the application of the Committee of the National Institute of Preventive Medicine to become incorporated under the Companies Act, with the omission of the word "Limited," in view of the amended proposals which have been placed before him?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The amendment of the proposed Memorandum of Association referred to by the hon. Member (by which it is made clear that the grant of the licence now asked for would not in any way imply approval by the Board of Trade of experiments upon living animals or of any application to the Home Secretary for a licence for that purpose) is no doubt an important change in the proposals of the Institute, and will probably meet the objection stated to the deputation which lately waited upon me. There are, however, one or two other points requiring consideration, but I hope shortly to be able to arrive at a decision on the subject.

  ACTIONS AGAINST THE CROWN.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, when in an action or question between the Crown and any of Her Majesty's subjects, in which judgment is for the Crown with costs, the fees paid to the Law Officers or other counsel appearing for the Crown are reduced upon taxation between party and party, the amounts dis-

  1067
  allowed are returned by the counsel or paid by the Treasury?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): In the event of the very exceptional case arising which is referred to in the hon. Member's question, the fees would be paid by the Treasury.

  SCHOOL BOARDS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Council whether he is aware that there are in England and Wales as many as 160 School Boards and 89 School Attendance Committees in which the standard for partial exemption is Standard II., and as many as 936 School Boards and 481 School Attendance Committees in which the standard for total exemption is Standard IV.; whether he is aware that such low standards for partial and total exemption are contrary to the law and practice of Scotland; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of availing themselves of the opportunity afforded by the introduction of the Assisted Education Bill to raise the standards for partial and total exemption in England and Wales at least to the level at which they now stand in Scotland?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The hon. Member has correctly quoted from the figures given in the Return lately presented to Parliament, from which it is clear that the practice in England and Wales is more indulgent than that followed in Scotland. He will, however, have every opportunity of eliciting the opinion of the Government on the point in the course of the Debate upon the Elementary Education Bill.

  ACCELERATED MAIL SERVICE TO IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can now make any statement with reference to the establishment of an accelerated mail service to and from the North of Ireland by Lame and Stranraer?
  SIR J. ELLISalso asked the Postmaster General whether it is the intention of the Post Office authorities to divert the mail service from the
  1068
  main line of communication between Dublin viâ Portadown and Londonderry and Belfast, in favour of the North-Western route through England viâ Stranraer; and when the long-desired acceleration of the mail service may be expected?
  MR. SEXTONfurther asked the right hon. Gentleman what is the result of the negotiations respecting the mail route viâ Stranraer and Larne?
  *MR. RAIKES: I am glad to be at length in a position to make a definite-statement on this subject. After the most careful and exhaustive consideration, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that, while the important industrial interests of Belfast have strong claims on their consideration in the matter of swift and efficient postal service, nothing should be done in any way tending to detract from the efficiency and completeness of the excellent mail packet service which has been for so many years established by the route of Holyhead and Kingstown. On the contrary, the views of the Government are that efforts should be made to improve that service, and I have with pleasure found that at moderate outlay an accelerated arrival to the extent of 55 minutes at Belfast and 1 hour 5 minutes at Londonderry can be effected by that route. Accordingly, and subject to a single stipulation as to the cost of special trains, I am about to make arrangements with the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland for carrying out an alteration under what I should describe as scheme No. 2, and under which the mails will be due at Belfast at 9.30 a.m., and at Londonderry at 11.10 a.m. It is only right to state that under a scheme submitted as No. I the company have offered to effect a still further acceleration, but, irrespective of the additional cost involved, the departure of the mails from Dublin would take place at so early an hour as to endanger, in the opinion of my advisers, the punctual and proper performance of the service. At the same time, the Government are not insensible to the importance of providing for the City of Belfast and large towns in the North of Ireland, not only an alternate and in some respects an improved service for the conveyance of London letters, and also for the swifter exchange of letters

  1069
  between the North of Ireland and the northern and midland towns of England, and I am prepared with this object, and subject to a limitation of the contract to five years, to enter into an arrangement for the establishment of a regular mail service by the route of Stranraer and Larne, a statement which, I trust, will be satisfactory to the hon. Member and to all who are interested in the improvement of the postal communication with the large and flourishing towns of Ulster. The combined services when put into operation will raise the maximum interval for replies at Belfast from 5 hours 5 minutes to 7 hours 50 minutes, and at Derry from 1 hour 25 minutes to 3 hours 40 minutes. I trust the House will allow me to take this opportunity of expressing my acknowledgments of the fair and courteous spirit in which the respective corporations with whom I have been in communication on the subject have so far met the views of Her Majesty's Government on this somewhat complicated question.
  SIR E. HARLAND: Does the answer indicate that there is to be no subsidy whatever paid in respect of the route by Larne and Stranraer?
  *MR. RAIKES: No, Sir; there will be a subsidy to each line.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the arrangement been completed, or is it only contemplated? If it is contemplated, will the right hon. Gentleman state the terms?
  *MR. RAIKES: The arrangement must be subject to the ultimate decision of Parliament; but the present conditions in regard to the Larne route may be regarded as complete except as to the time over which the contract is to run. I have received a telegram from the North-Western Company stating that there will be little or no difficulty in arriving at an arrangement upon that point.
  MR. SEXTON: What is to be the annual payment?
  *MR. RAIKES: I think I had better defer an answer to that question.

  THE IRISH CENSUS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in estimating the population and number of houses within the municipal boundary
  1070
  of the town of Lisburn, care has been taken to include that portion which is situated in the County Down?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Irish Census Commissioners report that since the publication of the preliminary Parliamentary Abstract, it has been ascertained that the figures given therein for Lisburn town are incorrect, as the portion of the town in the County Antrim has not been included. The correct figures, as shown by the enumerators' abstracts, are:—in County Antrim, 1,785 inhabited houses; population, 9,517; in County Down, 525 inhabited houses; population, 2,732—total, Lisburn town, 2,310 inhabited houses; population, 12,249.

  DR. J. T. RYAN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Dr. J. T. Ryan, of Portumna, County Galway, was, on the night of 13th October, 890, called in by Dr. H. O'Farrell, acting-medical officer to military stationed there, to assist in an urgent surgical case which could not be treated without extra surgical and; and that Dr. Ryan paid several visits to the patients; and if the very moderate fee duly applied for by Dr. Ryan on the form supplied by the principal medical officer will be granted by the War Office?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: There has been some irregularity in this case, which is being inquired into.

  TRAMORE FISHERMEN.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, considering that there is no accommodation for fishermen at Tramore, County Waterford, and that the pier, partly built by local contribution, which has been destroyed, was planned and constructed by the Board of Works, what assistance may the locality expect from funds at the disposal of the Irish Government in an effort to provide suitable accommodation for the fishermen of Tramore?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): It is estimated that there will be a balance from these funds, but at present there is no realised balance. I am afraid that

  1071
  there may be charges on the funds which will leave nothing available for the accommodation of the fishermen at Tramore. I have made inquiries, and I certainly cannot find at the disposal of the Irish Government any funds for such a purpose.

  NAAS TOWN COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution which was unanimously adopted at a recent meeting of the Naas Town Commissioners, in which they express their opinion that in allocations of public money towards the promotion of primary and technical education the claims of the Christian Brothers to recognition and support are entitled to the consideration of the Government, and that a portion of Ireland's share in the surplus should be applied in providing technical instruction in Ireland; and whether in the proposed Bill he will introduce a clause giving effect to the above resolution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A copy of the resolution of the Naas Town Commissioners does not appear to have reached the Irish Government. But, as I have pointed out in reply to previous questions on the subject, it is quite open to the Christian Brothers' Order to take advantage of the public grants for primary education by putting themselves under the general regulations of the National Education Board, a course which various Orders of Monks, including the French Order of Christian Brothers, find no difficulty in adopting. As regards the suggestion with respect to technical instruction, I am, of course, most anxious to encourage it; how far it can be done as part of the general scheme now in preparation is a matter for careful consideration, and will in part depend on whether the scheme for freeing education leaves any available surplus.

  CHARGE OF ASSAULT.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three young men, named Patrick Rahilly, Jeremiah Healy, and Michael Healy, of Headford, County Kerry, were summarily
  1072
  arrested on the 1st instant for an alleged assault on a man named Williams, of Brewsterfield; and that, after being remanded for eight days, Mr. Rahilly was discharged, there being no evidence against him; whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the trial, from which it appears that Williams had assaulted Jeremiah Healy, and was fined £3 and bound over to keep the peace for 12 months; and whether it is intended to take any action with regard to the conduct of the police in this case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The three men named in the question were arrested on a warrant on sworn information. One of the defendants was discharged, and the other two were fined. Williams was fined for assaulting Rahilly.

  EXTRA POLICE IN WATERFORD.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what number of extra police are now stationed in the County Water-ford, and at what annual cost to the ratepayers; and what were the number of cases returned for trial at the last Quarter Sessions and County Assizes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The extra police force now attached to the County Water-ford is 30 men. The cost is about £800 per annum. At the last Quarter Sessions there were three cases for trial, and at the last Assizes five cases.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it intended to continue the extra police force in those parts of Ireland which the Government think now ought not to be proclaimed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that each county should be dealt with on its own merits.

  PRIMARY EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state whether, in the case of the additional funds in aid of primary education in Ireland, he will proceed by Bill or by Supplementary Estimate; if he can now state definitely the amount which the Government will propose as the Irish capitation rate; and whether the principles of distribution embodied in the English Bill will be submitted for provisional application to Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No final determination has been come to with re-

  1073
  gard to the particular method of dealing with the funds at the command of the Irish Office in consequence of the measures taken in England for freeing education; but the desire of the Government is to proceed by Resolution, not by Bill, if such a course be practicable. With regard to the second question, I understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sum available in the course of the present year is between £80,000 and £85,000. With regard to the next paragraph, which I understand to embody a suggestion that we should bring forward a short preliminary education measure for distributing the money among the school authorities in Ireland, I think such a measure might lead to grave complications and difficulties when the final arrangements come to be made, and I should not be prepared to recommend it to the House.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE ATHLONE UNION.
  MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board declared the site chosen for a labourer's cottage in the Athlone Union, in place of an unsanitary cottage at present occupied by a labourer called Doolan, to be unsuitable; and whether the said site was chosen by an ex officio and an elected Guardian?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Inspector reports that the building site selected is unsuitable, owing: to its situation with regard to the main road. I have no information as to the persons who selected the site.

  DUBLIN POSTMEN.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if the Treasury have agreed to the recommendations he made to them lately with reference to the Dublin postmen; and whether, in connection with those recommendations, consideration will be taken of the fact that, while extra pay for Sunday duty has been allowed for other employés in the Dublin General Post Office, no increase of pay has been granted to the postmen whose Sunday duty is none the less arduous?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have not yet been favoured with the Treasury reply to my
  1074
  recommendations on the subject of the postmen's memorials. The question of additional pay for Sunday work was one of those raised in the memorials, and it has, of course, been considered along with the rest.

  DISTRESS IN WEST DONEGAL.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter of the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, Lord Bishop of Raphoe, appearing in the National Press, of 1st June, and of the reports published in the same journal on the 12th and 13th June, in which it is stated that North West Donegal has been excluded from all participation in relief works; whether a line of railway from Letterkenny to Dunfanaghy and Gweedore was amongst the lines scheduled by the Lords Justices in Council as desirable to have constructed and approved by the Grand Jury of the County of Donegal; and why, having regard to the admitted failure of the potato crop and the destitution of the people, and the increased mortality produced by such destitution, have no relief works, such as the construction of railways, and piers and harbours, and the making of roads, been instituted in North West Donegal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have to say that the letter of Bishop O'Donnell and reports published in the National Press as to the distress in Donegal have been brought to my notice. It is perfectly true, as stated, that the line of railway from Letterkenny to Dunfanaghy and Gweedore was amongst the lines scheduled by the Lords Justices; but the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind, in the first place, that a much larger number of lines were necessarily scheduled than there was money forthcoming to construct; in the second place, that the line he refers to was not accepted by the Grand Jury of the County of Donegal; and, in the third place, that the County of Donegal has obtained a full share of the money voted by Parliament for the purpose of constructing light railways. The condition of the people in the north-west of Donegal has been the object of the constant and anxious attention of the Government. On the whole, we have been of opinion that no destitution existed of a sufficiently severe character

  1075
  to justify the institution of relief works. I have not been able to obtain information enabling me to compare the mortality during the present spring with that during previous springs, and to discover that any mortality arising out of the destitution of the people and the partial failure of the potato crops exists in the district.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence to show that a large proportion of the population is invalided, that the death-rate has more than doubled, that the Relief of Distress Fund is administered on the principle that no relief is given to any family a member of which is able to work; and whether the principle of administering that fund cannot be relaxed in the case of persons able to work but who are unable to get work to do?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is true that the Relief Fund is confined to families in which there is no able-bodied person capable of earning money, or else to families precluded by severe sickness among its members from work. The hon. Member has been misinformed as to his facts, because the information in my possession does not bear out the view as to the amount of destitution and sickness in West Donegal. A large number of members of families are either in Scotland, or on the way to Scotland and the Eastern Counties for the purpose of obtaining agricultural work.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to give the House some indication as to the order of business during the later portion of the week. I may draw attention to the fact that the first Notice for to-morrow is a Motion of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) expressing the opinion that it is desirable steps should be taken with a view to the adoption of regulations as to the immigration of foreign destitute paupers. I wish to know whether the Government intend to adhere to their right to take to-morrow for other business; and, if so, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will undertake that an opportunity shall be afforded to the House for expressing an opinion on this subject, in respect of which there is an increasing popular
  1076
  feeling. Will the Government afford an opportunity for a full discussion?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid that the Government cannot give the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman desires. The Government must take to-morrow for other business, and they cannot pledge themselves as to when the subject indicated may be brought before the House.
  DR. CAMERON: What course is proposed to be taken in regard to Order No. 5 on the Paper—the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill? The question is one of considerable importance to the shipowning community, as regulating the conditions under which cattle are to be shipped. My shipowning constituents are anxious that it should not be pressed forward until they have had time to examine the Bill. I therefore hope that it will not be taken to-night.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill will not be taken before Thursday. Assuming that the Second Reading stage of the Education Bill is concluded to-morrow evening the Army Estimates will be taken on Wednesday, and on Thursday the Committee stage of the Education Bill.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think that one day is a very short time to allow of Amendments being put down on the Education Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I would also ask for more time.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will report what has passed to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, who will be in his place to-morrow, and who, no doubt, will consider what the general wish of the House is. I may point out, however, that the Government are pressed from one quarter to proceed with the Bill de die in diem as soon as it is before the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: On the contrary, the statement was that the Bill should be proceeded with de die in diem after the Committee stage had begun.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 107.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 261.)
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  NEW WRIT.
  For Carlow County, v. James Patrick O'Gorman Mahon, esquire, commonly called The O'Gorman Mahon, deceased.—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
MOTION.
  DESTITUTION IN NORTH WEST DONEGAL.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. MAC NEILL, Member for South Donegal, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the destitution of the people in North West Donegal, and its perilous aggravation by reason of the failure of the Government to institute works for the relief of distress in that district; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    MR. MAC NEILL: I must express my thanks to hon. Gentlemen for having supported me in bringing forward this Motion at a time when a most important Bill is about to be discussed, and in which they are vitally interested. The matter which I wish to bring before the House is, however, of such great importance that I hope I may be excused for any temporary embarrassment I may occasion. I trust that I shall show my appreciation of the indulgence of the House by occupying its attention for a very short time. My attention has been directed to the question of distress in North West Donegal by a letter in the National Press from the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, a most distinguished Prelate, and the friend of everyone in the community in that district of Ireland. The Right Rev. Prelate has felt it his duty to call attention to the destitution which exists among a population of 21,561 persons, and to the fact that that enormous dis-
    1078
    trict has been exempted from the relief works, although it is one of the most congested to be found not only in Donegal but probably in all Ireland. The Government have received many notices of the impending distress in Ulster. I myself have frequently addressed questions to the Government with reference to the failure of the potato crop; and last autumn the Chief Secretary received an official Report on distress in Ireland, which stated that North West Donegal was threatened with great distress on account of the total failure of the potato crop. In September last the clergy of Letterkenny and the district met first at Letterkenny, and subsequently in Dublin, and passed various resolutions calling attention to the impending calamity; but in a letter written on October 3 the right hon. Gentleman declared that there was no distress, and that such as might occur the Poor Law was abundantly able to meet. The right hon. Gentleman added that the country was not seriously to consider a panic that was obviously got up for political purposes. For my own part, I have never discussed these questions from a political point of view, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will not seriously suggest that Dr. O'Donnell is likely to be actuated by political motives. At the same time, I think there ought to be a strong feeling of indignation against any Government which fails to discharge the primary duty of a Government, the protection of the lives of the people from starvation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) went to Ireland to investigate the matter personally, and he wrote to the Chief Secretary suggesting that he should examine the condition of affairs for himself. In his answer the Chief Secretary rather reproved the right hon. Gentleman for dictating what the conduct of a Chief Secretary ought to be; but surely the man who has practically despotic rule over Ireland is bound to look after the welfare of the population he governed. But a change soon came over the spirit of the dream of the Chief Secretary. After the right hon. Gentleman had declared that there was no distress except what was got up for political purposes—[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said anything of the kind]—the

    1079
    right hon. Gentleman received an application from Mr. Hamilton, a landlord's agent in the centre of the North West Donegal district, telling him that the potato crop had absolutely failed; and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), who had been travelling there, and was filling the position since occupied by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), namely, that of correspondent to a London daily paper, wrote to the public Press about the distress in the locality. He said there could be no doubt that the potato, as the source of the people's food, had collapsed. That was early in November, and the hon. Member pointed out what we all saw, that distress in the locality was imminent, and that it was likely to be most acute. Then came the question what ought to be done, and the remedy that was pointed out as adequate to provide support for the thousands of distressed people was the construction of a railway from Letterkenny to Gweedore. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, addressing an Unionist meeting, referred to this very railway, and urged upon the Government the necessity of constructing it. He stated that the railway system in Donegal was absolutely incomplete, unless there was a line in the northwest of the county—meaning thereby a railway through the congested districts from Letterkenny to Gweedore. There were Petitions for the rail way, which was sanctioned by the Privy Council; and a deputation from the Grand Jury waited on the Board of Works and on the Chief Secretary in support of the railway, and received favourable assurances. When the Chief Secretary was in Gweedore, Mr. Olphert strongly urged upon him that in the interests of the community at large this railway should be constructed. The Bishop of Donegal, in the discharge of his duty, recently issued a pastoral to his clergy, and in the strongest language urged that some works should be instituted; that, in order to keep up habits of industry among the people, and to ensure a proper and healthy tone of self-respect, an opportunity should be held out to them to maintain their independence by hard work. The construction of a railway would have relieved these numerous and unhappy people. Then, I ask, why
    1080
    were not piers and harbours constructed so that the people might get an opportunity of reaping the harvest of the sea? Take the parish of Gweedore, which the right hon. Gentleman was only in a few hours and left in the gloom of the morning. The parish contains 1,000 families, or about 5,000 persons. I find from Father M'Fadden's statement that no fewer than 800 families are supported by credit, or four-fifths of the whole number, and that the outstanding debts of the people come to about £10,000. I find that the average valuation of holdings in this country is £1 per individual, whilst the average valuation for each individual in Father M'Fadden's parish is about 3s. If a pier were built out into the sea it would enable deep-sea fishing to be carried on in rough weather. The construction of a harbour there was recommended by the Board of Works in 1888, but not a single pound has been expended upon it. I should imagine that of all places in the world Gweedore would be the place the right hon. Gentleman would be most anxious to help. It is a place where the right hon. Gentleman's administration has been characterised by terrible horrors, by the degradation and prostitution of justice, by armed military occupation, by passports, and by domiciliary visits. I have simply summarised what has taken place, and I am sure many Members of the House will testify that I have not exaggerated it. Take the question of the roads in Gweedore. Father M'Fadden is a practical engineer, and he made this offer to the Government early in January last—that he, by the use of his own skill and experience, would construct 20 miles of road for £5,000, and would out of that sum keep alive and well some 300 families for six months, whereas no Government contractor could do it for less than £15,000. Of course this offer was rejected because it came from a Catholic priest who had the interests of the people at heart and was acquainted with all their wants. I am inclined to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in a fair spirit on this point, because I am bound to say that since he went to Donegal himself there has been a very considerable change in his spirit and tone when talking of the distress. He now admits

    1081
    that distress exists, and says he will personally examine into any cases that are mentioned. I come now to the question of mortality. Dr. Smith, the medical man of the parish of the Rosses, has under his charge no fewer than 13,000 people, and he says that the illness in that vast district has, during the last year, more than trebled, and the mortality has increased 2½ times. I have obtained a great deal of the information I am using from the letters which have appeared in the National Press from the Commissioner of that paper. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to get another dispensary doctor appointed in the district, because Dr. Smith is seriously overworked. The Castle Relief Fund is being distributed there, but the right hon. Gentleman very well knows that that Fund ought only to be an auxiliary to the larger work of relieving distress. The Castle Fund is a charitable fund, pure and simple, and we are not satisfied, unless it be in very exceptional circumstances, that any of our people should accept charity. The fund is distributed in accordance with a very peculiar system. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary stated, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that no family is entitled to any relief from the fund if it contains one healthy member able to work. That, no doubt, is a very proper rule, but the difficulty is that there is no work for them. It is pitiable to see a strong', healthy man with his hands in his pockets, and his poor miserable children gathered around him, and to hear him say, when he is asked why he is not working, that there is no work for him to do. I gave the right hon. Gentleman a statistical record respecting every family in that parish, with the amount of debts due from each, and how the head of the family was employed, and so forth. There is one poor creature called Harvey, who, when the Castle Fund was being distributed, was working away from home. There was, in consequence, no able-bodied member of the family at home, and relief was given. Harvey, however, came home sick; and directly he did so, the relief given to his family stopped. The family would now be absolutely destitute except for the few shillings
    1082
    given to them by the parish priests and the charitable people in the neighbourhood. Certainly, if one wishes to see real charity and generosity, one must go amongst the poverty-stricken Irish peasantry. I do not think it was right or fair that any political complexion should be given to this Castle Fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was a most liberal subscriber to that fund, and as large a sum as £1,200 was on one occasion subscribed to it at a meeting presided over by the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone), and at which the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) spoke. I was very much surprised to notice that Lord Salisbury spoke of the fund as if it were a political organisation got up for political purposes by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The hon. Members for Carnarvon and Flint, in handing over the subscriptions to which I have referred, urged that the fund should be distributed by persons having some local control, and possessing the respect and sympathy of the people, and not by police officers or resident magistrates. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not give the distribution to the Poor Law Guardians or the parish priests, or to some person having the confidence of the people. The quarter-acre clause has worked in an awful way. Every poor man who has in his own possession—in physical occupation—a quarter of an acre of land is unable to get out-door relief, but must go into the workhouse, and the moment he does so the landlord has a free hand to deal with his property. On the eve of the famine the tenants went into the workhouse, and no fewer than 55,800 men in this way were driven by stress of circumstances out of their holdings, for on coming out of the workhouse they found their farms in the possession of their landlords. This quarter - acre clause has paralysed the hands of the Poor Law Guardians, and no matter how much they desire to give out-door relief to the poor tenants they are unable to do so. They see before them the small farmer to whom temporary relief in the shape of food would be of the utmost importance, and they see him pause in making his choice of alternatives—either to lose his holding or to die of famine. In connection with Donegal

    1083
    there is a painful state of things which the English people cannot realise at all, that is to say, the physical condition of the place. Go into any congested district of North Donegal and you will find what I have witnessed with my own eyes—and, mark you, a "congested district" here does not mean what it would mean in England. Very frequently there may seem to be a sparseness of inhabitants in a district, but the sustenance for the people is so small that the congestion may be severe though there may be only one man, or, at the most, two or three men to each square mile. The cottages are of the most humble description. You enter one of them, but for two or three minutes you are unable to see anything. You have a smarting feeling in the eyes produced by the smoke which rises from the miserable peat fire which is smouldering, not in the hearth—for there is no hearth—but in the middle of the floor of the but. Then, when you have become to some extent accustomed to the smoke and can see, you observe in the cabin a tall, gaunt man and woman, in rags, with an absolutely hopeless expression of countenance, pallid and hungry looking. You see besides several miserable specimens of humanity in the shape of children huddled together. In Donegal you see less joy written in the people's faces than you see in any other part of the world. The children seem prematurely old. I have never seen a child smile in any of the miserable, famished districts of Donegal. They are wizened, dejected, pitiable creatures. Lord Salisbury once in one of his speeches—a speech which ought never to have been made, as it was unworthy of a person in his position, and of his antecedents—compared these poor Irish peasants to Hottentots. All I can say is that they are worse fed than the Hottentots, whom I have seen in their own homes. The food they have when the potato fails them is Indian meal—a dreadful mess—and seaweed. This seaweed I have myself seen in use, and out of courtesy when it has been offered to me I have myself endeavoured to eat it. But it is like leather. Such is the normal condition of these people when things are bright. They are not educated in the English language; they have no idea of reading or writing; they have little knowledge
    1084
    of public affairs, and they are unacquainted with matters affecting their neighbours as they do not read the newspapers. Their condition is hopeless, and their constant endeavour merely to stave off famine, and famine comes whenever the potato crop fails. That is the condition of 21,000 human beings in Donegal at present. I thought I should not be discharging my duty to the country if I did not place these matters clearly before the House. I am fully sensible of the kindness and attention with which I have been heard by Members of the House on all sides. What I plead for is a mere matter of justice and humanity. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who replies to me to deal with these people, not as machines from whom rent must be extracted, but as beings with the same feelings and affections as ourselves—even though they may express them in uncouth language. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some hope with reference to the condition of these people. I claim on the ground of Christianity, justice and mercy for people whose lot is extremely miserable, and I trust I shall not appeal in vain to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise his power in order to bring them some relief in their great necessity.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mac Neill.)
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I venture to think that however much hon. Members may be disappointed by the displacement by this Motion of the first Order of the Day, they would, had they personally witnessed the condition of this district, readily admit that the Members for Donegal are justified in the action they are taking. After all, the saving of the lives of the people should be the first business of this House, and I venture to assert that special and prompt steps must be taken if the lives of the people of Donegal are to be saved. This is the most remote and inaccessible part of Ireland; on the one side it is bounded by mountains; on the other side by two arms of the sea. It is in area about 330 square miles; it is a bare, barren, waste district, and yet its population numbers 25,000. The representations which we have made from our places in the House, the representations which have been

    1085
    made by the Bishop of Raphoe, and the clergy, and by large numbers of people who have visited the district, ought to have secured active and practical relief for the terrible distress now prevailing there. The distress is prevalent not only in Gweedore, but also in the Rosses and other parts of the county. Gweedore itself is not a small out-of-the-way parish. It is a district 68 square miles in extent; it has a population of 5,600, and these people, at the best of times, can only manage to make a bare living. But when their staple food fails they are immediately reduced to great destitution, and to the danger of starvation. The valuation of the land in the occupation of the tenants is only £1,283, and as there are 960 families, this gives an average of about 3s. 6d. per head. The average valuation of land in the occupation of tenants is 7d., and of that 7d., at least 5d. has been created by the industry of the people themselves. A generation back the state of things was not so bad, because in those days the people had every inch of the 44,000 acres. But the landlords have appropriated for themselves much of the most fertile land, they have turned the people off 24,000 acres, and have relegated them to rugged barren lands, for which they have to pay £1,600 a year as rent, compared with the £660 they formerly paid for the whole 44,000 acres. If it had not been for this wholesale robbery by the landlords, the tenants would not to-day be in this deplorable condition. The only thing which has saved 800 families in the Gweedore district from starvation has been the generous and charitable credit extended to them by the shopkeepers. But the shopkeepers can no longer afford to give credit; they cannot afford to furnish the means of subsistence on credit, and I know of instances in which people in the last few days have tramped miles and miles in order to get on credit a small bag of meal for their children and themselves. The debts owing to the shopkeepers in the district amount, I am told, to £10,000, or more than £10 per family, and those families literally possess nothing in the world. Not only did their potato crop fail last year, but so also did the oat crop, and whereas in an ordinary season 120 tons of oats are ground at the mills in the
    1086
    district, and considerable quantities sent away in addition, this year none could be sent away and scarcely any was ground at the mills for consumption in the district. Every year these people have to draw upon credit to a certain extent, but this year, instead of beginning to get credit only in the month of May, they have been living on credit since October last. Now their resources are totally exhausted; their credit is at an end, and the situation is extremely grave. These people do not ask for charity; they are too proud to wish their Representatives in this House to adopt a tone of beseeching charity; they are desirous of paying with the labour of their hands for food which they need, and they ask that in the next two months they may be employed on works which could be carried out: with great advantage to the district. That would carry them over the most critical period. In other places, which have not been visited so severely by the destruction of the crops, and where the people have a variety of means of occupation, public works and railways have been promoted, but absolutely nothing has been done for Gweedore. Yet the people have had reason to hope that something would be done for them. You have sent Inspectors, engineers, police, and relieving officers to take stock of the district and to report on it. But no result has followed their visits. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will tell us that the accounts of the distress have been exaggerated; but I have been there myself; I have seen the condition of the people, and if words have not told the story, it has been visible in the pinched and drawn faces and tattered clothing of the population. I feel impatient when I hear it asserted that the reports are exaggerated. Look at the very nature of the country. Why, it is a wonder how people can live at all in such districts as Loughamona, Derrynamoncha, and Rathanatas. The people cannot be kept alive without some great effort. A man had to carry home from school the other day a little girl who had fainted for want of food. Surely it is not too much to expect the Government to take steps to relieve the distress. The right hon. Gentleman says that from information supplied to him he has no reason to believe there is any extreme

    1087
    or dangerous distress. No doubt he believes that to be the case; but we say that he has been seriously misled. He must not imagine, because he drove through the country once over one of the two roads which run through it, that he had an opportunity of judging from the highroad the misery and destitution which lurk in the cabins among the rocks two, three, four, and five miles away. He might just as well attempt by a survey of Piccadilly to appreciate the distress in the East End of London, as to judge from the neighbourhood of the Gweedore Hotel the condition of the people living on the broken rocky lands of Rathanatas. The Government are, no doubt, full of good intentions, but the people cannot live on the assurances and solicitude of Governments; they must have food, and I abjure the right hon. Gentleman not to refuse the inquiry we ask for. Some of his subordinates are unwilling to let the real state of things be known, because it would be at variance with their previous reports. Why should a relieving officer say to the representative of a newspaper, "I will not give you information, because you are associated with Father Sweeney." Father Sweeney is the very man upon whom a whole population has been dependent for subsistence from week to week. I have here a letter in which the writer describes the case of a woman and her child on the tramp. The child actually died of starvation before assistance could be obtained. What is asked for is sworn inquiry by an independent person, and if that is conceded I am prepared to go over the district, and walk every step of the way from house to house, in order that the truth of the allegations made may be tested. I believe if the right hon. Gentleman will only send an independent officer he will see the necessity of taking prompt and effectual means of relieving the distress.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have no reason to complain of the action taken by the hon. Members for Donegal, nor of the tone in which they have laid their case before the House. Their action is not animated by any motive of hostility to the Government; they evidently desire to bring before the House what they believe to be the true state of the case; and I will endeavour
    1088
    to meet them in the spirit in which they have addressed themselves to this difficult and important question. The hon. Gentleman has told the House that the North-West of Donegal is one of the poorest and most congested districts in all Ireland. Undoubtedly there are spots in that district where the poverty and the congestion are as great as are to be found in any part of the West of Ireland; but I am not prepared to admit that the poverty is greater in the North-West than in the South-West of Donegal. If all the resources of the population are taken into account—what they make out of their holdings, out of fishing, out of labour in Scotland, and out of agricultural labour during the summer months in the East of Donegal—it will not be felt that the population stand much in need of special assistance from the House or otherwise. If I consulted my own personal convenience I should be prepared to start relief works wherever there is any strong local demand made for them, made through Members who will take Parliamentary trouble on the subject. It is not my own convenience, it is not for the sake of ease in the position I occupy, that I have felt myself compelled steadily to resist in certain cases the starting of relief works, but it is simply because I believe we should never lose sight of the fundamental axiom that relief works should never be started in any district in order to deal with chronic poverty, but should be started only to deal with serious and exceptional poverty. Therefore I have felt it my duty, where otherwise I should have set works on foot, to refuse the relief asked for. There is no foundation for the statement that I have refused to provide relief against destitution resulting from the failure of the potato crop. In August last I asked the House of Commons to sit up one whole night for no other purpose whatever than that of providing by Bill for the starting of relief works where such failures might occur; but it is true that I did what every man in my position would have done—I refused to accept the conjectures of various persons not in responsible positions with regard to the possibility or probability of destitution from this cause. It was not possible so early to say what the potato crop would

    1089
    be, nor to estimate the extent of failure until the end of October or the beginning of November. Indeed, it was not always possible to say so even then. I stated that it was my duty to discourage appeals based upon anonymous representations, but I took every possible precaution, should there be a failure in the potato crop, to guard against a catastrophe in the winter or the spring. The hon. Gentleman stated that I indicated a promise of a railway which I have not fulfilled. There is not the slightest foundation for that statement. I was met by a deputation at Letterkenny asking me to promote a line, and I told that deputation, and another which waited upon me since, that I hoped the time might come when the Imperial Parliament would grant this railway; but I did not conceal from them that by other railway schemes, of which Donegal would have its full share, we had exhausted the not illiberal grants already made, and that I could not hold out any hope that further grants would be made. There have been only two specific cases of distress brought before the House. In one of the cases a man named Condy Harley had deserted his wife and family by going away to Scotland. The man returned, but did not remain long at home; he departed for Scotland again a few weeks ago, and his family were again placed on the relief list. The other is the case of a beggar woman, whose name and residence have not been given, who was found about 30 miles away in very destitute circumstances. But these eases afford no indication of the general condition of the poor in the district, nor would they be a justification for starting relief works. It is perfectly true that there has been scarlet fever in the district, but on May 25 a Medical Inspector, appointed to make inquiry, reported that he could find only two cases of scarlet fever. Everybody who knows anything of the West of Ireland is aware that, while at first sight it seems a very easy thing to discover the true condition of the people, nothing is more difficult. Even the most sceptical are constantly deceived by obvious signs which they would be inclined to interpret in the first instance as indicating very serious destitution indeed. In the parish of Gweedore, for instance, no less than
    1090
    £500 has been spent on the purchase of seed potatoes, £250 has been paid in ready money by the people, and £220 was, I believe, obtained by Father M'Fadden. By this large expenditure of ready money the people obtained the full advantage of the percentage which accrued on the purchase of seed potatoes out of the Church surplus to those who bought for ready money. Since the end of October, last year, £112 had been contributed by the people on the occasion of 15 successive funerals. As the House is aware, it is the custom in that district to show respect for the dead by making contributions in the case of funerals. Again, the other day a purse of £124 was given by his grateful parishioners of Templecrome to Father Magin.
    MR. MAC NEILL: That did not come from the starving people, but from the prosperous shopkeepers of the town.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but the shopkeepers existed simply by the custom of the starving people. I believe Father Magin's services obtained beyond the limits of the town substantial recognition. In the same parish of Templecrome there existed a large trader, who, in the last few weeks, became bankrupt. I have done my best to investigate this case, and some very curious facts have come to light. This trader, a lady, was in the habit of receiving deposits from the people, and a list of her creditors was given in a well-known Irish circular, issued by Stubbs. Out of £9,000, the total amount of liabilities, some £2,300 was in respect of deposits made by small farmers of the district, for which they were to receive 5 per cent. And while these people were depositing money at 5 per cent., they were obtaining goods from shops on credit. It does not appear a paying transaction to deposit at 5 per cent. and pay 20 or 30 per cent. to the shopkeeper for credit. But that seems to be the financial principle in Templecrome. Two more facts. There is the Stranorlar Railway, on which the Directors of the line have expressed their willingness to give employment, but not a single demand for employment has come to them from the district in question since the works were opened.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman might as well talk about their going to work on a railway in Asia Minor.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: These able-bodied men go to Scotland in the season, and workers go to the east of the county in search of employment. Why should they not seek this labour market on the line of Stranorlar, which is nearer? Some light is thrown on this question by the Poor Law statistics. In the district we are considering there are two Unions—Caroonagh and Dunfanaghy. In the latter in 1890 the indoor relief was 24, and in 1881 29; the outdoor relief in 1890 was 1, and in 1891 6; the provisional relief was 24 in 1890, and 65 in 1891. In Caroonagh the indoor relief in 1890 was 24; in 1891 29. The outdoor relief in 1891 was only 5. Therefore, by looking at the Poor Law statistics the indications are similar to those derived from other sources available—that the distress is not of a kind which ought to be described as approaching famine point. I may remind hon. Gentlemen with reference to the Irish Distress Fund relief in this district that 2,465 persons are actually at this moment being supported out of the fund, and I think we may confidently say that this number includes every family which has no able-bodied breadwinner to work for it. I find that the children have already gone to the eastern counties, where they earn summer wages; and that wages in respect of hiring engagements—wages on which credit is given by the shopkeepers—will probably this year be above what they have been during some years past. Besides, 550 heads of families have already gone to Scotland, and I believe that the remainder will go this week or the following week. I think I have shown to the House that I, at all events, have done my best to make myself acquainted with the condition of this district, and that I have made out a good case for the course which the Government have adopted. It would be absolutely fatal to the future of those districts to start relief works where they are not absolutely required, and I am convinced, great as the pains are which I have taken in every part of Ireland with reference to this subject, that I have erred by excess rather than by defect.
    1092
    The independence of a district cannot be kept up by starting relief works at the public expense, and there is a danger, unless in case of dire necessity, of making those districts chronic beggars of the Imperial Government. I implore the House not to put any pressure on the Government to start works unless the necessity for them is conclusively shown. It would, no doubt, ease my position were I to feel that my responsibility was shared by the House of Commons. Though I should be grateful to hand over to hon. Members opposite the administration of these public funds, I am convinced that a worse course for the future interests of Ireland could not be conceived by Ireland's worst enemies.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) cheered the concluding portion of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Why, the hon. Member, in one of the series of letters to which reference has been made, said that this was not a case of tubers being diseased, but that the tubers were not there at all. His testimony must be regarded as conclusive, yet I find it difficult to reconcile what he has said with what he has cheered to-day.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: At the time the relief works were proposed, I objected to them as most demoralising, and where they have been set up they have done infinite mischief already.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman, in his published letters, advocated the construction of railways, piers, and harbours to develop the fishing industries on the West Coast, and said the Government would be guilty of criminal neglect if they did not execute these works. They have done nothing, and the evidence of the hon. Gentleman against the Government is, therefore, most conclusive. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted Poor Law statistics. I decline to take the administration of the Poor Law as a test of the condition of the district. Out of 960 occupiers in Gweedore there are only six who have holdings above £4 annual value. Besides, the Board of Guardians is in the hands of Mr. Olphert, an evicting landlord, who would have to pay the rates if relief were given. I maintain that the distress in this district is not only

    1093
    exceptional bat chronic. In this district in the first week of November last the right hon. Gentleman delivered a speech which encouraged hopes, now cruelly disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be some consolation to reflect that these works would not only conduce to improvement in the permanent condition of the people, but that they would administer to their immediate necessities as well. Bat the relief works which have been promised have not been carried out. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the works were to be directed to exceptional, and not to chronic necessity.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My proposition was this: that if you are going to start works for the sole purpose of relieving exceptional distress, of course, if those works permanently ameliorated the condition of the districts as well as relieved exceptional distress, so much the better.
    MR. SEXTON: If you have no kind of works, what becomes of it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What speech is it?
    MR. SEXTON: It was a speech delivered in the true spirit of paternal philanthropy at Letterkenny on the 17th November. The right hon. Gentleman was then arranging a railway scheme for Donegal.
    MR. MAC NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman was replying to a deputation of his own friends, who urged him to construct a railway in North-West Donegal.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said then, and what I said before, both here and out of the House, was that while the railways would be for the permanent benefit of Ireland, they would do much to alleviate the present distress.
    MR. SEXTON: A fact I feel bound as a matter of duty to throw into the foreground to-day is, that whilst money available under the light railways and relief works scheme has been liberally expended in other districts, not a penny has been expended by means of relief works in this particular district, although I believe there is no district in Ireland which has a better claim to consideration. Will the Chief Secretary deny that
    1094
    Donegal is a most congested county? Will he deny that the County Inspector has borne testimony to the fact that this is the most congested district of the county? Will he deny that another expert, Mr. Hammond, has testified that this is probably the most congested district in Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to institute a comparison between the North-West and the South-West of Donegal. The average valuation of holdings in the different townlands in South-West Donegal is from £2 to £5; while the average valuation of holdings in the North-West is £1 to £2. The annual value of the land in North-West Donegal per head of the population is lower than 3s. 6d., and it is in regard to such a district that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it decent to quote such facts as he has narrated. It is argued that there have been no applications for employment. I always thought it was regarded as a fundamental condition that relief should be brought to the doors of the people. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect that these men will go 30 or 50 miles to work? What wages does he pay them? I think they are about 6s. a week. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: 12s.] Assuming they are 12s., when a man is obliged to leave his home, live in lodgings, and provide separate maintenance, the earnings are valueless for the support of his family. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Lodgings are found.] I do not know that the people have been aware of that. The fact that the work is miles from the people is sufficient reason why the people have not gone to it, especially as a line of railway was actually scheduled which would have run through a most congested district, a line which would have developed the fisheries, and have conformed to every condition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary has spoken of men going to Scotland and children going to the Laggan. I can inform the light hon. Gentleman that the men have not gone to Scotland and that the children have not gone to the Laggan. I have information from the clergyman of the district that to take a child from this district to the Laggan would cost 4s. or 5s. Where is that to be had? To take a man to

    1095
    Scotland costs 15s. or £1; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the bulk of the population have this year remained in the district, and that it will not be possible for the men to go to Scotland or the children to go to the Laggan unless some work is provided out of the earnings of which they will be able to save something for the journey. I affirm on the evidence of witnesses whose credibility is not open to question: firstly, that a large percentage of the people is invalided through hunger; secondly, that serious sickness is prevalent; and, thirdly, that the death-rate is more than doubled. On one day a priest attended 21 persons who were seriously ill, and gave nine of them the last sacraments of the Church. That indicates a terrible state of things. Now, challenged as he has been, will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to institute forthwith a sworn inquiry into the condition of the public health of the district, as to how many persons have been invalided, how many are seriously ill, and what has been the death-rate in the past year as compared with former years? I may also lay claim, after the semi-sarcastic allusions the Chief Secretary has made to the bankruptcy of a female trader and the income of the parish priest, to an inquiry at his hands into the condition of the people of the district in regard to the amount of stock and moveable property in their possession, and in regard to the amount of debt they owe. I have a Return carefully prepared by competent persons on the spot, and in regard to it I have to-day received a telegram from an excellent clergyman in the district, a man who is spending his life in the service of the people, and the rev. Gentleman assures me that the statements in the Return can be verified on oath—a Return which, taking the case of ten householders at random in every town-land throughout the whole of the district, shows that the amount of debt which they owe to the shopkeepers, not for luxuries, not for comforts, but for the rudest and poorest article of human diet. Indian meal, is double, treble, quadruple, and in some cases actually ten times the utmost value of the stock and of the moveable property in their possession. In the face of one crushing, overwhelm-
    1096
    ing fact like this, what is the use of the right hon. Gentleman attempting to conceal from these countries the true state of the facts, and to mislead the judgment of the House of Commons by observations as to the amount of money found on the plate at a funeral months ago, or as to the sum given for seed potatoes? Such arguments are evasions, and I must say in frankness they seem to me to lend force to the feeling which certainly exists in the district, that the reception of the right hon. Gentleman has tended to produce in his mind an indisposition to respond to the demand of the people. The question is a limited one. The whole population is only 50,000. Ail of them are not in want of relief, but the bulk of them are. The period, too, is brief. There are only two months to cover. The potato will be ripe in August, and if the right hon. Gentleman chooses to help the people in the next two months he will find the task easy. A railway is, perhaps, too heavy a work to undertake, but there are two piers which have been recommended; they were recommended years ago by a Royal Commission. A moderate sum placed in the hands of Sir Thomas Brady would enable that gentleman to do the greatest good in assisting the people, Nothing would be easier for the Government than to make a subvention in aid of this wretched district, and which, by giving them the means of work, would not destroy the self-respect of the people. I greatly regret the callous and pedantic tone the right hon. Gentleman has thought proper to take in regard to a question of real and cruel misery, and I can only tell him that if he persists in his refusal to apply some remedy to the case moderately laid before him, he will incur the guilt of which the hon. Member for South Tyrone has warned him of criminal neglect of what, in my judgment, is the primary and most imperative duty of any statesman, and that is the duty of preventing the destruction of the lives of the people by the want of the necessaries of life.
    SIR J. SWINBURNE: I am sorry to interpose between the House and a discussion upon national education, but I would point out that at this moment

    1097
    there is no compulsory education in Ire land, and children of eight and nine years of age in North-West Donegal are going to a district called the Laggan to find work in order to keep themselves from absolute starvation. I have asked the parents how they can send their children away for six months at a time, and they have told me it is not for the sake of the shilling or two they bring home, but it is simply to keep the children from absolute starvation. I can quite understand the Chief Secretary finds some difficulty in dealing with Government money. Donegal, I believe, has had more than its fair share of the money voted by Parliament, but the great bulk of the money given to Donegal has gone to the south-west, a district of a totally different character to the northwest. In the latter district the potato crop has totally failed, and I appeal to the Chief Secretary to consider whether immediate steps cannot be taken to spend a small sum of money in improving the facilities for fishing. There is great need of piers on this coast, and I think we may reasonably ask the Chief Secretary to undertake the construction of at least one, and thus do much to develop the fishing industry.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I think we ought to bear in mind what the proposal made by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion is. It is simply that a sworn inquiry should be held by some impartial person to get at the actual facts in this case. This is not the first time a proposal of this kind has been made in reference to this very district. What I cannot understand is why the Chief Secretary should refuse a suggestion of this sort, because, supposing the result of the inquiry is to prove that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are wrong, what will become of them and the people on whose behalf they speak? The Chief Secretary has on previous occasions failed to submit the testimony of his own informants to this impartial tribunal which is asked for. That which we see now has happened again and again. The right hon. Gentleman prefers to believe the evidence of the constables of Gweedore and Donegal to that of hon. Members of this House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise for the purpose of
    1098
    insisting upon bringing this Debate to a definite issue. Are the Government, or are they not, going to submit the evidence in this case to a sworn inquiry? We make statements on evidence that we believe to be reliable, to the effect that there is a considerable amount of sickness, and that there have been a large number of deaths, and that there is a great need of relief in these districts; and the right hon. Gentleman acting, no doubt, on information which he believes to be credible, meets us with denial and contradiction. We tender evidence on oath, and I think it scarcely respectful to the House that a proposal like that should be passed over in silence from the Treasury Bench. For our part, we have no desire whatever to put the House to the trouble of a Division. My hon. Friend would be quite willing to withdraw his Motion if we got an assurance from the Government that they would accept our challenge. I agree with my hon. Friend that if the Government are confident of their case, the best thing they can do is to submit it to an inquiry. If our allegations are disproved, so much the better for the Government. If, however, they are confirmed, so much the better for the Government also, as it will relieve the right hon. Gentleman from the responsibility of refusing relief, where relief is required, for the purpose of saving life and putting an end to acute distress. The Debate is closed on our part, but I hope it will not be closed on the part of the Government without some answer being given to our challenge.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may, with the leave of the House, point out that a Bill would be required to appoint a Special Commission for an inquiry of this kind, and we could hardly under take, in the present condition of business, and at this period of the Session, to propose such legislation.
    MR. SEXTON: There might be a, sworn inquiry by means of Inspectors.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They could only investigate particular facts.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes; investigate facts as to Local Government.
    (6.25.) The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 191.—(Div. List, No. 303.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 355.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
    MR. PICTON: It is a peculiarity of this Bill that both sides of the House seem to compete in eagerness to get it passed. But there appears to be great confusion of ideas as to what is intended by the Bill, and what will be the effect of it if it is passed in its present form. In fact, there has been so much misunderstanding about it that it has been confounded with another Bill. In some papers it has been stated that certain Radical Members have put on the Paper a Notice of Motion that the Bill be read a second time six months hence. Nothing could be further from the intention of hon. Members on this side of the House. There is no doubt as to what we desire; we are all anxious that the principle of free education shall be recognised. It is an odd circumstance, however, that this Bill has no distinctive name. It seems as if there has been a difficulty in the Ministerial ranks in giving a name to it. The truth is that the Bill is not the legitimate offspring of Toryism at all. In this respect it is like an illegitimate child, and so, not knowing exactly what to call it, the Government have given it the general name of an Elementary Education Bill. A significant letter on the question appears in the Times this morning from a gentleman of considerable eminence in the educational world—the Rev. Mr. Diggle, Chairman of the London School Board. Mr. Diggle tells us that the primary principle of the Bill is not the rough-and-ready distribution of a few millions of pounds amongst various schools, but the concession to all parents of the right to demand free education for their children at the cost of the community. I am very pleased, indeed, to accept that definition of the primary principle of the Bill, and I earnestly hope that the view of a gentleman of such large educational experience may prove to be right. But the Bill is
    1100
    a double-barrelled measure after all; one object of it is to diminish school fees, and the other is to stop the advance of School Boards. As to the diminution of school fees, I cannot help thinking that my own side of the House is more anxious to secure that object than the other side; but as to the second purpose—the stopping the advance of School Boards—it is based entirely on a misconception of the work done and the blessings conferred on the population by the School Boards, and will prove to be utterly impracticable. I must say that the right hon. Baronet the Vice President in his speech was thoroughly candid in explaining the process of his conversion on this question. No one, I am sure, would wish to taunt him with his change of opinion; but when I observed the stolid patience with which his account of his conversion was listened to by hon. Members who sit behind the Treasury Bench, and who, in 1886, denounced free education in nearly all their election addresses and speeches, I think I had good cause for wonder. To bear in mind what they said in 1886 one would have thought they would have adhered to the principles they then advocated as closely as they adhere to their skins. But the Tory Party have had so many changes of skin lately that they have become almost like eels, which are said to be used to the operation of skinning. At any rate, while the right hon. Baronet was speaking they tried to appear as if they liked the change of front on the part of the Government. But there are different kinds of conversion; the conversion of principle and the conversion of policy. When a great statesman—as, for instance, in the case of one of England's greatest statesmen, the illustrious Sir Robert Peel—is converted to a political truth which he has previously denied, he not only courageously accepts it in all its consequences, but is grateful to those who have been the means of converting him. It is well remembered how Sir R. Peel generously acknowledged his obligation to Mr. Cobden. But I notice no desire on the part of the Vice President and hon. Members opposite either to acknowledge the labours of those who contributed to their conversion to free education or to accept the principle in all its consequences. I have heard no reference

    1101
    whatever to a volume by an hon. Member on this Bench, entitled The Struggle for National Education. I have heard no acknowledgment of the services by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Sheffield and Newcastle, which generosity should have demanded from the right hon. Baronet. The fact is that hon. and right hon. Members opposite want to limit the principle, to grudgingly shut it up in the narrowest limits possible. In 1871, and for some years onwards, I was a colleague of the First Lord of the Treasury on the London School Board, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not now present, because I could have reminded him of the struggles that then took place on that Board on the question of foes, and of the resolutions that were moved by him for the purpose of safeguarding and guaranteeing the sacred institution of school fees. I could have reminded him how I invariably spoke and voted against his resolutions. I would have asked, Is he ready now to acknowledge that the arguments I then put forward have at last begun to bear fruit? But the beginning of this controversy goes much further back than the institution of the London School Board. In 1807 the then Member for Bedford, grandfather of the present Member, brought in a Bill to ameliorate the condition of the poor. It consisted of four parts, and one portion dealt with the subject of national education. Every one who reads the speech then delivered must derive great benefit and information from it. The speaker was careful to show that he had not the slightest idea of diminishing the influence of religion, and that he was most anxious to regard the rightful privileges of the Established Church. The House of Commons passed it, but in the House of Lords it was thrown out, mainly owing to the opposition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who denounced it because it left little or no control, he said, over education to the clergyman in his parish, and would go to subvert the first principle of education, which was, he maintained, that education should be "under the control and auspices of the Establishment." Another noble Lord, a representative of whose family holds office in the present Government as Secretary for War—Earl Stanhope—
    1102
    protested immediately the Archbishop sat down against what he called the abominable principle that no part of the population of the country should receive education unless it was given in the interests of the Established Church. This illustrates the indubitable fact that from the beginning of the century there have been two parties in regard to national education—one which desires to subordinate education to ecclesiastical control, and the other party which would subordinate everything to the common good of the nation, namely, education. They put education first, and ecclesiasticism and sectarianism after it. It has been insinuated that Nonconformists want to spread their denominationalist beliefs at the expense of the National purse. I hold that they have in the past been remiss in not seeking to limit national education entirely to secular subjects. They have not, in fact, had the courage to do that in the past, but I do not think they can be fairly charged with seeking to promulgate their beliefs at the public expense; they have only sought to have such lessons taught as are suitable to the age of the child, and not those which are peculiar to their own sect. The right hon. Baronet, in his speech the other night, referred to the educational work done in past days by denominationalism. But may I point out that the British and Foreign School Society was founded before the National Society for teaching children in the principles of the Church of England; that the British and Foreign School Society was from the beginning purely sectarian, and that the success of Joseph Lankester almost frightened the prelacy and the parochial clergy, who made representations in consequence at Court, so that there is little wonder that the National Society eventually, like the cuckoo, edged the other fledgling out of the nest. Although the friends of purely national education have hitherto been in a minority, they are coming to the front now, and the Nonconformists, without any desire to push their own sects by means of the schools, are more and more favourable to education in the national schools being limited to secular subjects. There are two points in this measure to which we strenuously object. First, we object to the retention of fees in any form, or in any class, or with any limit

    1103
    of age in elementary schools; and, secondly, we object to the exclusion of local and representative control over the administration of public money. It appears that fees are to be retained for infants below five years of age and for children, above 14 years. I very much regret it. Unfortunately, there are at present but few children who remain at school after 14 years of age, and this proposal of the Government to make no allowance in respect of pupils over that age will further discourage their attendance. Still more do I regret the exclusion of children under five years from the scope of the grant. The Vice President justified this exclusion on the ground that children under five years learn very little. But much may be done, and is done, in training the faculties and cultivating good habits in such infants, who derive immense benefit from attendance at the infant schools. The years between three and five are as fruitful as any others, if not more fruitful, in the evolution of character and the formation of habits. Those are the years in which the child's mind is most plastic; yet the right hon. Gentleman would risk the exclusion from our elementary schools of 120,000 children of that age. The School Board for Leicester has 15,313 children on its books; of these 5,161 are infants and 1,484 are between the ages of three years and five years. In the denominational schools there are probably 992 more infants of that age, so that in Leicester alone 2,476 children will be affected by this provision. These figures indicate what a large number of infants throughout the country this provision in the Bill will affect. I greatly fear that the effect of this exclusion of children under five years from the benefits of the measure will lead to a diminution of such children attending school, and that the statement of the Vice President that they learn little or nothing will induce parents to keep them at home, instead of sending them to infant schools, from which I firmly believe they derive very great benefits. Hon. Members who can afford to employ governesses and to furnish their nurseries with the requirements for the Kindergarten system of instruction should pause before they wrong these little ones by driving them from the school into the streets. The
    1104
    right hon. Baronet justified himself by saying that the law did not compel parents at present to send these little ones to school, and that the compulsory period was from 5 to 13. But the system of education which we now support and advocate is not based on this or that age. It is in the interests of the nation that our schools have been built and are maintained. True, we have felt it would be unreasonable by law to compel mere babies to attend school; but if national education is to be what it ought to be, it is desirable that they should attend, and the necessity of such attendance has been recognised by the enormous investment of public money in the erection of infant schools. Yet, under the operation of this Bill, half the space provided at such great cost may be left vacant. It seems to me the policy is mean and short-sighted. Compare this with the very different system followed in Switzerland and in Germany. I confess that I feel ashamed that my own country should be so far behind these nations in this matter. There is another point to consider in the application of this principle of free education—the amount of public control over the administration of the public funds. Hon. Gentlemen say of the voluntary system that it is largely supported by subscriptions. Yes, there are these subscriptions, but they are diminishing as State aid is given; and while in 1876 the proportion was 9s. 6d. per child, it was in 1890 only 7s., and that proportion is continually decreasing. In 1876, when that Conservative Educational Act was introduced, the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale objected to some of its provisions, especially to the raising the proportion of contributions to the grants made by the State. "If this is carried out," he said, "they may be denominational schools, but they will be voluntary schools no longer." The same thing was said by Bishop Temple before the Royal Commission, that it is essential to the healthy management of the schools if they are to be voluntarily managed that a considerable portion of the expenses should be raised by those in favour of the particular denominational school, but this contribution is, I say, a I vanishing quantity. I know it is said and thought by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we speak in this way out of animosity

    1105
    to the Church of England. We have no quarrel with the Church as a Religious Institution; we desire its prosperity in its good work; but we desire popular control in denominational schools receiving State aid, because we have had experience of such control since 1870, and we find that upon the whole Board schools are 25 per cent. better than denominational schools—and this we attribute to popular management—better in the character of the school buildings and appliances, better in the certificates of teachers, in the average results attained, in the higher curriculum carried out. Take the figures from the last Report of the Education Department. In the Church of England schools the attendance under Standards V. and VII. was 212,406, and in Board schools 199,431. In the Church schools the examinations in special subjects were in the proportion of 8·9 per cent., but in Board schools 24·2 per cent. Then look at the passes for the 4s. grant: in Church schools 16,663 or 88·4 per cent. of those examined, and in Board schools 43,654 or 90 per cent. of those examined. The Church school managers are supposed to have an eye to supplying the main wants of the working classes, yet their percentage of passes in cookery was only 4·7 as compared to 29 per cent. in Board schools. I might go on quoting figures in support of my statement, but in truth the superiority of the Board school system is notorious. It is an entire misapprehension to suppose that we want to do anything against religions teaching; it is easy to settle that question in a reasonable way. No one wants to destroy the religious teaching in these schools; if they pass under a Board of Public Management, let the religious teaching be given by the clergy of the church, whose function it is supposed to be to provide religious instruction for the people. You talk about Board schools being irreligious, why, how many secular School Boards are there? I think about 59, and 50 of them are in Wales. Is Wales a Godless part of the country? Are the Welsh a nation of infidels? No, it cannot be said that the Welsh are careless of Divine worship and neglect religious observances. Where School Boards exclude theological instruction it does not follow that they are opposed to religion. We are
    1106
    not in the least degree. The hon. Baronet says if we allow Board schools to have their way we shall all be reduced to one dead level. But all levels are not dead, and a higher table land offers many advantages. I would level up to Board schools, and I do not think you can show it is a dead level at all. It was a strange argument from the Vice President in relation to this religious difficulty when he said that free education in America had led to the multiplication of purely voluntary schools. One reason for that is that the religious difficulty still exists in America; one section of the Christian Church will not have their children taught in schools which are purely secular, so they provide schools for themselves. Then it is said the social difficulties in the way of the bringing of different classes together will prevent the working of a universal system of Board schools. Of course, you will not get over this difficulty all at once, but by tact and intelligence you will remove prejudices in this matter, and this has been done, and is being done, by the great Board schools in the country, and with the best possible results. The neglected, ragged children are gradually improved, while, if left to themselves, they remain ragged and neglected to the end. The opponents of the Board system find comfort in the reflection that the expense of the system will be so great that it will never be universally adopted; but rates and taxes are not the only source of revenue. There are huge endowments left from past times, and many of us think they are very improperly used, and might be better applied to purposes of popular education. In spite of what the clergy are so fond of describing as the pest of Board schools, I think if it can be shown to the agricultural labourers that free education, under popular management, can be provided without adding another 1d. to the rates, if only the funds available are devoted to this national purpose, I think there would be appreciation of the prospect of free schools under popular control. You think you have a good election cry, but here is yet a better cry, and the time is not far off when it will be raised. The effect of the present proposal must be this: that, when once a free school is established in one district, surrounding districts will

    1107
    insist on having like advantages, and I look to the fact that Englishmen will not allow public funds to be spent entirely without public control, or locally without local control, and I think I may say, as did Cromwell at Dunbar, "The Lord hath delivered them into our hands." Since the Bill has been printed there has been much expression of opinion, and it has been shown to me that, according to the Forms of the House, were I to move the Amendment standing in my name I should be forcing myself and others to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, which none of us want to do, and therefore, because of this, and only because of the Forms of the House, I abstain from moving the Amendment.
    MR. BARTLEY: The speech we have just heard shows the direction in which things are going. The hon. Gentleman talks about our being delivered into his hands; and when he speaks, as he has spoken, about Church property, I think some of my hon. Friends behind me may well doubt if the attitude they have taken is altogether a wise one. I regret very much that it has fallen to me to move an Amendment to this Motion; but as the giants on the Front Bench have deserted the position they occupied a few years ago, one of the humble pygmies below the Gangway will do his best to maintain the position then taken up, and which I still believe to be right and best for the welfare of the country. I intend to move, as an Amendment—
    "That this House is prepared to amend the present system by which remission of school fees is obtained through the Poor Law Guardians by parents who cannot afford to pay the fees, but declines to accept a measure which, while it throws on the general taxation of the country the whole cost of elementary education of children whose parents can afford to pay a part of the cost, and imposes a large additional burden on the country, does not secure any increased educational efficiency, and is a source of danger to the continuance of voluntary and denominational schools under which the majority of the children of this country are now educated."
    If I find a Teller, of all the scores, and even hundreds of Members behind me who took this view a few months ago, and if the Forms of the House will allow, I shall certainly divide. The reasons which I gave for objecting to the measure on a former occa-
    1108
    sion are that it is not likely to conduce to the improvement of education or to regularity of attendance at school, and I cited a number of authorities in support of that view. Those remarks were received by the Member for West Birmingham as old-fashioned, and no doubt the new authorities of the Birmingham school think differently. The Member for West Birmingham has a preponderating influence with the Government, while the opinion of those who are their staunch supporters are not of great weight. People talk about free education as a new matter. It was my lot 20 years ago to write a somewhat large book on the history of elementary schools, and so I became acquainted with the facts in their history. Practically, all the systems of education in this country began by being free. The old grammar schools were practically all free. Some of the old deeds of foundation go into language very quaint and precise to provide that fees should not be charged in any form. Then, coming to more recent times, the national school system was started upon the basis of free schools; there were a few exceptions, where there was a fee of 1s. a quarter, but the great bulk of the national schools, as started by Dr. Bell, were free schools. In 1828, however—and this is the instructive point on the present controversy, Dr. Bell, founder of these schools, urged that, in consequence of the laxity of attendance and the falling off in the number of students, fees should be charged, and the next year the National Society actually recommended in its Report that weekly fees should be charged to induce parents to send their children with greater regularity. In 1834, in the Report on charitable endowments, which went very largely into this subject, the importance of charging fees to secure regularity of attendance was dwelt upon. With regard to the British schools, the hon. Member is very much in error in saying that Dr. Lancaster did not receive the support of great people. George III. visited the schools, and took a great interest in them. He is reported to have said, "I would to God every one of my people had such an education." It is not correct to say that the national

    1109
    schools had all the patronage of the Church and the British schools had none.
    MR. PICTON: If the hon. Member will allow me to explain, what I said was that in after years it was with drawn from the Lancastrian schools, and given to the national schools.
    *MR. BARTLEY: I do not agree with the hon. Member in that. In the early history of the British and Foreign School Society, a great number of Church of England people were on the Board of Management, and largely assisted in the management for a long time. A considerable proportion of the first British schools did charge a small fee, but this was soon given up, and the greater number, early in their career, were free schools. But, again, there is the remarkable fact that in 181G the Report stated that the Committee had with pleasure remarked that in several places the plan of receiving a small weekly payment from parents had been successfully adopted, and schools were cited in the Report as Sheffield, &c., showing that the attendance had thereby increased and the discipline improved. A weekly fee was charged, almost universally, both in the National and British schools by 1830, and it was found that the attendance became more regular and the progress of the children greater. The case with the Wesleyan schools was very much the same. In 1854 the Committee directed that fees should be charged for some purposes. The Congregational schools show a similar experience; and, at a meeting in Sheffield in 1849, the Report stated that one point of importance was the desirability of making education more a matter of self-support, and fees were imposed very largely. These four great movements, in spite of some rather sneering remarks, were the pioneers of education in this country. It is a very remarkable thing that the history of this movement shows that free schools were given up in order that fees might be charged in those days when it was simply a question of the education of the country, and not a matter of gaining votes. Are we to throw this experience away for the sake of a Party cry, especially for a Party cry which I believe will be a bad one for the particular Party in which I am interested? My views of relieving parents of all foes for the education of
    1110
    their children were considered old-fashioned when, on a former occasion, I expressed them upon the social aspect of the question, the reduction of the parental authority and responsibility, but those views are derived from personal knowledge of the people among whom I have lived and worked for many years, and I say emphatically that maintaining and strengthening rather than diminishing parental responsibility is of great value, and that the social mischief of this measure would be very far-reaching. Education is an enormous benefit, but self-reliance is a greater benefit still, and although education may be silver, self-reliance is golden. There is no true system of education unless it teaches people to be self-reliant and self-dependent. The present system of charging fees is a fair one. Parents who can afford to pay pay one quarter of the cost, and parents who are too poor to pay have their children taught for nothing. This surely is more than fair, it is liberal and generous. The method by which relief is now given to poor parents may be mended, but that is no reason why the whole of the present system should be swept away. The cost of this proposal will be £2,000,000, and the ultimate cost, when voluntary schools are destroyed, will become an enormous burden on the community. In my judgment, nothing is more important to the social condition of the people than that their wages should not be reduced by an extra amount of taxation. The people are, as a whole, better off than they were in 1870, viewed either from the standpoint of wages, accumulations in the savings banks, or reduction of pauperism. Enormous strides have been made in the improvement of the condition of the poorer classes. I also say that the increased taxation and the increased burden which will result from the measure will make the education far from free. It will throw on the thrifty and hard-working part of the community the burdens of the thriftless and careless, and they will have thrown upon them, in addition to the burden of paying taxes for the education of their own children, an additional burden of taxation in respect of the children of other persons. In this way that large portion of the community at the bottom of the middle class will be enormously

    1111
    affected. Well, these arguments I used, and dwelt on at some length, in the House on the last occasion the Bill was before us, but no one attempted to answer them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not condescend to do so. No one has ventured to say that they are not correct—most persons, even political opponents, agree there is much force in them—and yet, for all that, we are to pass this measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council has not attempted to reply to them. He is certainly one of the parents of the Bill. We heard a very remarkable expression from the hon. Member opposite about the measure being an illegitimate child. I was a little surprised to hear that remark made, for it seems to me a puzzling thing to make out who are the parents of the Bill. I think we may fairly say that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council is the mother; but who is the father? I think we must go to the other side for the father, after the knowledge that a certain right hon. Gentleman showed of the scheme before anybody had seen it. This measure will affect the voluntary and religious schools. I assorted, on a previous occasion, and I assert again, that it will destroy the voluntary and religious schools, and if I wanted an argument for this I should go to the speeches of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton) delighted in the introduction of this Bill, and chuckled at the thought that it would lead to universal School Boards.
    MR. S. BUXTON: Hear, hear!
    *MR. BARTLEY: The hon. Member cheers that. He and hon. Members behind him know very well that the system of this Bill means the establishment of universal School Boards, and if we are to have universal School Boards we cannot expect to continue to have voluntary schools at the same time, at any rate in anything like their present numbers and strength. As far as I understand the measure, it divides schools practically into three classes. First, there are the schools which pay 10s. a year in fees, which means, roughly, 3d. a week. The schools with a 3d. fee will practically remain financially as they are, except that the whole cost (for voluntary subscriptions are likely seriously to
    1112
    decrease) will be paid by the State; and can the most sanguine hon. Member suppose that the system will last in which the whole cost of the school is to be paid out of Imperial Funds, and the management is to be left in the hands of managers as at present? [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheer that remark, and, as one who takes a deep interest in the maintenance of these voluntary schools, I say it is impossible that the proposed state of things can last. Next, there are the schools where the fees are less than 3d. Those schools will receive more than they lose in fees; and can it be conceived that such a system will last—nay, will the proposal live—long enough even to get through the Committee stage of this Bill? I say it is impossible to imagine that we are going under this Bill to hand over to all these schools a sum larger than the fees they are losing without requiring something for it. I do not say this as a Party man, but as an educationalist, and one who takes a common sense view of the matter. The third class of schools are those in which the fees are higher than 3d. They are to be allowed to continue to charge a fee amounting to the difference between 3d. and the fee they actually charge; and is it conceivable that the House will go on year after year voting millions of money for education, in order that the popular idea of free education may be carried out, and allow those schools to go on charging this fee and getting the fee grant as well for any length of time? I do not believe this can possibly last. But if we do get rid of these provisions the House will be sweeping away the safeguards which have been so much spoken of, with the result that the safeguards which the clergy believe to be bonâ fide safeguards for the voluntary and religious schools will be abolished, possibly some of them, even before the Bill is through Committee. The consequence of this Bill must be to give popular representation to all intents and purposes. The Tory Party occupied a position which, perhaps, was not logical before, but having now receded from it we find that the enemy have occupied it; and the consequence of this Bill will be that voluntary schools must receive some kind of representative control. Why is

    1113
    the Member for Northampton so keen for this measure? Why did he ask the Government the other day to keep the Bill going de die in diem? We never knew the hon. Member for Northampton as a keen educationalist. I do not believe that in his wildest moments he would claim to be an educational authority save, perhaps, in educating us in truth. Why is the right hon. Member for Derby so keen for it? He is not known as an educationist; but these Members are anxious to have this measure because they know that this is an attack on the voluntary schools which they will not survive, and through those schools an attack on the Established Church. They know perfectly well that we are walking into their trap, and most of us feel that we are doing so. I look upon popular control as the natural consequence of this measure. It seems to me that I hear a sort of murmur of the future coming softly in the distance. I believe that before many months are over we shall see the President of the Local Government Board, who has a bantling of his own, come down and tell us that it is his opinion no better authority can be found to look after voluntary and religious schools than the County Council. And when I oppose that—as I shall do—I suppose I shall be looked on with the disfavour which has been accorded me lately on account of my present attitude in objecting to free education. As to the political advantage which the Tory Party hope to gain from this measure, I would point out that the offer of free education for children from 5 to 14 years old has already been capped. The hon. Member for Poplar has said that it is monstrous to require fees from infants under five years. Hon. Members opposite will thus go about the country and, instead of praising us for giving free education, will denounce the Tory Party because it will not give free education to babes in arms, making free crèches of the schools. We shall then have pathetic appeals not to insist on these children being taught secular subjects without proper natural aliment, and we shall then have a cry raised for free rations, free feeding bottles, and free everything of the kind. We shall lose
    1114
    the credit of what is now proposed, and shall be denounced all over the country as "the Tory Party who refuse free education," and we shall have the labourers of the country, encouraged through their wives perhaps, to rise up against us because we will not allow their babes and sucklings to receive free education. But why is this question being so discussed? The truth is that both sides of the House think that they are getting a political advantage out of it. This is not a question as to which Members of the Tory Party should follow their leaders like sheep, or should vote as they are told. They ought to have a higher and nobler aim; and they ought to take a high standpoint on those social questions. The only reason for which I oppose the Bill is that the aim it has in view is not a high aim. The real goal to be striven after ought to be so to order affairs, and so to legislate, that the mass of the community may earn sufficient to pay for their wants, and for all the duties which they have taken upon themselves. An hon. Member said to me the other day, "This Bill will be an enormous boon to the agricultural labourer, because he only earns 13s. a week." Parliament is, therefore, to bribe the agricultural labourer with free education, instead of so legislating as to make his earnings sufficient to pay for his children's education? The real purpose of education is—first, in the interest of religion; and, second, to the making of good citizens. I believe that the present Bill will do harm to religion, because it damages the denominational schools; and it will further be injurious from a secular point of view, by making men less accustomed to rely on their own efforts. To my mind, relying on one's own efforts is the most important of all secular things that we can possibly teach our children. I say that it is the teaching of self-reliance that has made this country great, more than all the grammar and pedagogy in the world. To my mind, this measure reduces the tendency in this direction, and for that reason I strongly object to it. I have addressed many meetings of working men where I knew that any reference to State-aid would have provoked a cheer; but I have always told my audience to learn to rely on themselves, and the advice has, it is true at

    1115
    times, been received in silence. But I know that hundreds of these men have taken my advice, and some of them have come to me years afterwards and told me that a few simple acts of self-denial and self-reliance, which I urged on them then and which they adopted and made a habit of, have been the making of them. That ought to be the aim of the Government, and the Bill retards such an aim. With the idea of catching a momentary popularity, the Government are doing a great injury to the national prosperity by encouraging people recklessly and carelessly to undertake responsibilities, knowing that other people will provide for them. Like a hook on the line, the Bill is baited with the attractive fly gaudy with the word "free" conspicuously painted on it. This fly is a popular one now I know; but its freedom is a delusion, for the thrifty poor will have to pay not only for themselves but for their thriftless neighbours, and also because it really means the abolition of the denominational schools which alone supply that religious teaching which the great bulk of the people really earnestly desire. I am told that my attitude on this Bill will lose me votes; but even were I to lose my seat, would it be a reason for voting for something which in my heart I believe cannot promote the people's welfare? Members of Parliament seldom lost votes by voting straight. The constituencies do not like the chameleon politician or a man who merely votes as he is told, and then tries afterwards to explain away his vote. When the results of this measure are known, however, and the School Board rate in London has risen 2s., as it will do in five years, when the denominational schools have been killed, and the extra burden has been thrown on the people; and when the natural consequences of the present Bill have followed—free meals, free clothes, and free everything—then politicians will begin to think that the time has come for some change. Parliament is repeating the action which existed previous to 1832 in connection with the old Poor Law. Then additional relief was continually given, until at last the burden became too great to be borne any longer, and the system was changed to the enormous benefit of the masses of the people. I am sure that none of my
    1116
    political opponents will say that I oppose this measure because I oppose education. Few men have worked harder—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield will corroborate me in this—than I have for the promotion of popular education. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Hear, hear!] The Government cannot say that I have not been one of their regular and loyal supporters. I simply oppose the Bill because it will do immense mischief; and I warn my hon. Friends that they make a great mistake in supposing that the measure will help them at the next election. They are offending many people, and they are not gaining a single vote. The Government are, like the first parents of mankind, tasting if they are not eating of the forbidden fruit, of social bribery. They have been assisted, would it be too much to say they have been tempted to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The result of the transgression in the case of Adam and Eve was that they were turned out of the garden of Eden. If it is not too much to compare the joys of Eden with the fruits of office, I fear that the same punishment may await the Government. In almost the words of the last stanza of Paradise Lost, the result after the next General Election may be that "they"—that is, the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—"hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow, from Eden will take their solitary way."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House is prepared to amend the present system by which remission of school fees is obtained through the Poor Law Guardians by parents who cannot afford to pay the fees, but declines to accept a measure which, while it throws on the general taxation of the Country the whole cost of elementary education of children whose parents can afford to pay a part of the cost, and imposes a large additional burden on the Country, does not secure any increased educational efficiency, and is a source of danger to the continuance of voluntary and denominational schools under which the majority of the children of the Country are now educated,"—(Mr. Bartley,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words-proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. C. E. BARING YOUNG: In seconding the Amendment, I wish to say that I feel very strongly on this subject. I have always been opposed to free education, and I do not see why I should change my opinions because I am told that free education is inevitable. It is not denied that the Bill will largely increase the cost of education, and it is notorious that Board schools are much more costly in their management than voluntary schools. It is said that there are safeguards for the interests of the voluntary schools; but those who trust to these safeguards are relying upon a very rotten plank. Those schools whose fees are over 10s. are not likely to survive very long. Those schools where the fees are under 10s. may last a little longer, but will give way in time before the general demand for popular control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham deprecated popular control, but he suggested a form of popular representation. It seems to me that before long popular representation must lead to popular control. Whatever safeguards you may devise for denominational schools, the Party opposite, when they come into power, will remove them as easily as Samson broke the cords by which the Philistines sought to bind him. The Government, in introducing this measure, have signed the death warrant of the voluntary system. But my chief objection to the measure is that it is a step towards State Socialism. The artisan who earns £100 or £150 a year, and who is perfectly able and willing to pay for the education of his child, is now told, "Whether you like it or not you shall pay nothing directly for the education of your child, and you shall have nothing to say directly as to the education of yeur child." We are told that this measure is inevitable. I do not see, however, why it is inevitable, except for the reason that the Government consider it to be inevitable at this particular moment. It was not considered inevitable by a large number of Members on this side of the House a year or two ago, and it was not considered inevitable even by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian six years ago. And some time before the
    1118
    General Election of 1885, a distinguished statesman gave sound advice to a number of Conservative candidates with regard to endeavouring to outbid the Radicals in matters of reform. He said—"If the people want Radical wares they will go to the Radical shop to get them." But that statesman is now at the head of a Government which considers it expedient to hold out this bribe to the electors. The bribe has not been very successful hitherto, and I am certain it will ultimately fail of the object it is designed to achieve. The number of Members who are determined to resist this proposal form only a very small band, though I believe a large number of people outside the House are opposed to the Bill. For myself I can only utter my protest and say I shall certainly follow the Member for Islington into the Lobby if he proceeds to a Division. (8.5.)
    MR. CHANNING: We have had a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for North Islington, which, I am sure, Members on both sides of the House must have listened to with satisfaction, even if they dissented from some of the propositions contained in it. But he will not succeed in averting the acceptance of the principle of Free Education. We on this side of the House intend to give the heartiest support to the Bill of the Government, and I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman succeeded in demonstrating—and with greater force than usual—the strength of the position which he says—and, perhaps, rightly says—his Friends on the Treasury Bench have abandoned, but which he, as a stalwart, refuses to desert. The hon. Member has said that the results of this Bill will be such as hon. Members on this side of the House desire. I accept that statement, but with some qualification, for I hold that the Bill, as drawn by the Government, will postpone those ultimate results as to the arrival of which we on this side of the House have no doubt. But what I heartily and unreservedly agree with in the speech of the hon. Gentleman is that this Bill logically gives popular control, because it makes it impossible for those who have brought it in to refuse to grant that control. That is the position which induces me not to proceed with the Motion I

    1119
    have placed upon the Paper, for reasons somewhat similar to those on which the hon. Member for Leicester has abstained from moving his own Amendment. I wish at this stage to place upon record my regret, as a Member of the Radical Party, that the right hon. Gentlemen who usually sit on the Front Opposition Bench have not themselves placed on the Paper an Amendment to the Second Reading, which, while expressing approval and cordial support of the principle of the Bill, would assert without hesitation the principle which the Radical Party throughout the country attach to the carrying out of free education, namely, that wherever education is made free there shall be popular control. I hope that the abstinence of my right hon. Friends is not to be construed as a sign that they will lower their flag on this essential principle. I am one of those who heartily accept the Bill, and I will do my utmost to support its general principle; but I think it would be pusillanimous and inconsistent with the pledges which I and other hon. Members on this side of the House have repeatedly made in the past two years if we were to accept any proposal with regard to free education without doing our utmost to insure that it should be accompanied by popular control. We have, I think, some reason to complain of this Bill being introduced at so late a period of the Session. Last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham moved an Amendment to the Address, the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education apologised for not dealing that year with the question of Free Education for England and Wales, on the ground that the subject was one full of difficulty and complexity, and was not so simple a matter as the proposal then before the House with regard to Scotland. Yet, after the Government have had a year or more to make up their minds as to the details of a measure touching many interests of vast importance to the future welfare of the couutry, they ask us, who are equally interested, to undertake the consideration of the Bill in the last days of the Session, and to decide important issues within a week or a fortnight of the presentation of the proposals of the Government. But, at any rate, we on this side of the House rejoice at
    1120
    the introduction of the Bill. We consider it the greatest victory of Radical principles since the extension of the franchise five years ago. It cannot be claimed as a Conservative victory. I did not notice among hon. Members opposite any very eager desire to challenge the statements of the hon. Member for North Islington. And it is noticeable that in the Conservative Press a good deal of cold water is thrown on the Government proposals. A strong Conservative weekly the other day said—
    "No more disreputable illustration of the degradation of English political life is possible than the adoption of free education by Lord Salisbury. It has been adopted in defiance of the known convictions of the vast majority of his supporters. Even those who approve of this ingenious scheme for dishing the Radicals do not venture to assert that honest conviction has anything to do with the course the Government has seen fit to follow."
    And a correspondent of this same paper (John Bull) also declares—
    "It is far better that Mr. Gladstone should come back to Office than that the nation should condone Lord Salisbury's disreputable efforts to bribe the constituencies."
    I may also refer the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President to an article in this morning's Standard, if he desires a more official Conservative condemnation of his proposals. And the worst of this business for hon. Gentlemen opposite is that we Radicals are not dished. So far as I can judge from the course of recent bye-elections, Radicalism bids fair to become universally triumphant in the rural constituencies. Everyone who listened to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the other night must have felt that his conduct in this matter had been peculiarly honourable. I agree with a good deal of what he said about not raking up bygones; but I should like to emphasise one point with regard to the course which individual Members of this House have taken. If you look through the speeches and election addresses of 1885, you will find that the objections then raised to free education were not wholly on the ground of the possible injury to voluntary schools, but were very largely and very strongly on the grounds put forward by the hon. Member for North Islington. The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for War both used language identical with that now used by the hon. Member for North Islington, and we all

    1121
    know what were the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I affirm is, that the proposal of free education was in that year rejected by the Conservative Party on its merits and not merely because of its possible effects on voluntary schools. As I have said, we on this side of the House accept the principle of the Bill. What we quarrel with is partly the limitations and partly the machinery by which the main object of the Bill is sought to be carried out. What we challenge is the motive which has led the Conservative Party to bring in the Bill. I recognise, what, I think, all hon. Members interested in educational questions must have recognised, the tone and spirit in which the right hon. Baronet dealt with this question the other night. All must have felt that he has heen really converted to this policy, not by a mere vulgar desire to catch votes, but because he has realised the loss sustained by the poor through the maintenance of the fee system, and because he has seen, from experience of departmental work, how enormously the carrying out of this principle of free education will contribute to the improved efficiency of education. I see in this Bill the very best spirit of the Education Department. But it is also apparent that that good spirit has been fettered, and to a certain extent warped and changed, by the unfortunate necessities of the situation in which the Conservative Party find themselves placed. The right hon. Baronet has dealt very frankly with the House on this question. He has acknowledged that he comes before it as an advocate of denominational schools. The hon. Member for Croydon told the House that the sole object of the Bill was to promote the welfare and ensure the permanent security of denominational schools. We know that the Prime Minister has used identical language. He said that the object of the Conservative Party was to place denominational schools on such a footing that it would be impossible for a hostile majority to displace them. We have still stronger confirmation of what the inspiring motive of this Bill is in the recent speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said he had not in any sense surrendered the social and economic arguments on which in past days he had condemned the proposal of free education, but his
    1122
    desire to promote the welfare of voluntary schools was so great that it had overcome his economic repugnance to the principle. Then we have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. We know how he attacked Mr. Forster years ago for giving a new lease of life and more extended endowments to the voluntary schools. And even five years ago, at Bradford, at the National Liberal Federation, he said—
    "To my mind the spectacle of so-called national schools turned into a private preserve by clerical managers, and used for exclusive purposes of politics or religion, is one which the law ought not to tolerate."
    Yet we have him now sheltering the voluntary schools behind a sort of fictitious Frankenstein of financial terrors, which grew at the rate of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 sterling every time he was trotted out. I cannot, looking at the past history of the question and at the anticipation of Mr. Forster, in 1870, that the Board School system would speedily become universal, agree with some of my hon. Friends who take a rose-coloured view of the present situation. I rather think the Bill will postpone the arrival of a universal Board School system for a considerable period. I wish to emphasise the fact that the authors of this Bill are pledged to protect and to increase the security of the position of voluntary schools. The other day, at a meeting of the National Society, Lord Sandford described this Bill as an honest and straightforward attempt to assist the voluntary system. I do not in the least quarrel with those adjectives, seeing that they give a pleasant sensation to hon. Members opposite. I only quote them as confirmatory of my opinion that the Bill has been conceived more in the interests of voluntary schools than merely with the shallow and narrow design of capturing the votes of the agricultural labourer. We have a right to say that your object is quite plain; that you have determined to do what you can with the machinery at your disposal to strengthen the position of what you know is one of the most potent instruments of Toryism in the country—namely, the voluntary school system. You wish to secure that it shall be dominant in the counties for the longest possible period, and, therefore, you have introduced this Bill. I am not

    1123
    attributing that motive, however, to the Tight hon. Baronet. I believe, with him, the chief consideration is educational. It is for you a dangerous experiment. Our duty is plain. You have adopted one-half of the Radical creed; we must take every opportunity in the course of the Debates, so long as we do not imperil the passage of the measure, to insist on the adoption of the other half which the hon. Member for North Islington pointed out was the logical and natural concomitant, popular control in all State-aided schools. If it is votes you want, my experience of rural constituencies leads me to think that you will get as many or more votes by giving such control and freeing the schools from sectarian denomination than by simply abolishing the fee. By this Bill it seems to me they are seeking to strengthen the financial position of the voluntary schools without any conditions, securing increased educational efficiency, and the removal of the just grievances of Nonconformists in those districts in which they constitute the large proportion of the school-going population; indeed, you are compelling them to pay more towards the support of a system, and schools which come under the 10s. limit will receive nearly £250,000 of the surplus revenue over and above the revenue which they have up to the present time received from their fees. Taking the rural schools, I find that in Northamptonshire there are 235 voluntary schools which are receiving from fees that are under 10s. a year a total of £7,660, and under the 10s. grant those schools will receive £11,008—a clear gain of £3,348, or 3s. for every scholar; and yet there is nothing in the Bill to require that this money shall be devoted to improving the instruction or to secure to the inhabitants of the towns and villages a corresponding voice in the disposal of the funds. Turning to high-feed schools in big towns, in Preston, according to the last Report, the average amount of fees is 15s. 3¼d., or about 4¾d. a week. The voluntary schools under this Bill will be able, in the first place, to charge 1¾d. fee, to have the same total income as before. Then, in the next place I understand the Department has power under Clause 3 to permit the fees, reduced by accept-
    1124
    ing the free grant, to be further raised, so long as they do not exceed 6d., and provided there are a sufficient number of free places.
    *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): That would happen in very exceptional cases. I admit the reasons for the clause require to be further explained.
    *MR. CHANNING: I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been able to give us fuller information in regard to that clause, because it may possibly lead to a good deal of debate. At any rate, I do not think I am wrong in saying that the schools which charge high fees will be able to obtain not only the total income they receive now by a fee which represents the excess over the 10s., but that they will also be able, if the Department think there are sufficient free places, to raise the fee, and so make a profit. [Sir W. HART DYKE dissented.] Well, if that is not so, I am heartily glad. With regard to the schools which will receive a surplus over their existing fees, there is no doubt that the Government has practically yielded to the demand of some of the hon. Members behind them for a relaxation of the 17s. 6d. limit for the voluntary schools, because the fee grant will be counted as part of the local contribution of the schools, and will, therefore, be a set-off enabling them to obtain a proportionate amount over and above the 17s. 6d. limit. To sum up the matter, this Bill amounts to a carrying out of the recommendations of the majority of the Royal Commission on Education with regard to financial subventions to voluntary schools. So far as possible, the Government have carried out all the demands of the denominational party in the subvention to the schools, but they have abstained from carrying out what I think is the essential part of the recommendations both of the majority and of the minority of the Royal Commission, that is that public elementary education ought to be organised under some form of elective authority in order to secure the highest efficiency. I do not grudge the poorer voluntary schools additional funds. Nothing is more pitiable than the condition of some of the voluntary schools in some large towns, and anyone who knows country

    1125
    life must admit the miserable condition of, and starved teaching in, many of the rural schools. We ought all to welcome in the heartiest way anything that will tend to increase the efficiency of the schools in rural districts. But there is no guarantee under this Bill that you will obtain the best educational results in return for the money you will pay. The Government is taking the present course when they have before them the well-known results which accrued from the better treatment of voluntary schools under Lord Sandon's Act. While the proportion of subscriptions to the total income of voluntary schools in 1876 was 28·6 per cent., it sunk to 18·9 per cent. in 1889. That shows that a very large proportion of the advantages given to the voluntary schools under Lord Sandon's Act went to the relief of the subscribers. There is the other important consideration, that we have done nothing to relieve the legitimate grievances of the Nonconformists. It has been said that the fact that education is compulsory justifies Her Majesty's Government in adopting the policy of free education. I should like to know if compulsion is not a strong argument also on behalf of those who are compelled to send their children to proselytising schools? Does not that give them a strong claim to have the schools managed by popular bodies? No one expressed a stronger view on this point than the noble Lord, the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), during the discussions on Lord Sandon's Bill in 1876. The noble Lord protested against the application of compulsion to Nonconformist parents to send their children to Church schools, and he expressed in the strongest possible way the opinion that when Parliament declared that the education of the country was the business, not of individuals, but of the State itself, it became inevitable that sooner or later State education must be in the hands, not of individuals, but of representatives of the people. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer asked on the same occasion whether, if there was only a Unitarian school in a district, Parliament would compel children of the Church of England to go into it? He believed that in the long run popular opinion would declare against compulsory attendance of children at de-
    1126
    nominational schools, and the support of such schools by public money. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale how they justify the passing of a Bill like this without attempting to relieve the grievances they laid so much stress upon in 1876. At a conference of Primitive Methodists held the other day at Northampton, it was asked whether the Methodists of this country had not, when an increased sum of money was being voted to voluntary schools, the right to go into those schools and follow the course of their children's education. Let us turn to the point of view, of what I may call the Church party, in regard to this question. At the Peterborough Diocesan Conference, two year's ago, the Rev. William Bury, of Northamptonshire, speaking in support of a motion in favour of the abolition of school fees, said—
    "The effect of free education would be that a new departure would have to he taken in the national system of education.…There must be a collapse of the voluntary system. That, in his opinion, was a desirable effect of free education. He would go even further, and say that he thought at the present time the voluntary system, which their Church was pledged to continue, was a great obstacle to educational progress.…The standard of secular education was kept at a lower level by the voluntary system, for Inspectors were obliged to apply a much lower standard to voluntary schools. Wherever the voluntary system had managed to exclude the Board schools in their large towns, education was starved.…The education of this country-would be advanced in no slight degree if the voluntary system were superseded by some such system as the Board.…They could not make churchmen in their national schools, and they had no right to do so in schools which were supported, as they were, by public money."
    That is the statement made by one of the best known educational authorities belonging to the Church of England, and I am glad to say that his view was supported by the then Dean of Peterborough in a most eloquent and forcible speech. He said—
    "As to the relation of the Board and the denominational schools, he must confess he felt very strongly that the School Board system, whether they liked it or not, was the future system of the country."
    He added that—
    "He was perfectly convinced that the Board Schools would swallow up all the others."
    The same point of view was eloquently supported by the great Prelate, whose loss

    1127
    all who knew him so much lament, and who expressed his own view in very strong terms that what they all wanted—and I am sure many Radicals on this side of the House want it quite as warmly if not more warmly than hon. Gentlemen opposite—was the real religious instruction and moral education of the children, and not so much the teaching of dogma. I could quote many other authorities, such as Dr. Perceval and Canon Fremantle, in support of the absolute necessity of introducing a national system of education, and of the opinion that as long as the religious and moral elevation of the children could be secured they would look at the absorption of the voluntary schools by the School Boards as a not undesirable result. What I object to in this Bill is the fact that it will ladle out a large sum of money to the voluntary school managers without securing efficiency in education; and without initiating that organisation of education which both sides of the Royal Commission wished to see carried out. The majority of the Royal Commission looked for a solution of the question in the amalgamation of the Board and denominational schools under District Councils; we desire to see that result attained under educational authorities elected ad hoc. There can be no doubt that the success which has attended the labours of such School Boards as those of London, Birmingham, and Manchester is due to the fact that they have had men upon them whom they could not have got upon Local Authorities elected to deal with roads and sewers, and subjects of that kind, and who would look on education as mere side-work to combine with their other duties. When we have arrived at a convergence of views that the best education can only be obtained by the organisation of the schools under an elected authority, and when the quarrel is only as to the conditions, I think we are within measurable distance of getting a truly national system of education, and I do contend that Her Majesty's Government, in introducing a Bill which gives an immense subvention to one branch of the school machinery of this country, under circumstances which amount to an encouragement of that branch to make war on the School Boards, and to carry out
    1128
    the law of its existence by monopolising as far as it possibly can the control of education in the rural districts and in the large towns also, are setting at defiance that which was best in the Report of the Royal Commission, and are neglecting to provide that organisation of education which can alone remove the grievances of many of the parents and secure the greatest efficiency of education.
    MR. HULSE: At the risk of being regarded as a "lamb" by the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) I rise to support the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, because in the city I represent the question of free education is one of great importance, and as its educational wants are entirely supplied by voluntary schools, with the full assent of the majority of the population,. I felt naturally anxious as to how those schools would be affected by this Bill, which I hope will pass its Second Reading without a Division. I think there are two points of view from which the proposals of the Bill should be discussed—namely, that of the educational needs of the population, and that of the influence it will have upon existing schools, their revenue, their efficiency, and their attendance. I am confident the Bill-will meet the educational wants of the working classes, and I do not share the gloomy views of those who think it will tend to shut up the voluntary schools belonging especially to the Wesleyan body and the higher-grade schools of the Church of England, which will not become absolutely free by their acceptance of the 10s. grant. After the Act of 1870 has been in working some 20 years, voluntary schools, instead of having been swept away, as was prophesied, are in a better and a more secure position than they ever occupied before. I am very glad indeed Her Majesty's Government have seen their way to give the grant to all schools under Government inspection, because it would have been very hard upon those schools which possess high educational attainments, and have become so popular in our large towns, if they had been deprived of their fair share in the advantages which are now offered, because their teaching is of a higher character and their fees of a higher grade. Prac-

    1129
    tically, of course, one recognises that this 10s. grant will make all those schools free where 3d. or less is charged per child; and I do not agree with those who say it will have an evil influence on those schools where parents are willing to pay from 4d. to 9d., because there is to be a reduction in the charge actually made. Parents who have hitherto of their own free will been willing to send their children to a school with a higher fee have done so for a reason, probably on account of the class of children they wish theirs to mix with, or a preference for a school of a particular character or denomination. I fully endorse the claims urged by Members of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as of our own, that the acceptance of the free grant will in no wise necessitate popular control. Popular control is a term capable of more than one construction. In the case of hon. Members opposite, who are so anxious to secure it, it means the depriving from the active management of schools those who have erected them by their generosity, and are sustaining them pecuniarily and by their personal care and attention. I venture to think that where the working classes themselves are ratepayers they are as keen and as anxious as the middle and upper classes to prevent additional taxation which falls directly upon their own shoulders, and I am confident that if the agricultural labourers were in the same position as are so many of the working classes in the towns, they would look with a very jealous and suspicious eye on the proposition that the Parish Council should tax every allotment and house in the village for the support of a competitive school and the establishment of universal Boards. Popular control may be an excellent thing as an election cry; but if the agricultural labourer once realises that his rent of 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week would be nearly doubled for the luxury of popular control and of an nil-sectarian school, I am sure he would prefer the voluntary system—a system which has achieved almost as good educational results at considerably less cost—as the House is well aware. It comes to this, therefore—the 10s. grant will make all village schools free, for I know of none in the counties with which I am associated where so much as 3d. is
    1130
    charged; and, of course, the Government will consider the similar case of those schools in the larger towns which the School Board, and the Church of England, and the Wesleyans have carefully nurtured and got together with the higher grade and with the higher fees. To a great extent these schools have been founded and they have all increased since the inauguration of School Boards, and hon. Members have repeated in their speeches that in France and in America so-called private adventure schools have increased since the system of enforced secular and free education in State-aided schools. You certainly will have a right selection wherever the population is sufficient to justify primary and secondary education. Popular control is not always wise; it is generally extravagant. As a cry in London, it led to the abandonment of an income of £500,000 per annum by the abolition of the coal dues, and the benefit has gone to the coal owners. Popular control means usually a heavy increase of local burdens. In regarding the greatest good of the greatest number, I have no hesitation in saying that this Bill will satisfy the needs of the working classes, who have felt the pinch of the school fee, and have witnessed the difficulties of the school managers and teachers who have had to collect it. The spirit of parental independence will be illustrated and fostered when a parent has the choice whether he will pay or not pay for the education of his child. But after all, ever since the Government made grants to Board and voluntary schools, based on results, every parent who has sent his child to either school has virtually been in receipt of State-aid. For my part, I am so firm a supporter of the voluntary system that I should hesitate to support the Government measure were I not satisfied that under it the interests of the voluntary schools will be duly and properly safeguarded. There are two points of detail which I think should be carefully considered—first, the basis of the grant being on average attendance; and, secondly, the necessity of great care and leniency being exercised in the first computation of fees. It has been pointed out with great force by those who are thoroughly acquainted with the working of schools and the

    1131
    peculiar causes which at times diminish the attendance, that it would and might be to the advantage of the school managers to close the schools at certain times—say, in the case of an epidemic of sickness or a fair—rather than lower too much the school attendance. This should be provided for in the Bill. I hope and I believe that we have now at the Education Department a chief and a staff who will treat with fairness and justice those who have raised and supported a system of national education by an expenditure of £34,500,000 during the present century, and that without half the excitement and clacque of those who pose as friends of education by putting, or attempting to put, their hands deeply into the ratepayers pockets. There is, however, one defect which must and ought to be remedied, and that is the abrogation of the 17s. 6d. limit, which presses unfairly on efficient voluntary schools. I have heard it described as a premium on indifference. It is simply a question of common sense and finance. Children educated in the voluntary schools cost the State about 18s. per head, whilst children taught in the Board schools cost from 40s. to 45s. in addition, from the local ratepayers, and I notice that, under the beneficent and economical administration of the London School Board we shall have the luxury of paying at the rate of 49s. per child. If we form universal Boards, popular control will cost millions of money per annum. If, on the other hand, we pass this Bill, as I believe the House will readily, we preserve the poorest, the most struggling, and the most deserving schools, and I do not believe we shall injure those higher-grade schools, which can be but 10 per cent. of the State-aided schools in the country. By all means, as it has been suggested, encourage parental responsibility and parental interest by giving to a certain number of parents, say two or three in each school, seats on the Board of Management by selection or co-option. This, I believe, will be offered and adopted without Parliamentary interference or enactment. For these reasons, I support the Second Reading of this Bill in the interests of the poor of the country districts and of the schools themselves, and, above all, in the interests of the over-
    1132
    taxed local ratepayer, upon whom, it is not difficult to foresee, are advancing fresh municipal burdens. I trust the Government will be firm in pushing this Bill through before everything else, without accepting Amendments hostile to its spirit; and if hon. Members opposite really welcome the Bill as a boon and an instalment, they can best show the truth of their earnestness by assisting the Ministry to pass the clauses of this short and useful measure without undue opposition, and certainly without the harassing and distressing Debates which characterised the discussion of the Tithe Act and Land Bill. Before sitting down, may I express a hope that Her Majesty's Government, in another Session, will seriously consider the wisdom and propriety of providing, in some form or other, a superannuation fund for those who have spent the greater part of their lives in one of the noblest, yet one of the most trying, of professions—the education of the young and the ignorant?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: If we had not the pleasure of personally knowing the hon. Member who has just sat down, we should gather from the speech to which we have just listened that he represented the centre of educational privilege. His objection to popular control goes to the extent of withholding it from the Municipal Government of the greatest city in the world, for I could not otherwise interpret his reference to the London Coal Dues. The hon. Gentleman knows the condition of educational work in Salisbury, and evidently considers that to be a model for the county; and he appears little to appreciate what the result of this Education Bill will be when he ex-presses the pathetic hope that the result of these discussions will be the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit. I have not the unpleasant task of defending the Bill against the hon. Member, for he is a warm supporter of it, but I must, after the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), defend the Bill against those Members on this side who think the Bill will not establish free education, and who think it will not go a long way towards establishing popular control. The hon. Member for Islington has told us two

    1133
    home truths—first, that this Bill adds 1d. to the Income Tax to the end of time; and next, that the immediate result will be to establish School Boards in the most important centres now without them, and the ultimate result will be to establish them everywhere. In the discussion on the Bill of 1870 the House eonsisted of novices in the matter of education, and unimportant matters were discussed at length, and more important matters not at all. But it is different now. We have a House of Commons in which there are a great many Members with a knowledge of educational matters which is a credit to themselves and of the utmost value to the Assembly in which they sit. We have, too, the advantage of the experience of what has been done in Scotland. We see what should be done, we see what should be avoided. The Government, instead of making education a matter of standard, as in the case of Scotland—an evil which the Scotch Members unanimously protested against—have avoided that mistake, and propose to give free education from the age of five to the age of 14. But why should they stop at 14, and why should they not begin before five? When so many gentlemen on both sides have done violence to those ideas they so long entertained, when such great sacrifices are called for from the English taxpayer, should we not make this a clean and thorough job? The simplification of the work of collecting fees, the time and trouble spent in investigating the question of the remission of fees, the advantage to parents of spreading the expense of education over the whole of their lives, instead of concentrating it on one period, when they are hardest pushed, and the feeling that the parent has that if his child heeds education he gets it as the child of a citizen, and not as the child of a pauper, and, finally, the improvement in the attendance, especially in the higher classes. Those are the main arguments for free education, and what, looking to these arguments, is there to be said for enforcing fees at the age of 14? There are only 43,000 children in that position; there will be less than 43,000 if we make the parent then begin to pay fees; but if we
    1134
    make education free through every elementary school and at every stage, those 43,000 will rapidly grow to dimensions which I will not venture to predict, but as to which I entertain a confident hope. Then as to the children under five. The first effect of freeing the lower standards in Scotland was to bring into the school an immense number of little children, and that is a subject of much congratulation. In the towns especially it is of the greatest importance to take them away from that amount of evil which the tenderest children can pick up even before five playing about in the street. When these defects are corrected, as I believe they will be by pressure from both sides, we shall have the right sort of free education so far, and for that reason nothing will induce me to vote for any Amendment which would traverse the Second Reading of the Bill. And next, will this Bill give free education generally? As regards the great majority of rural parishes, it is agreed on all sides that the fees will be met by the 10s. grant, and that the schools will become free. As regards the School Board schools, the same holds good. I doubt if two years hence there will be a School Board school in the Kingdom where fees are exacted. In the North of England, however, not only are there many schools which charge more than the 3d. fee, but a high fee is a usual charge. The parents want a good article, and they can pay for it. I take five schools which stand side by side in a district in our nothern counties. In the case of the first there were 56 children and £54 is paid in fees; of the second, 36 children and £32 paid in fees; of the third, 37 children and £38 paid in fees; of the fourth, 70 children and £75 paid in fees; and of the fifth, 54 children and £49 paid in fees. Will the managers venture to go on charging a 2d. or 3d. fee? The people will say, "Parliament meant us to have free education, and free education we will have," and, being North-Country people, they will very soon find their way to the Department at Whitehall, and I venture to say that all over England, in the North as well as the South, whether by means of this Bill or by means of indirect pressure by the School Board, every rural school will be free within a very short time.

    1135
    And quite right, too; because the land ought to educate the people who live upon it, and the landlord will educate the people, first, by paying Income Tax, and then by paying either rates or subscriptions to the required amount. Lancashire and Cheshire Members are the Members whose constituencies will be really affected by the Bill. It is in the cases where there is no School Board that we come to by far the most important part of the operation of the Bill. Take the case of Stalybridge. In the Roman Catholic school there, with ·327 children in average attendance, £104 of subscriptions, and £198 of fees. I have not the slightest doubt that the subscriptions which already exist will be raised to that small amount which will enable the school to be free, and that will be the case with Roman Catholic schools all the country over. I will take the other great schools—the national schools. There is one school with 480 children, £430 of fees, and £7 of subscriptions. In other instances that may be given the number of children is 254, the fees amounted to £230, and the subscriptions to £10, and again the number of children 282, the fees £250, and the subscriptions £32. The British and Wesleyan schools show just the same scale. They are kept up out of the fees of children and the Government grant, and what will happen? Under this Bill the people will all go to the Department and apply for their share of this great boon. If the rest do not do it at first, the Liberals, who are somewhere about half the popution, will set the example. They wall say they must have what the Scotch now have, and what their brethren in the rural parishes have. The Department will have no School Board school to which to send the children. The Roman Catholic school will be there, but, without appealing to religious bigotry, I doubt very much whether the Department would send the children to that school. They will have to choose among the national schools to which they will send the children, and pledge them to provide their education at cost price. Just let us imagine what the effect would be in such towns as Preston and Stalybridge. One school after another would be dragged in. The
    1136
    struggle for life between the schools would go on, and in the end in all large towns of such counties as Lancaster and Chester, there would, it is quite certain, be a School Board. It is because this Bill will make education free all over the country, and give us down in the northern towns a School Board, that I shall refuse to vote for any Amendment—however much I may agree with the general proposition put forward in the Amendment—that will traverse the Second Reading of the Bill. Before concluding, I desire to say two or three sentences on the ulterior question of how we shall bear ourselves on going into Committee. Up to this I have been talking of the Bill itself and certain provisions as to the Amendment of the Bill which can be raised on its existing clauses. What I now wish to say has reference to the new clauses, or, if these are rejected, to the new measure which will have to be passed at an early date by a new Parliament. There are optimists who look on this as a simple measure. It is an unfortunate feature of the educational system set up in England in 1870, that directly any great change is proposed, it becomes necessary to put the whole system into the crucible. The case of Scotland is very different. The Act of 1870 did not establish School Boards everywhere. The Act of 1872, which related to Scotland, did establish a School Board in every district. It was possible two years ago to discuss and apply the principle of free education in Scotland without any difficulty. Free education fitted perfectly well into the Scotch system; but now, when a similar proposal is made in regard to England, all sorts of difficulties and questions are raised by the defenders of the present system. Newspapers are at present full of letters and speeches from men of great ability and high honour and patriotism, whose great object it appears to be not so much to get the children into the schools as to keep popular control out. Now, let the hon. Gentlemen around me be well advised. We shall have some desperate propositions made in Committee. I will tell them of one that is sure to be made—and we should be very wary not to yield to these proposals. In the Times of to-day there is an able letter from the Bishop of Wakefield,

    1137
    who, seeing the dangers which threaten the voluntary system in Yorkshire, proposes certain methods of avoiding them. The first method he proposes is that Church people shall make further efforts and greater sacrifices to maintain the voluntary schools by giving farther subscriptions. Now, what are these subscriptions in Wakefield that are going to be increased? At St. Andrew's there are 112 children, and £3 11s. of subscriptions; at St. John's they have 165 children, and £8 13s. of subscriptions. In all Wakefield in the parish schools there are 1,665 children, the receipts from the taxes are £2,120, and £162 for subscriptions. That is what the Churchmen of Wales pay for the privilege of monopolising the education. The subscriptions scarcely form a nucleus which can be increased, so small are they at present. The Bishop of Wakefield in his letter next asked—
    "Why might there not be five schedules, the schools in which would receive respectively 6s., 8s., 10s., 12s., and 14s., according to the fee in existence for the last three years?"
    Now, I am going to argue against this, not from the point of view of a Liberationist, not from the point of view of a Nonconformist, but from the point of view which might be held by an out-and-out Church voluntary school man. The unfairness of this proposal appears from the following figures: There are two small rural parishes in Somersetshire, in which there are 173 children; the grant is £171, and the subscriptions £137. The Bishop's proposal is that the people in these Somersetshire parishes who pay all this money to educate their children shall be cut down to 8s., in order that Wakefield, which pays comparatively nothing, shall get 14s. If this is not the proposal of the Bishop I do not understand what it is. To that I have the strongest objection. Let all schools be equally dealt with. Ten shillings a head is what Parliament is prepared to pay to free education, and in Somersetshire and Yorkshire alike free education must be had for the money, and the managers of the voluntary schools must settle the method among themselves. In the great towns of the North popular control will as surely come out of free education as free education came out of compulsory attend-
    1138
    ance. But it is otherwise in rural districts. In rural England the normal condition is that there is only one school in the parish—a voluntary school. If a Nonconformist is the cleverest and best-conducted boy in the school, there is no chance of his becoming a teacher. The school buildings may be grossly inadequate, the teacher may be harsh and un-suited for his duties, but the people have no resource save the nominal right of appealing to a distant Department. The accounts may remain unchecked except by a sham audit, and the people of the district have no control. In Wales especially this state of things constitutes a serious grievance, one the very existence of which we cannot conceive in any country but ours. Let us imagine the Catholic Canton of Lucerne with all the schools in the hands of Protestant pastors, and the Protestant Canton of Berne with all the schools in the hands of Roman Catholic priests. This is analogous to what has been the state of things in rural Wales, and it will be worse hereafter. A great grant is to be made from the taxes, which will in many parts of Wales exceed everything that comes from the fees. To this grant all Welshmen who are taxpayers will contribute. Who is to see that this additional sum will be spent for the benefit of education, and not for the benefit of the Church school managers? There are right hon. Friends of mine on this Bench, and I daresay there are right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite, who are capable of drawing up a clause which will ensure, as far as a clause can, that there will be good education for this new money. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council will give instructions to his Inspectors to see that education is improved. Bat these are not effective means of ensuring it. The only effective means of ensuring it is by the daily constant supervision of the inhabitants of the district who are entrusted with the education of the district. To remedy this immense grievance I have only seen one proposal from what I may call the other side of the question, and that appeared in a letter to the Times newspaper from the rector of Woking. I will not read the passage, but it is to the

    1139
    effect that in consequence of the falling off of the money the parents will subscribe more largely, and then he says the voluntary schools will become dependent on subscriptions from parents more than they have been in the past. And this is called the gift of free education! No, Sir; a system under which Welshmen who profess the creed of the enormous majority of their countrymen. [Cries of "Oh!"] I will put it another way. A system under which Welshmen who do not belong to the Church of the very small minority of their countrymen, cannot become teachers in the enormous majority of Welsh schools, is a system which cannot last, and we do not intend that it shall last. There is only one method of securing that public money-shall not be wasted and applied to the purposes of sectarian advantage, namely, by ensuring that the great body of the inhabitants of a district shall have a potent voice in the management of schools, and at the earliest possible moment after the Second Reading of the Bill, and at a very prominent point of the discussion, it will be the duty of some one—I hope from this Bench—to propose a Resolution to gain that object. Within the reach of every parent there must be at least one school, as to the management of which the people will be entitled to have the fullest knowledge, and over which they must have effective control. This was a small demand to make in a free country, and it is a demand which in the course of the Debates on this Bill will be made with emphasis. If it be not granted in the course of these Debates it will be granted, you may be sure, in the not distant hereafter.
    MR. FORREST FULTON: I wish to give my sincere support to the proposals contained in this Bill, and I am glad to say I find myself in the fortunate position of not having to explain away any former speeches, as in 1885 I declared myself in favour of free education, if introduced on the lines followed by the present measure. From the speeches delivered by hon. Members opposite one might imagine that in 1885 they were enthusiastic supporters of the principle of free education, yet in the authorised programme issued by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone)
    1140
    in that year there was no mention of it. The unauthorised programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) issued subsequently first declared that free education was part of the programme of the Liberal Party. It is not uninteresting to observe that at that time the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was generally believed to be in favour of universal public control and of charging the expenditure on the rates, and it was because the views of the right hon. Gentleman were understood to be of that character that almost all my hon. Friends around me declared themselves opposed to free education. I looked at the matter from a somewhat different point of view, and on the 24th September, 1885, speaking at Forest Gate, I said—
    "Provided that the denominational system he maintained, I am prepared to vote in favour of charging school pence on the Consolidated Fund, and so giving free education."
    [Opposition laughter.] Hon. Members opposite will, at all events, acknowledge that there is one Member of the Party who is able to say he is consistent. The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) has delivered a most admirable speech which, if anything could, would have converted me from the error of my ways. But I do not think he quite entered into the views of hon. Members opposite. He says—
    "We find such prominent Members of the Party opposite as the hon. Member for Northampton and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby who have not been remarkable advocates of the cause of education, enthusiastic in support of this Bill, and, therefore, it must be manifest that the measure is in their favour, and against our Party."
    I do not believe that is so. I believe myself that, although free education was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, hon. Members opposite never believed that such a measure would be brought forward at all, and imagined that by persistent—I will not say obstruction, as I do not wish to be offensive, but by constant talking on measures introduced by the Government, they would put it out of the power of the Government to fulfil their pledge. They were astonished on the introduction of the Budget to find that the Government were determined to grapple with the question of free

    1141
    education. They were in this difficulty: If they opposed free education when they went to their constituents the results could not be doubtful; if, on the other hand, they supported it, it would be said that they were supporting a measure introduced by a Conservative Government, and for which the Conservatives would get the credit. They therefore took up a middle position. They said, "This is all nonsense on the part of the Government. They do not intend to persevere with the Bill; it is a pretence, a falsehood, a measure introduced merely for the purpose of influencing the miniature General Election, but we on our side will take care to compel the Government to pass the measure." An ingenious artifice I admit, but it was based on a false assumption, namely, that the Government did not themselves from the first intend to carry the Bill. Here in passing I cannot help expressing my amazement at the petulant wailings of politicians like the hon. Member for Sal-ford (Mr. Howorth), who, before he saw the Bill at all or had any opportunity of forming an opinion as to its provisions, rushed into print and denounced it, and sought to do as much mischief as he possibly could. It appears to me that his position is very different from that of the hon. Member for Islington, who waited with patience until he had the Bill in his hands before expressing the sincere views he, no doubt, takes with regard to it. It is said that it is a monstrous thing to give free education, because we shall thereby be pauperizing the population. The argument of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham on that point is absolutely unanswerable. It is that the money will come out of the Consolidated Fund, and that, so far as the working classes are concerned, it will not be free education at all, because they are the persons who, in the largest sense, contribute during their whole life to the Consolidated Fund. The large mass of the Consolidated Fund is derived from taxes paid by the working classes, for it is they who drink most and smoke most, and who thus contribute most largely to the revenue raised from Excise. The amount contributed by Income Tax is comparatively small, and there is no contribution under this head from those classes of
    1142
    poor clerks and others, with incomes under £150 a year, to whom reference has been made. Then, it is said that this Bill will bring about a system of universal School Boards, and that voluntary schools will be extinguished throughout the country. The same thing was said in 1870, and yet the voluntary schools are twice as numerous, and have twice as many children in them now, as the School Board schools. It is said that parents will not be willing to send their children to schools in which they will have to pay 3d., 4d., or, perhaps, 6d. a week. But now they pay 4d. or 6d. a week in preference to 3d., and why should they not continue to pay the extra pence per week? There are a great many of the working classes who prefer to send their children to voluntary schools rather than to Board schools, though they have to pay higher fees for them. In West Ham there is a most excellent School Board, presided over by an experienced educationist, Mr. Coleman, who is a Liberal Unionist, and on that account an attempt was made to oust him from his position, but I am glad to say it failed. There are also voluntary schools in West Ham of the most efficient character. The voluntary school attached to the Church of St Paul, Stratford, is one of the most efficient in the country, and has earned the highest grants which could be obtained from the Department. The artisans in that part of my constituency would be very likely to appreciate the advantages of a Board school if it gave a better education; but the fact is, with one accord they send their children to the voluntary schools to which I have referred so far as the accommodation suffices. I have gone into the question very carefully, and I find that the result of the universal establishment of Board schools in West Ham would, in my opinion, be to increase the rates by 4s. in the £1. I should like to see any gentleman advocating the establishment of universal Board schools in West Ham at the expense of such an addition to the rates. But the case of West Ham is not singular. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has pointed out in Birmingham that the result of establishing Board schools universally would be exceedingly dis-

    1143
    astrous to the ratepayers. But, says the hon. Member for Leicester, "We have another fund. We have not only the rates and taxes, but the Church Fund." I should like to see the right hon. Member for Derby, the present leader of the Liberal Party, or the right hon. Member for Newcastle going to the country and proposing to confiscate the revenues of the Church of England in order to establish universal Board schools. They dare not do so. That proposition of the hon. Member for Leicester was not received by the right hon. Member for Derby with so much gratitude as might have been expected. I have not heard that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, though he has so far modified his views as to favour the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, has as yet taken up the disestablishment of the Church in England. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke said that by one clause in the Bill the Education Department will have power in any district in which there is not a School Board to compel existing voluntary schools to receive children free of cost. There will be no such power in the Department, though they may compel the establishment of a School Board in the district. For the reasons I have stated, I am of opinion that this Bill is well worthy of the support of hon. Gentlemen on this side. I am very glad from my place in this House that I am able to support with perfect sincerity and consistency a measure which, if passed into law, will, I am convinced, result in enormous benefits to the people of this country and be of lasting advantage to the Party to which I belong.
    MR. LOGAN: I propose very shortly to give the reasons why I consider it my duty to support the Second Reading of this Bill. There can be no doubt whatever in the mind of any hon. Member intimately acquainted with the working classes of this country that there exists among them an earnest desire that their children should be enabled to obtain a better education than they themselves received. They are, therefore, willing to accept this measure, imperfect as it is, as an instalment of a larger scheme of national education paid for by the nation as a whole, and, as a
    1144
    matter of course, controlled by representatives of the people. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite may perhaps doubt that there does exist this desire for education among the working classes, for this bid for favour made by the Party opposite has fallen somewhat flat at by-elections. But there are reasons why it was not received with the expected enthusiasm. Workmen in towns, who are much further advanced in political education than their brethren in the country, were not caught by it, because they believe in the right of the people to control the administration of public funds. The agricultural labourers did not respond, because slowly, but surely, it has been dawning upon him that the Conservative Party and their allies in the country, the Church of England parsons, are not as anxious for the labourer's education as they would wish him to believe, otherwise they would have educated him long ago. I think that the agricultural labourer is right in that belief, because even now many of the Conservative Party object to this measure. They say it will demoralise the people and lessen parental control. I yield to no one in an earnest desire to see self-reliance among the people strengthened; and it is for that reason I was shocked to hear this scheme of free education labelled as a gift from a Unionist Government to the people. I think that the use of the words "free education" is wrong. A system which is paid for by all cannot be called free, and under the new scheme parents will not escape having to pay. As has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, parents will continue to pay, but indirectly, and over a longer period of time. Now, I notice that out of a total of 45s. ½d., the cost of a child's education in a Board School, Government grants, and the rates provide 35s. 3d., 9d. is gathered from miscellaneous contributions, and a fifth only, or, to speak exactly, 8s. 11¾d. is contributed by school pence. Now, surely it is straining the argument very far to contend that the supply of this fifth in an indirect instead of direct manner would cause demoralisation among the people? When I look at this skeleton Bill, I quite understand the desire of advanced Liberal Mem-

    1145
    bers to amend it, fur this skeleton Bill will not only revolutionise the whole educational system of the country, but it also proposes to give largely increased sums to bodies in the rural districts in whom the people have absolutely no confidence. As a practical man, I recognise the uselessness in this Parliament of attempting to clothe that skeleton without at the same time running the risk of breaking it; and, therefore, while I shall endeavour to improve the Bill, I accept it as embodying the principle that it is the duty of the State to place a proper system of education within the reach of its poorest citizen. At the same time, I protest against money being given to strengthen the position of the Church of England parsons in the rural districts. Speaking with a pretty intimate knowledge of the rural districts I have the honour to represent, I say that in many villages where the parson is supreme ruler, and where he has the entire education of the villagers in his hands, the people there are less intelligent and less self-reliant than the people of those villages blessed with a Board school. Millions of our countrymen have no choice as to the school to which they must send their children, and I say it is opposed to all sense of justice that they should have no voice in the management of that education to which they are compelled to subject their children. From the present Government I recognise it is useless to attempt to get this concession of popular control, though the time is not far distant when this will come with other Home Rule measures. Meantime, I entreat the Leaders of the Liberal Party to attempt to secure that public money granted for education shall be applied to education, and to education only, and that those who receive the money shall be compelled to furnish properly-audited accounts for the inspection of the public. I trust it will not require much pressure to induce the Government to extend the exemption of fees beyond the age of 14, for I cannot think that at a time when all thoughtful men and thoughtful women are trying to get children kept at school as long as possible, so that the Englishmen of the future may be at least as well educated as other nations, I cannot
    1146
    believe that any body of responsible men will offer a premium to parents to take their children away from school, for it is admitted that, as a nation, we are behind other nations in this respect, both as regards elementary education and technical training. There is a mistaken notion that education unfits a man for work. Our competitors make no such mistake; they think the more the intellect of a boy or girl is trained and developed the better workman or workwoman he or she will become. Speaking from experience as an employer, I am convinced they are correct in their views. Though the Bill does some things it should not do, and leaves many things undone it should do, yet as it is a step in the direction of a complete system of education, I shall oppose every Amendment that may imperil the passage of this Bill. I believe that with the awakening sense of their power the people will eventually demand full control over the education of their children, and that the next Parliament will be compelled to give effect to this most just and reasonable demand.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): This interesting Debate has been remarkable for an extraordinary diversity of opinion among hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the effects of this Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) informed the House that he would not move his Amendment because he did not want to prevent the passing of the Bill, though it was an endowment of the Church. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire took much the same view, and the hon. Member who has just spoken, naturally and properly spoke from his recent election experiences. But the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Trevelyan) takes the view that the effect of the Bill will be to establish Board schools universally throughout the country. Striking a balance between diverse views, I think I may say that in the belief of Her Majesty's Government this Bill, if passed, will leave voluntary schools and Board schools much in the same position as before, with this exception—that the managers of schools will be placed in the receipt of a certain instead of a precarious income from fees. Two speeches

    1147
    made this evening are different from the rest, inasmuch as they announce the intention of the speakers to oppose the Bill on account of the principle which it embodies. The hon. Member for Islington, in a speech of great power, drew a terrible picture of the serious educational, social, and economic calamities which would, in his opinion, ensue on the passing of the Bill. But while the hon. Member attributed all the evil motives to the Government who brought in the Bill, he attributed all the good motives to himself. The Amendment of the hon. Member affirmed the proposition—
    "That this House is prepared to amend the present system by which remission of school fees is obtained through the Poor Law Guardians by parents who cannot afford to pay the fees."
    But the hon. Member did not devote any portion of his speech to showing how he would amend the present system. The hon. Member has devoted himself for many years to educational questions as affecting the poor in London, and he is well qualified to give an opinion on this subject. The position which the hon. Member takes up is that which was taken by the Members of the Government in 1885 when they opposed free education, associated with popular control of the voluntary schools, because it meant the extinction of voluntary schools. The present system of remitting fees is unsatisfactory. At present no parent can obtain exemption from fees except on the ground of poverty, and the claim for exemption has to be presented to that particular tribunal which is associated with pauperism. Since education has become universally compulsory, this system has, no doubt, pressed very hardly on the deserving poor. I do not, however, believe that it was possible to amend the existing system and to stop short of what the Government now propose to do. If the hon. Member for Islington will give consideration to this problem he will find that things must be left as they are, or the proposition of the Government must be accepted. I do not wish to be associated with a measure which will in any degree undermine the self-reliance of the masses of the community; but if there be one part of the community
    1148
    where self-reliance is strongly developed, where a national system of primary education is supreme, and where the general population are in a higher condition of comfort than elsewhere, it is in Scotland. Yet the Members of Parliament on both sides of the House positively extort out of the Government at the point of the bayonet a free education scheme. No bad consequences, such as the hon. Member for Islington predicted, have followed; and I see no reason why they should follow the present measure when applied to England. Both the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton seem to think that if the Bill passes into law some system of popular control must necessarily be established over all voluntary schools. Let us for a few moments consider what is the meaning of popular control, although I am aware that the point is one that will be raised at a later stage of the Bill. Clearly, from the Amendments on the Paper, it means control by the ratepayers. I assert that it is impossible to give the ratepayers control over an institution unless the rates are liable for the maintenance of that institution. I remember the introduction of the Bill of 1870, and I have always regretted that the original proposals of Mr. Forster did not pass into law. Mr. Forster proposed to map out England into various educational districts, and to give control in each district over all schools, voluntary or otherwise, on the understanding that the rates were liable for denominational schools and Board schools alike. But the Non conformist Members rose as one man, and through their spokesman, Mr. Winterbotham, repudiated the control of the voluntary schools if they were associated with the rates, on the ground that the rate would become as unpopular as the old Church rate had been. Therefore, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to say that they will support the denominational schools out of the rates, they cannot claim popular control over those schools. Looking at the proposition of the Government from the business and administrative point of view, rates stand to School Boards as subscriptions do to voluntary schools, and if there is a deficiency in the amount the former have to make it good by rates

    1149
    and the other by voluntary subscriptions. How could we put a voluntary school under popular control when the managers would still remain responsible for the expenses of that school? The thing is ridiculous and impossible, and therefore any proposition made in favour of obtaining popular control over voluntary schools, unless associated with the liability of rates to contribute towards those voluntary schools, is nothing less than a proposal for the extinction of voluntary schools, and any such proposition as that is one which Her Majesty's Government think it their bounden duty to oppose as contrary to the principles of the Education Act of 1870. Putting Church of England schools out of the question altogether, and taking those of two other bodies—the Wesleyans and the Roman Catholics—what would be the result to education in those schools of associating popular control with them? The peculiarity of the Wesleyan schools is the very high fees charged. The result of popular control would be to reduce the fees and to destroy the distinctive character of the schools, which would cease to remain voluntary schools. The Roman Catholic schools were extraordinary in their efficiency, considering the small resources at their disposal; but if we associate popular control with these schools the Roman Catholics would probably decline to contribute towards their support, because the merits of these schools in their eyes is that they are under denominational management, and, therefore, to associate popular control with them would mean the stopping of subscriptions. I am sure, therefore, that the proposition for popular control over voluntary schools is one to which the House will never listen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton has said that Board schools will be established in the North of England towns because fees are so high, and he also seems to argue that they will also be set up everywhere in the South, where fees are low. It is true that this Bill will have somewhat different effects in different parts of the country. Why are fees higher in the North of England than in the South? Because the people are better off. But they will now all get the remission of 10s. towards the payment of those fees, and when I
    1150
    think of the vigour and energy which the managers of voluntary schools have shown during the last 20 years, I see no reason to suppose that they will not get over any temporary difficulties, and find themselves in the possession of a permanent and sure source of income. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton has taken some examples of isolated schools or districts, and pointed out that the subscriptions are small. But, taking subscriptions and endowments of the Church of England, they amounted in 1890 to 80 per cent. of the school fees. That shows that the great majority of fees are low because subscriptions are high. In the case of the Roman Catholic schools the figure is 78 per cent. of the fees payable. That also shows that the subscriptions are high and the fees low, and that the subscribers are prepared to make sacrifices for their schools. In the case of the Wesleyan schools the statistics are reversed, the subscriptions amounting to only 17 per cent., which shows that the parents of the children attending these schools are capable of paying high fees, and therefore the denomination do not consider it necessary to subscribe in order to reduce the fees. I think that those figures show what would be the effect on these three classes of voluntary schools of the establishment of popular control. If the Wesleyans wish to keep up the character of their education, I have not the slightest doubt that they will continue to subscribe whatever is necessary above the 10s. But the result of the 10s. fee grant in the case of the Church of England and Roman Catholic schools would be that the great majority of them would become free. With regard to the administrative advantage of the proposal of the 10s. grant, I think that the indirect consequences would be of considerable importance. Any one who has been connected with the Education Department knows that one of the great difficulties in administering that Department is the great diversity and irregularity of the fees payable in elementary schools. The result of the proposal will be that the fees payable in three-quarters of the elementary schools will be a uniform rate. Having now dealt with the question of popular control, I come to the question of fees.

    1151
    Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed a wish that the Government should include in the proposed payment all children who attend school after the age of three, up to the age of 14. Now, it must be borne in mind what is the ground on which the Government make their proposal. We do not make it for the purpose of bringing elementary education up to an ideal standard, and still less for the purpose of allowing a system of secondary education to be grafted upon the system of elementary education. Our proposal is to relieve parents from a compulsory liability which has been imposed upon them by Statute with regard to children sent to school between the ages of five and 14. I doubt whether children who go to school before they are five years old derive any educational benefit. In Scotland, where there is a much higher standard, children do not, as a rule, attend the schools before they are five years of age. There is a great deal to be said against the proposition that the Government should pay the fees of all children who are sent to school after the age of 14. Such children are, as a rule, the children of the better-to-do ratepayers, who can afford to allow them to stop on. Moreover, the education they receive is not primary, but secondary education. In the voluntary schools the subscriptions stand in exactly the same place as the rates do in the Board schools. If the fees are low, it is because the subscriptions are high. The subscribers have, to a certain extent, anticipated the benevolent intentions of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman opposite very properly said that the schools must be efficient. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Code of this year is, I may say in confidence, prepared in the belief that this Bill will pass into law. Consequently, by that Code there are increased requirements put upon elementary schools. The curriculum is extended, the teaching staff is increased, and a class subject must be taught in every school. If any school is warned before 1893, and is subsequently found to be inefficient, it will cease to obtain a grant. A school to be efficient must have a certain income. The average expenditure on children in
    1152
    voluntary schools is £1 16s. The average grant is 17s. 4d. Deducting 17s. 4d. from £1 16s., a deficiency of nearly 19s. is shown, which will be reduced to 9s. by the grant proposed to be given by this Bill. The 10s. grant only reduces that by 9s. Thus schools in which the subscriptions are small cannot pass the necessary test without utilising the free grant, so that it may be anticipated that the increased grant will be associated hereafter with increased efficiency. The proposition of the Government is a very simple one. We had to deal with a complicated and multiform system of education, a system which Parliament deliberately brought into existence 20 years ago, and the Government intend to adhere to the principles on which that system is founded, confirmed as they are by subsequent legislation, and to oppose every proposition which will affect the policy on which the system of primary education is founded. We have endeavoured to graft this proposition on our somewhat complicated system, and I hope we have framed a scheme which is not only simple in itself, but which will also tend to simplify the system upon which it is grafted. The Government look upon the scheme as the legitimate and necessary development of previous legislation, and they earnestly hope that the House will support it by a large majority, because they believe that not only will it tend to consolidate the present system of primary education and assimilate all the different classes of schools, but also that it will add to the efficiency of that system under conditions which will enable the voluntary schools of the country to take for the future a more beneficial and a more prominent part in the life of the country than they have done in the past.
    MR. SINCLAIR&c.): I propose to address the House from the point of view of one who has been a School Board manager in Liverpool almost ever since the Act of 1870 was passed. I think that, in the long run, the Bill introduced by the Government will tend to the educational advantage of the people of the country. The great reason, to my mind, why such a Bill should have been introduced is this: that political power in this country has shifted; the governing

    1153
    power is now handed over to the people. There is a change from parental to national responsibility, and that is a great reason why the Government are to be congratulated upon the action they have taken. There is one point of importance, and it has only been touched upon by the noble Lord who has just sat down: it is the question of the equalisation of fees throughout the country. I understood the noble Lord to say that difficulty had been found by those who had administered the Education Department in the diversity in the fees charged. If that difficulty has existed in the past, I am afraid there is nothing within the four corners of the Bill to remove it in the future. The difficulty arises very largely from the fact that, according to the definition to be found in the Education Act of 1870, the term elementary school means a school or department of a school in which elementary education is the principal part of the education given; that is to say, a department of a school is looked upon as an entire school, and the fees charged in that department are to be the basis upon which the working of this Bill will take place. I should like to exemplify this by the case of the Upper Park Street School in Liverpool, of which I am a manager. There are four departments in that school—an infants', a juniors', and two seniors'. In the infants' department the present fee is 3d., in the juniors' 4d., and in the seniors' (boys' and girls') 6d. Under the Bill the managers will be compelled, in order to obtain the full advantage of the grant, to treat the four departments separately, so that there will be no fee in the infants' department, a fee of 1d. in the juniors', and a fee of 3d. in the seniors'. But if the managers were allowed to treat the whole school as a unit there might be an equalisation of fees, the want of which we understand every Education Minister in the past has greatly felt. What is the result of charging fees in the higher standards instead of charging them in the lower? It is to make the parents think twice before they keep their children at school longer than they are absolutely obliged to. The tendency of compulsion and the charging of high fees in the higher standards is to cause parents to take
    1154
    their children from school earlier than they otherwise would. This is a practical point of great importance, and I trust that it will not be lost sight of by the Government when they come to consider any changes or amendments in the Bill that the Debate may have made necessary.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Viscount Cranborne.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I think the House is prepared to hear another speech.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton waxed very eloquent in the speech he delivered earlier in the evening in reference to the treatment which in his opinion the people of Wales are experiencing under the present state of things. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that in many parishes the schools are entirely attached to the Church of England, while the pupils who attend them are the children of Nonconformists. It is extraordinary, considering the position that has been assumed in this House on behalf of the Nonconformists of Wales, that those people have never had sufficient public spirit to establish voluntary schools of their own. But the right hon. Gentleman omitted to observe that in all the evidence given before the Education Commission not a case was adduced in which complaint was made that the Conscience Clause established in 1870 had been violated in any Church school in the Principality. This is a very remarkable fact, seeing that the schools are managed by Churchmen and that the scholars are the children of Nonconformists. Nor did the Welsh Nonconformist ministers themselves who appeared before the Commission make any complaint on the subject; on the contrary, they asserted that they would not even suggest to their flocks that they should in any degree complain as to the religious teaching which was

    1155
    given by the Church in the schools. That proves that in the opinion of those ministers the differences are not worth contesting, that they think religious teaching of some kind a great advantage to the children, and that they are not prepared to endorse the assertion which has been made by their political friends in this House that the Church of England schools in Wales are used as a means of destroying the principles of Nonconformity in the children.
    MR. T. ELLIS: Will the noble Lord name the ministers to whom he refers?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have not the volume containing the evidence at hand. The names and the facts are well known, and I shall be glad to give the hon. Member the pages in which they appear. That is not the only part of the experience of the Act of 1870 to which I would direct the hon. Member's attention. The right hon. Member for Bridgeton rejoices greatly at what he believes to be the on-coming destruction of the voluntary schools. It would be instructive for him to remember over what odds the voluntary schools have already triumphed. In 1870 he and his predecessors prophesied the destruction of the voluntary schools; but experience shows that there is sufficient public spirit to support them, and to rescue them even from the evil position in which they found themselves after the passing of the Act of 1870. They are now in such a position before the people of England that even Radical politicians do not seriously propose their destruction. When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen speak of the privileges which the voluntary school managers enjoy under the present system, they seem to think that voluntary schools exist for the benefit of voluntary subscribers. There can be no greater mistake. We are very grateful to the voluntary subscribers for supporting these schools, but the advantages to the country of the voluntary system consist in the teaching of distinctive religious and denominational principles. I regret very much the condition of public opinion in the country on the question before the House. Parents were formerly quite content to pay these fees, and there was no difficulty of any kind. There were a few cases where
    1156
    the parents were very poor, and where, undoubtedly, the system under which they had to go to the Guardians in order to be relieved of their fees was an unsatisfactory system, but in the vast majority of cases the fees were paid perfectly willingly and regularly. That, I admit, is not so now. The reason is not difficult to find. We have in this country a machine for changing the law, and the Radical agitator must have some reform to keep the machine in motion—a good reform if possible, but, at all events, a reform. The result is, that he lays hold of some grievance, slightly real and largely imaginary, and he works the people of this country up into a great fever, until a demand is made for a change in the law. That is precisely what has happened in this case. There are, under the present law, some real grievances and a great many imaginary ones. If you go to a number of people and say, "You pay fees which you ought not to pay; you ought to have your children educated for nothing," is it surprising that they will believe you, and that the fees which were formerly paid without a murmur should be looked upon as an intolerable grievance by a large section of the parents of this country? Then, I ask, is the present proposal a large departure from sound principles? I submit that, so far as naked principle is concerned, the departure from sound lines is very slight. I know that many of my hon. Friends believe that this Bill is tarred with the Socialist brush, but the Socialist principle was first introduced into this question when parents were compelled to send their children to school. I am not discussing whether it is right or wrong, but I say that a far greater interference with the liberty of the individual on the part of the State was enacted by the Education Act than any that is contained in the proposition before the House. It is not merely from the point of view of compulsion that a great act of Socialism has already been achieved. Even pecuniarily we have gone a very long way in that direction. It is said that the working classes of the country will have their independence sapped by the Imperial Exchequer paying their school fees, but their independence has already been sapped to the extent of three-fourths of the cost of education.

    1157
    If one-fourth, more is Socialism, then let the House remember that every increase in the cost of national education year by year since 1870 has been a step in the Socialist direction. In 1870 the cost of education per head was 30s.; in 1891, I suppose, we may reckon it at 40s. From what source has the 10s. increase come? Not, I venture to say, out of the pockets of the parents. It has, therefore, come out of somebody else's pocket, and to that extent the independence of the parents has been sapped by a contribution out of someone else's pocket. Under these circumstances, it surely is not reasonable to protest against this proposal as Socialism.
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) [EXPENSES, &c.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the temporary advance, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any deficiency in the insurance fund to be created under any Act of the present Session to establish Local Registries of Titles to Land in Ireland, and the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any salaries, remuneration, and expenses that may become payable under such Act."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  MUNICIPAL REGISTRATION (DUBLIN AND BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 358.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    *MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction left by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill was that it should be deferred to Wednesday.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: My name appears on the back of the Bill, Sir. Is it not competent for me to move that the Second Reading be taken now?
    *MR. SPEAKER: No doubt a Bill is in charge of the hon. Members whose
    1158
    names appear on the back of it, and it is competent for the hon. Member to move the Second Reading, but that would be an unusual course to adopt in the absence of the hon. Member who has left Instruction that the Bill should be set down for another day. Perhaps the hon. Member is acting by the authority of his colleagues in charge of the Bill.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If it is open to me to do so, I move that the Bill be read a second time. It has a very simple object, the changing the dates of the sittings of the Municipal Revision Courts in Dublin and Belfast. It has that simple object, in which it meets with the approval of the Attorney General for Ireland.
    DR. TANNER: I object.
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

  BETTING AND LOANS (INFANTS) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 367.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. J. MORLEY: In moving that this Bill be read a second time, I need not detain the House, I think, with any explanatory remarks. The Bill has received the approval of lawyers and other distinguished persons in another place, and its object is one as to which, I think, there cannot be two opinions, though no doubt there are remarks to be made as to the means by which the framers of the Bill propose to carry out that object. The Bill makes it a penal offence to send circulars and advertisements to minors with the object of inducing betting or the borrowing of money from money-lenders; and if the House is agreed on the desirability of the object and the general lines of the Bill, all else is matter for Committee, and I think I need say no more.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  PRISONS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 95.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 55.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed) "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Macartney.)
    MR. SEXTON: We have not had the advantage of any explanation of this Bill, and I think it is an extremely vicious principle to take a Second Reading at this hour with no knowledge of the contents of a Bill, and to such a course I must object.
    MR. MACARTNEY: With the leave of the House, I will explain that the Bill deals with several details in which the Labourers Act has been found in operation defective. It proposes to substitute the names of 12 persons entitled to vote for the ratepayers now required in making any representation. There are one or two other amendments of the Act with regard to providing gardens, and one clause deals with technical errors in the proceedings before the Board of Guardians providing that these shall not as now stop the whole proceedings. In the principle of the Bill, I think, there is nothing to object to; it is not opposed by the Government, and whatever questions that arise are such as should be raised in Committee.
    MR. SEXTON: It is a very faint outline the hon. Gentleman has given us; but so far I see no objection, though I reserve my freedom of action on Committee stage.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: One question I must ask, is the Bill printed?
    MR. MACARTNEY: Yes, printed some days ago.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Ventilation of this House.
  Dr. Farquharson, Sir Guyer Hunter, Mr. Richard Power, Sir Henry Roscoe, and Mr. Plunket were nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Plunket.)

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I trust that we may be allowed to proceed to the appointment of this Committee, and be enabled to make progress this Session with the inquiry. To that end I appeal to the Welsh Members to withdraw the Amendment for including Wales in the inquiry.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: There is one method of getting the Committee appointed at once, and that is by accepting the Amendments. I can suggest no other alternative.
  MR. SEXTON: That course, I think, would be adopted if the Government were in earnest in the matter.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Government are certainly in earnest in their desire to proceed, but Wales never has been treated as a separate fixed entity, and it is perfectly impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. I think the hon. Members from Wales are a little hard on the other members interested.
  DR. TANNER: On several occasions when I have objected to Motions being taken after 12 o'clock, Members of the Government have pointed out my opposition was absurd, because they were free to put the Motion down as a First Order of the Day. Let the Government do this with the present Motion.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I should be very glad of the opportunity for discussion.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is not possible for the Government to find the time for a long discussion; but I am prepared to consult with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury as to putting the Motion down for a time when hon. Members can record their protest if they will be content with that; but there is not time for a Debate, which would serve no useful purpose.
  Committee deferred till to-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.