Commons Sitting of 9 May 1892

QUESTIONS.

  HERSHAM SCHOOL AND THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE.
  MR. CUBITT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if it is correct that complaints have been made that children attending the Hersham School, a public elementary school under the School Board of Walton-on-Thames, have been compelled to receive religious instruction in contravention of the Conscience Clause of the Education Act; whether the Hersham School has been declared inefficient in consequence of the result of the last examination; and what steps have been taken with respect to the Walton School Board under these circumstances by the Education Department?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): Although the direct responsibility of the Board was not proved, breaches of the Conscience Clause did in effect occur in one or two instances some time ago, and the Department is now engaged upon the investigation of another charge under the same section of the Act. It is also the case that the Hersham Boys' School has been declared inefficient. The Department has no intention that the Board should evade its duty either in regard to the Conscience Clause or as to maintaining its schools in a state of efficiency; and unless its procedure is thoroughly reformed, it may render itself liable to default.

  THE CONVICT KINSELLA.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the case of a prisoner named Kinsella, at present in Maryborough Prison, in ill-health, undergoing a sentence of 20 years' penal servitude, for an aggravated assault upon a man named Sullivan; and whether, in view of the

  341
  fact that Sullivan obtained £150 compensation, and has long ago recovered from his injuries, and that the sentence of 20 years' penal servitude passed upon Kinsella was inflicted at a time of great social disturbance and excitement in Ireland, he can see his way to advise the Lord Lieutenant that the ends of justice have been satisfied by the term of 10 years' penal servitude already undergone, and that the clemency of the Crown might now be exercised to remit the remainder of the sentence?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I am informed that the convict referred to was sentenced, with three others, for the attempted murder of John Sullivan, who was beaten about the head with iron bars and left for dead. I am not aware of Sullivan's present condition of health. The question of revising the sentence passed upon this convict has been before two Lords Lieutenant, who decided that they saw no reason for remitting the sentence in accordance with memorials received.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, has the memorial been before the present Lord Lieutenant?
  *MR. JACKSON: I will inquire if it has been; I think it has.

  EVICTED TENANTS AND THE LAND PURCHASE ACT.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has observed that almost every Corporate Body and Poor Law Board in the County of Cork, with the strongly-expressed approval of the Recorder of Cork, has now passed unanimous resolutions urging an extension of time for the operation of the Evicted Tenants' Clause of the Land Purchase Act of last Session; and whether, in view of the strong expression of public opinion among all classes upon the subject, he will introduce a short Bill making the required extension?
  *MR. JACKSON: This question is substantially the same as a question addressed to me by the hon. Member on 19th February last, and I then stated that if information came to me that both the landlord and the former
  342
  tenant desired to avail themselves of the provision contained in the section referred to of the Act of 1891, but found themselves precluded from so doing through the limited time in which that section was in operation, I should consider as to the course to be taken. That information would be a condition precedent to any action on my part, and no such information has reached me.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Boards of Guardians are composed equally of landlords and tenants, and have not these resolutions been passed unanimously with the assent of the ex officio Guardians? Can the right hon. Gentleman have a better expression of both landlords and tenants?
  *MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member has, I think, rather missed the point I wished to bring before the House. I said, if evidence were produced before me showing on the part of tenant and landlords—in other words, the parties interested in making agreements—that they desired to make such agreements, but were precluded owing to the lapse of that section of the Act, then I would endeavour to find some means of meeting the difficulty. No such evidence has come before me.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: In what form would the right hon. Gentleman desire the information to come? Would a memorial from any body of tenants, showing the necessity of this, satisfy him, or would he wish landlords to join in such representations?
  *MR. JACKSON: I said landlords and tenants.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return relating to the way in which the Resolution of the House of 13th February, 1891, in reference to the question of Government Contracts is being carried out, will be printed and circulated?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): The Return mentioned by the hon. Member is now being printed, and I hope it will be distributed in the course of a few days.

  E.C. DISTRICT POST OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that newspapers, posted in Fleet Street and other parts of the E.C. Postal District at three p.m. on Saturdays, are not delivered in Kensington and other places within a three mile radius until eight a.m. on the following Monday; whether he is aware that this delay is caused by the insufficiency of the sorting staff and the want of space in the E.C. District Office; and whether, considering the great inconvenience to the public by delay, and the important revenue derived by the Postal Department from the distribution of newspapers from this centre, he will provide a sufficient staff and a suitable building for the expedition of the business of the E.C. Postal District?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The omission complained of is exceptional and not regular. Newspapers posted up to 4.45 p.m. in minor offices, and up to 5.30 p.m. in larger Branch Offices, are in time for delivery on the same evening. There has been some unusual pressure lately in the East Central Office on account of numerous vacancies among sorters, but that is in course of remedy.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Office is not at all suitable for the business to be done there?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am aware of that; it is about to be enlarged.

  PUBLIC HOUSE CLOSING HOURS IN SCOTLAND.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Licensing Court of the Comal District of Argyllshire has granted certificates extending the hours of closing during June, July, and August in Dunoon, Sandbank, and Innellan beyond the hour prescribed by the Licensing Authority under the Public Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act, 1887, namely, "the Justices of the Peace of the county in Quarter Session assembled"; whether he is aware that in a case arising out of a similar conflict of
  344
  alleged authority between the Justices in Quarter Session of Forfarshire and the Licensing Court of Arbroath District, it was decided by the Court of Session that District Courts cannot override a decision of the Justices in Quarter Sessions as to the hour of closing; and whether he will take steps to call the attention of Clerks of the Peace to the definition of the Licensing Authority under the Public Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act, 1887, as interpreted by the Court of Session in the case referred to?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I am informed that the facts stated in the question are correct. I will direct the attention of the Clerk of the Peace of the county where this irregularity occurred to the decision referred to; but I am afraid I cannot undertake to supply all such officials with the decisions of the Supreme Courts which may affect their particular duties.

  SCOTCH PRISON OFFICIALS.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to inquire into the salaries, &c., of Scotch Prison Officials have made any Report; whether the Government intend to take any steps to remove the distinctions which at present exist between the English and Scotch prison officials; and whether the Government, for the information of Parliament, will explain why higher salaries are paid to English warders and guards than they pay to Scotch officers?
  SIR J. GORST (who replied)said: The hon. Member will allow me to answer the question. The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Report has been presented. With reference to the second and third paragraphs, I can only repeat what I have said in answer to similar questions already put to me, that it is impossible in reply to a question to compare the various considerations that justify the rates of salaries in each particular case.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will put this Report on the Table of the House?
  SIR J. GORST: That is a question the hon. Member should address to my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. Perhaps he will give notice of it?
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I will put the question on Thursday.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH DRIMNIN.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received complaints regarding the want of telegraphic communication betwixt Lochaline and Drimnin; and could he see his way to accept a much smaller guarantee than that last asked for an extension to Drimnin?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: An application for a telegraph office at Drimnin was made by the hon. Member for Argyllshire. The extension would cost about £270. The annual expenses would be about £50, and the revenue, it is believed, would not be more than about £5. It is, therefore, impossible to accept a smaller guarantee than £50.

  MAGHERAFELT COURTHOUSE.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now aware of the unsanitary state of Magherafelt Courthouse; whether his attention has been called to the report in the Irish News of the 2nd instant of the emphatic protest made by County Court Judge Neligan, Q.C., on the previous day, as to the "abominable stench" and "most dangerous draughts" which sweep through the Courthouse; whether the learned Judge stated on the previous Monday—
  "He was obliged to adjourn the Court before he had sat for an hour and to send home all the people who were in attendance as suitors and witnesses, and inflict on them the inconvenience and loss"
  of coming back again; whether fully one-third of the County Court business of the entire County of Deny is transacted in Magherafelt; and whether he will consider, in the interest of the
  346
  public, what steps can be taken to remove the danger to health and life which at present exists there?
  MR. JACKSON: The attention of the responsible officer shall be called to the matter, and he will, I hope, take the necessary steps to have the Courthouse put into a sanitary condition.

  HORSE BREEDING IN IRELAND.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the subsidy of £5,000 voted towards the improvement in the breed of horses in Ireland, whether he will state how much of it has been so applied, and what has been done with the balance, if any; whether he is aware that there is no person from the Division of South Down on the Committee appointed under the scheme for the County of Down, and that none of the four registered stallions selected for the county ever visit any place within the district of South Down; and whether, in view of the fact that the population of South Down is chiefly made up of small farmers who stand in need of such facilities as are offered under this scheme, steps will be taken to give this division of the county the benefit of the scheme?
  *MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member does not specify any particular year; but I presume he desires to know how the annual grant of £5,000 for improving the breed of horses and cattle in Ireland is allotted?
  MR. MCCARTAN: This year.
  *MR. JACKSON: I cannot give the figures for this year, because the expenditure is not yet completed, but I find by the published accounts of the Royal Dublin Society, that their expenditure in this regard during their last completed year, ended 31st December, 1891, was as follows:—By amount paid to owners of horses, service premiums, fees, &c., £3,290 5s.; by expenses of local committees, £119 17s. 2d.; by service premiums for bulls, £1,201 18s.; by prizes for mares at local inspections, £955; by purchase of pony stallion, £150; by Stallion Show, Dublin, £198 6s. 5d.; by auditor's fee, £2 2s.; by balance in bank, £492 1s.3d.; total, £6,409 9s. 10d. The reply to the second paragraph appears to be in the affirmative. It is

  347
  stated that the benefits of the scheme were offered equally to all parts of the country; but no stallions were tendered for registration for service in South Down; accordingly there is no registered stallion in that district.
  MR. MCCARTAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that there is no representative from South Down on the Committee?
  MR. JACKSON: I presume that the Committee is appointed by the Royal Dublin Society.
  MR. MCCARTAN: They appointed no person from South Down.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM, on behalf of Mr. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that last year the sum of £960 was given in prizes to brood mares in 16 districts in Ireland; and whether the Royal Dublin Society have discontinued the grant this season; and, if so, for what reasons?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the sum of £955 was given in prizes in Ireland for farmers' brood mares in 1891. The Royal Dublin Society have discontinued these prizes this year, and given the money instead to farmers in part payment of the fees for the service of thoroughbred registered stallions. It is believed that the expenditure of the money in this way will confer greater benefits upon the farmers.

  COMPENSATION FOR MURDER IN IRELAND.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of a case in which Mrs. Perry, the widow of a land agent who was recently shot when driving to Mass at Tulla, County Clare, was awarded by the Grand Jury £20 as compensation for a horse which was shot at the time of the outrage, but in which the claim for £1,000 for his injuries served by Mr. Perry, before he died a lingering death from his wounds, was disallowed on the ground that the Presentment Sessions had no power to award compensation to the representative of a murdered person; and whether
  348
  the decision that there is now no power to award such compensation was correct; and, if so, whether he will consider if he will introduce a measure to give power to award compensation in such cases?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: In the event of the Government deciding to introduce a Bill for the purpose of awarding any such compensation, I hope it will include the families of men shot down at Mitchelstown, Youghal, and Tipperary under orders from the Irish Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): My attention has been called to the report of the case in question. There is under the existing law no power to award compensation in such cases. The Government do not propose to introduce legislation dealing with the question.
  MR. MACNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was the widow of Captain Plunket got compensation—an annual allowance?
  MR. MADDEN: I do not think that has anything to do with this question.

  BIRTHS IN PRISON.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having in view the repugnance to the infliction of the indignity on children being born in prison, and the danger to the lives of both mothers and children, he will consider the advisability of so altering the Prison Rules as to permit the removal of all female prisoners to a public hospital during confinement?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I know of no sufficient reason for changing the present practice. A pregnant woman is always released from prison where, in the opinion of the medical officer, her confinement in prison would be attended with risk to her life or to that of the child. Women confined in prison are attended to in the prison infirmary, where they find as much care and medical skill as in a public hospital. It is not so much the place of birth as the conviction of the mother

  349
  which involves what the hon. Member describes as an indignity.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a very strong opinion found expression in the Press in relation to a recent case against the indignity of a child being born in gaol? Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what class those women belonged to whom he referred on a former occasion as having been released under these circumstances?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I mentioned twelve, I think, and these all belonged to the humbler classes, women convicted of theft and such offences. I am quite aware of the feeling to which the hon. Member alludes; but, as I have said, I think the conviction of the mother is more prejudicial to the future of the child than the mere place of birth.

  SPECIAL TELEGRAPH DUTY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether amongst the telegraphists requisitioned for special duty at the last Epsom Spring Meeting, were two from Derby, one from Northampton, one from Leeds, two from Leicester, three from Birmingham, three from Brighton, one from Manchester, two from Bristol, and two from Southampton, most of whom were employed on special duty, and paid at special rates during the ensuing week; will he explain why it was necessary to bring telegraphists such a lengthened distance, and at such a large additional cost, when the staff of the Central Office in London were available; and whether he will see his way, in justice to the clerks at the Central Telegraph Office, and with a view to economy, to supply the staff at special events from the nearest centre?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The arrangements made for the service in question were those which were deemed most convenient and economical, and no question of justice or injustice arises in connection with them.

  APPOINTMENT OF TEACHER AT DOWNPATRICK WORKHOUSE.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the protest against the election of Miss McGifford as teacher in the Down-
  350
  patrick Workhouse, forwarded by eleven of the Poor Law Guardians to the Local Government Board on Saturday, 30th April; whether he is aware that the Roman Catholic children in Downpatrick Workhouse are in a proportion of five to one of any other denomination, and that, there being no Catholic official in the Workhouse, the Catholic Guardians claimed the right to have a Catholic teacher appointed; that Lord de Ros, a Protestant, in voting for the Catholic applicant (Miss Dixon), said "he voted for her because he believed the claim of the Catholics was a strong one," and the Hon. Somerset Ward, a Protestant, said "he voted for her because she was best qualified for the position"; and whether, considering that the voting was equal and the Chairman gave his casting vote for the Protestant, he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, with a view of having the present election annulled?
  *MR. JACKSON: The Local Government Board for Ireland have received a representation of the nature mentioned in the first paragraph. It appears that of the 21 children at present in the Workhouse school, 15 are Roman Catholics and 6 are of other denominations. I have no official information in regard to the observations attributed to the two Guardians mentioned. The Chairman of a Board of Guardians has no casting vote; but the Chairman gave the vote to which he was entitled as a Guardian to Miss McGifford. As the proceedings at the election were legal and formal, and as the inquiries of the Local Government Board in regard to the elected teacher are satisfactory, there is no ground for interference on the part of that Board.

  THE WEARING OF PRISON CLOTHES.
  MR. ROWNTREE, on behalf of Mr. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what number of prisoners in Irish prisons sentenced to imprisonment after conviction on indictment were, on the 30th April, 1892, wearing prison clothes, and what number were permitted to wear their own clothes?
  *MR. JACKSON: With reference to this question, I find that since the

  351
  alteration was made in the prison rules in 1889, 179 prisoners have applied for, and been granted, permission to wear their own clothes. There were in the year ended 31st March, 1890, 105 applications; 31st March, 1891, 58 applications; 31st March, 1892, 14 applications; and in the month of April, 1892, two applications; making a total of 179. But by the wording of the question, the question is limited to "prisoners sentenced to imprisonment after conviction on indictment." Of such prisoners there were in custody in Irish prisons on 30th April, 1892, 471. From these prisoners only one application was received, and it was granted.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Who was that one—a fraudulent stockbroker?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there was only one prisoner? Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report from the Irish Prison Commissioners before the House stating whether the relaxation in the case of this one prisoner was made on account of the nature of the crime or the social position of the prisoner?
  *MR. JACKSON: I have no objection to lay the Report on the Table, but I imagine the answer would be that neither of the reasons stated by the right hon. Member was the right one.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Then I would ask the reason why in this case the Prison Rules were relaxed?
  *MR. JACKSON: The right hon. Member appears not to be aware of the Rule with respect to which relaxation is granted. I stated it at length recently. The Rule provides that permission may be granted where the Prison Commissioners are of opinion, expressed in writing, that the wearing of the prison clothes is not desirable for the purposes of health and cleanliness. I stated further that in all cases where application had been made under this Rule permission had been granted.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the Rule was made, while the Belfast forgers were allowed to wear their own clothes when conveyed after conviction from Dublin to Derry, Irish Members imprisoned were stripped naked?
  *MR. JACKSON: I do not see how the remark of the hon. Member arises out of the question. I am asked as to what has happened since the Rule has; been in force.

  ADVANCES BY THE IRISH BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. HARRISON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what sums are now available in the hands of the Board of Works for such advances as are authorised to be made to companies and occupiers of land by the 31st section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1881?
  SIR J. GORST: The amount now available is £680,000.

  BELFAST POSTAL DELIVERY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why, since the acceleration of the arrival and delivery of the English mails in Belfast, there is no delivery of local letters outside a half mile radius from the General Post Office from the first delivery at 7 a.m. until the delivery at 4.30 p.m.; and why letters received from Londonderry and the North at the General Post Office at 11.15 a.m. are not delivered outside the half mile radius until 4.30 p.m.?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The present delivery of letters at Belfast are at 7 a.m. (general); 10.20. a.m. (general); 12.30. p.m. (restricted); 4.15. (general); 8 p.m. (general). The 10.20 a.m. delivery includes local letters as well as the English and Scotch night mail letters viâ Holyhead and Stranraer. The 12.30. p.m. delivery is restricted to the central portion of the town and letters, therefore, received at 11.15. a.m. for places outside that portion have hitherto been delivered at 4.15 p.m. A revision is now under consideration for making the 12.30 delivery general like the rest, and the above letters will then be distributed by it.

  LONDONDERRY TELEGRAPHIC STAFF.
  SIR T. ESMONDE(for Mr. JUSTIN MCCARTHY,): I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the increase of clerical force of three second-class

  353
  telegraphists, sanctioned in July, 1891, in the Londonderry Telegraph Department, has not yet been carried out; whether complaints have reached him that the present staff is inadequate to do the work required of it; and whether the telegraphic business of the district suffers delay in consequence?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No such sanction was given in July, 1891, but I lately decided to add three to the staff in question, which will be done as soon as the necessary forms have been gone through. No complaints from the public of unsatisfactory service have reached me.

  WOODFORD AND WHITEGATE POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM(for Mr. McDERMOTT,): I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the improvement of the postal communication between Woodford and Whitegate, whether he is aware that the people of the district are of opinion that the additional cost of giving the extension required, would be amply covered by the increased number of letters which such extension would bring; and whether, considering the great inconvenience to the district of the present system, he will consider the desirability of giving the proposed extension a trial for at least one year?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I regret to say that the reports made to me show that the receipts would be altogether incommensurate with the cost, and I am therefore unable to give the service desired.

  WRONGFUL ASSUMPTION OF "M.A." DEGREE.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the public scandal which has been caused by its having recently become generally known in the neighbourhood of Ross that the Reverend Edward Burdett Hawkshaw, the Chairman of the Ross Bench of Justices, wrongfully assumed, during 18 years, the title and hood of a Master of Arts of Oriel College, Oxford,
  354
  although he was in fact only a Bachelor of Arts, and so conducted the services, and administered the Sacraments of the Church; whether he is aware that the Bishop of Hereford discovered this upon the collation of the Reverend Edward Burdett Hawkshaw to the prebendal stall of Nonnington, in Hereford Cathedral, for which a Bachelor of Arts is not eligible, and compelled him to take the degree of Master of Arts; whether one of the canons of the Church prescribes the punishment of suspension for the offence of conducting the services and administering the Sacraments in a University hood of a higher degree than that which the clergyman possesses, and such an offence is also punishable under the statutes of the University of Oxford; and whether if, upon inquiry, these facts are found to be correct, the name of the Reverend Edward Burdett? Hawkshaw will be removed from the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no information as to the various allegations in the question. I have drawn the attention of the Lord Chancellor to them, and I learn from him that he has caused inquiry to be made.

  EDUCATION OF SOLDIERS' CHILDREN.
  SIR T. ESMONDE for Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Queen's Regulations for 1881, which allowed a soldier, on conscientious grounds, to send his children to a certified efficient civil school instead of the regimental or garrison schools, have been altered this year, so as to deprive the Catholic soldiers and their children of religious liberty in the matter of education, and compel all warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men to send their children to the school of the corps or garrison, except where, "with a view to obtaining a higher class education," the children are permitted by the General Officer commanding to attend a civil school?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Army Order referred to was issued two years ago, and it does require that soldiers shall send their children to the corps or

  355
  garrison school. It was found that their going to civil schools did, to an appreciable amount, involve the risk of introducing infectious disease into barracks; but the main reason for the order was that, as soldiers frequently move from station to station, it was indispensable that their children should be educated on a uniform system. Army schools being all under one management secured this, while the latitude allowed to the managers of civil schools resulted in children taught in one school being frequently quite out of touch with the course in the school of another place. Army schools are altogether undenominational, and every facility is afforded for religious instruction being imparted by the ministers of the denomination to which the parents belong.

  THE ENGLISH AND DUBLIN MAILS.
  SIR T. ESMONDE (for Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will take into consideration the very serious inconvenience and loss resulting to the people of the towns of Castlefin, Killygordon, Ballybofey, and Stranorlar, in County Donegal, from the fact that the English and Dublin mails which arrive in Strabane at 10.45 a.m. are not despatched from that place till 5.20 p.m., although a train leaves Strabane at 11.20, calling at all the above-mentioned towns, and actually conveying mails to places beyond?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: This matter has already been under consideration, and arrangements are being made for the establishment of a mail to the places named by the 11.20 a.m. train from Strabane.

  THE SKENE SCHOOL BOARD.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the recent dismissal of the female teacher Miss Anderson, and the illegal appointment of the Chairman of the Board of Garlagie School, have created great dissatisfaction in the parish of Skene, Aberdeenshire; and whether the Scotch Education Department have received a petition, largely signed by ratepayers, protesting against recent proceedings in Garlagie School, and praying that the Department may end the difficulty
  356
  by themselves appointing a new Chairman of the Board?
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I understand that the recent dismissal of Miss Anderson, and the appointment of the Chairman of the Skene School Board, have been discussed in that parish. The Department have received a petition asking that another person than the present Chairman of the Board should be nominated as a member of the Board; and they have also received a petition from ratepayers in favour of the present Chairman continuing in office. As at present informed, I do not see that the case is one which calls for the interference of the Department.

  POLYNESIAN LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, pending the receipt of the Bill passed by the Queensland Legislature for allowing the re-introduction of South Sea island labour to that colony, Her Majesty's Government will secure that the traffic shall not be re-opened; whether he will engage that the Papers relating thereto shall be laid upon the Table of the House before the Royal Assent is given to the said Bill; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Lord C. Scott, the Admiral of the Station, and that of Captain Davies, who has had a long experience in the Polynesian Islands?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Since the hon. Member put his question on the Paper the. Secretary of State has telegraphed to the Governor to ask whether he had assented to the Bill, and whether it is in operation. If it has been assented to, Her Majesty has only the power of disallowing the Act which has become law. The Secretary of State has further telegraphed that he trusts that the Colonial Government, if it is practicable, will delay issuing the licences under the Act until he has received and considered the measure and the safeguards with which it is doubtless surrounded. The Reports of the naval officers mentioned in the question shall be given with other

  357
  Papers bearing upon the subject. It may be satisfactory to the House that I should mention the fact that Polynesian labourers have been introduced under the existing regulations to Queensland in increasing numbers up to the beginning of last year, and I may state that in 1890, 2,459 labourers were so introduced, and that since the beginning of 1885 no case of kidnapping or of serious infringement of the regulations has, as far as we know, been brought under notice. It may, therefore, fairly be assumed that the regulations are sufficient if properly watched and enforced. And to this end the attention of both Her Majesty's Government and the Queensland Government will be steadily directed.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I wish to know whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to the statement which appeared in the Daily News of Saturday, stating that the Melbourne Trades Council had resolved to appeal to Her Majesty the Queen to veto the Bill recently passed by the Queensland Government, promoting the re-introduction of South Sea island labour into the colony?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: No, Sir; my attention has not been called to the statement.

  POLICE CONSTABLES AS FIREMEN.
  MR. SAMUEL HOARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an injury to a constable, while acting as a fireman, would be an injury received in the execution of his duty, so as to entitle him to a grant out of the Police Pension Fund, under the scale applicable to injuries received by a constable in the execution of his duty; and whether, if such is not the case, he will consider the hardship which may often arise, especially in the case of constables who are engaged on distinct terms to act from time to time as firemen?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am advised that except in cases where there is special provision on this subject in Local Acts—and there are many such Acts—a constable who is injured while acting as a fireman is not entitled to a grant
  358
  out of the pension fund under the scale applicable to injuries received by a constable in the execution of his duty. With reference to the second paragraph of the question, my hon. Friend will bear in mind that a constable is still entitled to a pension or gratuity on the ordinary scale. He is, therefore, in a better position than a fireman, who is not a constable and who receives no pension except in cases where it is provided for in Local Acts.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION AT FENIT.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the nature of the wayleave which prevents the opening of a telegraph station at Fenit, County Kerry, which is the port of Tralee; whether he is aware that fishing boats coming into the bay laden with fish have to send foot messengers seven miles to Tralee to get the light railway to run down a train to take off their freights of fish, in consequence of which unsatisfactory arrangement these freights of fish often miss connection with the Great Southern and Western Railway, and are damaged and sometimes destroyed; and whether, in view of the fact that the telegraph can be either taken along the main road from Tralee to Fenit, or along the line of railway, and further that the guarantee required by the Post Office has been long since obtained, a telegraph office at Fenit will be opened at once?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The difficulty is to come to terms with the Railway Company for the attachment of the wires to their poles, but I hope that this will be got over. To erect new poles along the road would cost much more. I do not know the circumstances mentioned in the second paragraph, but I know that the telegraph is much wanted.

  ARDFERT TELEGRAPH STATION.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what guarantee was required by the Post Office for the opening of the telegraph station at Ardfert, County Kerry; and whether the guarantors have ever been called

  359
  upon to make good any deficiency in the receipts of that office?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Telegraph Office at Ardfert was established about 20 years ago. At that time the system of guarantees had not been introduced.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN KILDARE.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the erection of the labourers' cottages in the County Kildare portion of the Edenderry Union, the schemes for which have been approved and sanctioned more than two years since by the Privy Council?
  *MR. JACKSON: The erection of 32 cottages in the Edenderry Union has been authorised. Of these two have been erected, and a tender has been accepted for the building of one more. The Guardians have repeatedly advertised for tenders for building the remainder of the cottages, but considered those received to be too high. New plans for the further contract will, in all probability, be considered on the 14th instant.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will state to the House the terms of Reference to the Departmental Committee on the Ordnance Survey; and whether its Proceedings and Report will be made public?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The Departmental Committee to which the hon. Member refers has been appointed to inquire into a Report on the present condition of the Ordnance Survey, and especially to consider: (1) What steps should be taken to expedite the completion and publication of the new or revised one-inch map, with or without hills, of the British Isles; (2) what permanent arrangement should be made for the continuous revision and speedy publication of the maps (1/500, towns) 25 inches, six inches, and one inch scales; (3) whether the maps as at present issued satisfy the reasonable requirements
  360
  of the public in regard to style of execution, form, information conveyed, and price; and whether any improvement can be made in the catalogue and indices. I propose to lay the Report and Proceedings of the Committee upon the Table for publication as a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the management of the Survey and the character of the managing staff be included?
  *MR. CHAPLIN: No, Sir.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Does the inquiry extend to Ireland?
  *MR. CHAPLIN: Yes.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in reference to his statement on 22nd February last, he has now received the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the grievances of those employed in the Ordnance Survey, and will lay it upon the Table?
  MR. FRANCIS EVANShad notice of the following question:—To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Report of the Departmental Committee inquiring into the grievances of the Civil Servants of the Ordnance Survey has yet been completed; and, if so, whether the Report, together with the decision arrived at in relation thereto by the Board of Agriculture, will be laid upon the Table of the House before the Vote on the Estimates for the Survey comes under discussion?
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I will answer the question of the hon. Member for Southampton at the same time. I have received the Report of the Departmental Committee to which the hon. Member refers, and the recommendations it contains are now under consideration. I hope to be able to announce the decision before the Vote for the Survey in the Estimates comes under discussion, and in the meantime I will lay the Report on the Table.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of

  361
  the Board of Agriculture whet her he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among Welsh scholars, geologists, and others, with regard to the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the place-names in the Ordnance Survey maps of Wales; and whether he will take steps to secure the aid and co-operation of Welsh scholars to ensure accuracy in the nomenclature of these maps?
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I was not aware of the existence of the dissatisfaction to which the hon. Member refers, and I am informed that every Welsh name appearing on the Ordnance Survey maps has, as a matter of fact, received the sanction of a competent Welsh scholar. I am quite aware, however, of the difficult and delicate nature of the subject, and will endeavour to ascertain whether the existing arrangements are capable of improvement. The question, I think, might with advantage be considered by the Departmental Committee now sitting, and I will bring the matter under the consideration of that Committee.

  GIBRALTAR SANITARY COMMISSION.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in expressing his willingness to make certain concessions to the Gibraltar ratepayers, the Secretary of State for the Colonies made those concessions dependent upon the ratepayers assenting to the Chairman of the Sanitary Board being appointed by the Governor, and to the office of Engineer to the Board being held by the Colonial Engineer, ex officio, until the new drainage and waterworks are completed?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Secretary of State informed the deputation of Gibraltar ratepayers that he was willing to make certain concessions on the understanding that further opposition to the recent Order in Council would be withdrawn; but that he could not agree to the repeal of the provisions of the Order vesting the appointment of the Chairman of the Sanitary Board in the Governor, and combining the offices of Colonial Engineer and Engineer to the Sanitary
  362
  Commissioners. He intimated, however, that the question of the separation of those offices might, if thought necessary, be again brought forward after the completion of the new drainage and waterworks.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Engineer at Gibraltar, when acting as Engineer to the Sanitary Commissioners, was in 1886 removed from the latter office by the Governor, which decision was approved and confirmed by the then Secretary of State; and whether he will state the reasons given for removing him from such office?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In 1886 the then Governor of Gibraltar recommended the separation of the two offices referred to, and his recommendation was approved by the then Secretary of State. The reasons assigned by the Governor were that, in his opinion, the duties of the two offices were rather conflicting, and their combination led to inconvenience, and that he was not satisfied with the manner in which the duties of Engineer to the Sanitary Commissioners were performed by the Colonial Engineer. These reasons have been fully re-considered, and the Secretary of State has arrived at the present decision with the full concurrence of the present Governor, and in accordance with the recommendation of Major Tullock.
  MR. M'LAGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inform the House of the decision the Secretary of State arrived at, on the circumstances placed before him, with regard to the conduct of the official at present holding the post of Colonial Engineer at Gibraltar, which has on two occasions—1885 and 1890—been brought officially to the notice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: On the first of the two occasions referred to the Secretary of State, Lord Derby, arrived at the conclusion that a charge made against the officer in question, while acting in another capacity, had not been proved. On the second

  363
  occasion the Secretary of State directed him to be reproved for an act of irregularity, not connected with his office and not derogatory to his character.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is a fact that, after the Colonial Estimates (Gibraltar) for 1892 were published for general information, a Supplementary Estimate was prepared but not made public, by which, among other things, the salary of the Colonial Secretary was increased; and whether the community of Gibraltar, which contributes nearly £60,000 a year by local taxation, has any voice in the expenditure thereof?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The salary of the Colonial Secretary was increased by direction of the Secretary of State from 23,060 pesetas to 25,000 pesetas—roughly £65—when the Estimates for 1892 were sanctioned, as he considered it desirable that the remuneration of that officer should be placed on a level with that of other officials at Gibraltar whose duties were not of so responsible a character. The revenue of Gibraltar derived from taxation, other than port dues, which are paid by the shipping, amounts to between £14,000 and £15,000 a year, of which a considerable part is paid by the garrison. The hon. Member has probably included in the £60,000 port dues, rents of Crown property, postal revenue, and other items which cannot properly be classed as taxation. The public expenditure is under the direct control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is a fact that a Government employee, on full pay of the active list, is also employed by the Anglo-Egyptian Bank in Gibraltar as manager of its Gibraltar Branch; and whether the circumstance has been previously brought to the notice of the Colonial Office, and what was the decision of the Secretary of State thereon?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The circumstance referred to was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State. The gentleman alluded to undertook the joint managership of the Branch of
  364
  the Anglo-Egyptian Bank as an incident to the administration of a trust estate, and could not relieve himself of it without injury to those for whom he is trustee; and the Secretary of State, upon the strong recommendation of the Governor, decided in these circumstances to allow the arrangement to continue as a wholly exceptional case, by which the gentleman in question gives his services to the Bank after office hours.

  THE CORK AND AMERICAN MAILS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is proposed by his Department to take any further steps to promote the acceleration of the Cork and American mails viâ Cork?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As I have already stated, this matter will be re-considered along with other mail improvements which are desired in various parts of the country, and which were not provided for in the present Estimates because the expenses of the Department had already been largely increased.
  DR. TANNER: Is it a fact that it is only a matter of £3,000?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is only a matter of a few thousands in the present case, but this case is joined to others.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway has expended upwards of £100,000 at Queenstown in the endeavour to provide proper accommodation for the landing of the mails at the railway. Seeing this is a matter of the greatest importance to Ireland will the Government endeavour to take steps to relieve the deadlock?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot go further than I have done.

  THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY AND ST. PANCRAS.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Midland Railway Act (ch. xxxix.), 1889, which gives that Railway certain

  365
  powers to acquire land in the Borough of St. Pancras, subject to a provision inserted (on representations made by the Home Office) placing restrictions on the Company in regard to displacing persons of the labouring classes; whether he is aware that, whilst large numbers of the inhabitants of the district have been evicted from their dwellings under this Act, to their inconvenience and to the consequent loss of the trade of the locality affected, no steps have up to the present been taken to re-construct artizans' dwellings under Clause 31 of this Act; and if he will cause inquiry to be made into the subject?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Under the Midland Railway Act of 1889, to which the hon. Member refers, the Railway Company only acquired power in the parish of St. Pancras to take a portion of the churchyard, and the statements in the question are not relevant to proceedings under that Act in the parish of St. Pancras. By the Midland Railway Act of 1890 the Company did take powers to acquire houses in the parish of St. Pancras in the occupation of the labouring classes, but the Company have not cleared, or caused to be cleared, any of the houses referred to, and have done nothing, and will do nothing, in that direction pending the erection of artizans' dwellings. In accordance with the Act, the Company have for this purpose submitted a scheme which, after careful examination, I caused to be amended in certain particulars. Thus amended, the scheme has been submitted by the Company for my approval, and I have every hope that proceedings to give effect to it will be commenced at an early date. I am not aware of any circumstances calling for inquiry.
  MR. WEBSTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, from his reply, I understand rightly that all the clearances have been done by private individuals, and not by the Midland Railway Company?
  MR. MATTHEWS: That is exactly what I intended to convey.

  VOLUNTEERS AND HONORARY MEMBERSHIP OF CLUBS.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary
  366
  of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the notices issued to the Volunteers attending the Easter Manœuvres in Chatham last month, stating—
  "Volunteers in uniform will be made honorary members of the following Clubs during their visit on furnishing their names and rank to the respective Secretaries: Liberal Club, Castle Hill, Rochester; Conservative Club, Star Hill, Rochester; Workmen's Institute, Chatham; Reform Club, Military Road, Chatham";
  whether he is aware that large numbers of Volunteers entered the said Clubs, and were supplied with intoxicants, in many cases without giving any name or address; and whether the action of the said Clubs is a violation of the laws regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Even assuming the facts to be as stated in the question, I am unable to see that there has been any violation of the law in reference to the sale of intoxicating liquors.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Are these Clubs allowed to sell to anyone?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The question states, and I believe accurately, that Volunteers were made honorary members of the Clubs. That was undoubtedly a bonâ fide proceeding in this case. These honorary members are as much entitled to buy intoxicating liquors as are members of the Diplomatic Corps to buy a bottle of wine at the Athenæum.
  MR. WEBSTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there are a large number of quasi Clubs in London where the entrance fee is purely nominal, and where the members entering are practically elected by the hall porter? Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to these Clubs, and, in the interests of temperance, will he cause inquiry to be made?
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Did the right hon. Gentleman quite grasp the fact that these honorary members were admitted without their names being submitted as honorary members? and does he really mean to compare that with the action of the Athenæum or any other London Clubs?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly the Volunteers in the Clubs were in uniform. I do not think it is within the range

  367
  of practical possibility that a toper should provide himself with a uniform in order to get drink.
  MR. MORTON: Is it possible for persons to be made honorary members of a Club without their names being inscribed in the books in some way?
  MR. MATTHEWS: That is a question for the secretary of the Club.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is it possible for any of these small Clubs to make the whole British Army members?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I tried in my original answer to draw a distinction between a bonâ fide Club and nominal membership of bogus Clubs, such as those referred to by my hon. Friend behind me. The distinction is one of fact, and in some cases may not be very easy to draw, but in this case the Clubs were really within their right.
  MR. WEBSTER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of inquiry as to the number of bogus Clubs at present existing in London?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have at various times made inquiry not only in London, but in other parts of the country. If the hon. Member will supply me with a satisfactory definition of bogus Clubs, I shall be extremely grateful to him.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Would policemen in uniform be allowed to become honorary members?
  [No answer was given.]

  PENSIONS TO MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the seven-sixtieths hitherto added to the pensions allowed to medical officers has been withdrawn; and, if so, from what date such change would come into effect?
  *SIR J. GORST: In the case of all appointments made to professional offices in the Civil Service since 30th November, 1888, the Treasury Minutes entitling the holders to retired allowances above the rate of one-sixtieth of the salary for each complete year of service have been suspended; and if Parliament should take away the power to grant such special rates of pension, no
  368
  officer appointed since the date named will receive on retirement the benefit of additional years.

  JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.
  MR. HARRISON: I beg to ask the Attorney General what number of judgment summonses were heard before His Honour Judge Abdy at Waltham Abbey on Wednesday, 20th April, and what number of committals were made, and the reasons for each committal, and what time was occupied by the business; whether he is aware that a carpenter named Field was committed by the Judge for six weeks unless the whole of the debt, over £2, was paid in 14 days, although the evidence showed that Field had been out of work, and was still out of work at the time of hearing, and what evidence, if any, there was of means; whether his attention has also been drawn to the case of a debtor named Matthews, a machinist at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, who was committed for six weeks in default of paying two instalments on a judgment order amounting to £4, although he had paid £2 on such order, and during the month of March it was proved that Matthews' wages since such payment of £2 were £1, 15s., 16s., 6s., and an additional sum of 12s.; whether he is aware that Matthews' debt was for costs in a libel action, in which he had succeeded in getting a verdict of £100 and costs against the publisher of such libel, but had failed against the printer, and that Matthews had failed to get a farthing either of such damages or costs; and on what grounds such a heavy order was made against Matthews, and the reasons for his committal, or what evidence of means was given other than those stated?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am informed by the learned County Court Judge that on the occasion in question there were four judgment summonses for hearing, occupying about twenty minutes. In two of the cases the defendants bore the names mentioned in the hon. Member's question, and one of them had been previously heard by

  369
  the learned Judge, on which occasion both parties had been represented by professional advisers. In both the cases the learned Judge was satisfied by the evidence before him that the defendants had had, since the date of the judgments, means with which they might have satisfied the debts, but had neglected to do so.

  EXCHANGE OF CONSOLS FOR LAND STOCK.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the National Debt Commissioners have been authorised by the Treasury to give Consols in exchange for Land Stock to the extent of five millions; and, if so, when the exchange will be made?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Treasury have authorised the National Debt Commissioners to give Consols in exchange for Land Stock to the amount of five millions. The exchange will be made from time to time whenever Stock is presented. I regret to say, though nearly half a million of advances have been applied for under the Act of 1891, there is no immediate chance of Land Stock being required unless special machinery is provided for clearing away the arrears under the Ashbourne Act, which are still outstanding.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Land Stock is to be at the rate of 100 or 96 according to legal decision?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: IS it proposed to take any steps to bring up those arrears under the Ashbourne Act? I understand that there are cases as far back as 1887 which have not yet been settled?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) notice must be given, as I am not familiar with the legal point raised. With regard to the other question submitted by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. W. Russell), my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is engaged considering what steps can be taken to deal with this matter.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say at what rate the National Debt Commissioners will treat the Stock which an Irish Judge said is only worth 96?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The learned Judge would not say so to-day. To-day the price of Consols is 97, not 96. Whatever the price is, Stock for Stock is the basis on which exchange will take place. The arrangement is made perfectly clear by the Act.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Are we to understand, then, that for 100 only 96 or 97 are to be given?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: A nominal £100 of Consols will be given for a nominal £100 of Land Stock.

  THE COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has yet arranged to appoint the Committee to consider the question of Parliamentary reporting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Committee will be appointed in a day or two.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND CONVENTION.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Newfoundland, respecting the proposed Convention recently agreed to between the Governments of the United States and of Newfoundland?
  BARON H. DE WORMS (who replied): The Report will be issued as soon as possible.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: Arising out of that question, I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can inform me if the Convention between the Newfoundland Government and the United States has received the assent of Her Majesty's Government?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: That is a question for the Foreign Office.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: I give notice that I shall put the question down to-morrow.

  BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.
  MR. W. H. CROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Petitions have been presented under the Municipal Corporations Acts, 1859 and 1882, for the alteration of the number or boundaries of the wards of a borough; and, if so, whether he can state the names of the boroughs by which such Petitions have been presented?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think my hon. Friend will find the information he desires in the Index to the Statutory Rules and Orders in force in January, 1891.

  POLICE ON SIR GEORGE COLTHURST'S ESTATE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that the police, hitherto stationed in the old barracks on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, Baronet, in Ballyvourneg, County Cork, have been removed from thence to a new hut at Ballymakeery, outside the estate; and, if so, for what reason?
  *MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary authorities report that the change mentioned in the question has been rendered necessary owing to the barracks being damp and unhealthy. I understand there is no other house available.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the case that the police have been removed in consequence of being boycotted by Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty, of Millstreet, who refused to give them the right to take turf on the estate?
  *MR. JACKSON: I think the police are well able to take care of themselves.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that these policemen, who have been taking charge of the office of Mr. Hegarty, have repeatedly requested the Dublin Castle authorities to relieve them from such duties on account of the friction existing between them and Mr. Hegarty.
  [No answer was given.]

  CORK LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having considered the attitude assumed by the Governors of the Cork Lunatic Asylum against the Board of Control and against the decision given as regards visiting physicians, he purposes taking any steps to prevent further trouble in the interests of the Institution in question?
  *MR. JACKSON: The Board of Control report that every effort has been made to discharge the duties which are by law cast upon them without giving any reasonable cause for friction with the Governors of the Cork Asylum.
  DR. TANNER: Will any steps be taken?
  *MR. JACKSON: I think not.

  POLICEMEN AND THEIR VOTES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Regulations of the Metropolitan Police Force prohibit constables from recording their votes in Vestry or other elections while on duty; whether constables were punished recently for voting in a Vestry election at Walthamstow, although they were on duty in the immediate vicinity of the polling station, and were not therefore absent from their beat; and whether he will cause such an alteration of the Police Regulations as will allow all constables entitled to the franchise to exercise it without fear of punishment?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the question is in the negative. Circumstances might arise which would prevent constables recording their votes at the polling station at which they would be entitled to vote, but in such cases the constables have the benefit of the 2nd section of the Police Disability Removal Act of 1887. As there are no Police Regulations prohibiting constables from voting while on duty, and as no constable or constables have been punished for voting no action on my part is necessary.

  ENGLISH COLLEGE GRANTS.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to propose any additional grant this year to the English Colleges?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I regret that the margin of revenue over expenditure in the present year does not permit me to propose any addition to the grant for the English Colleges. I hope, however, that another year it may be possible to make an addition to the grants.
  MR. JOSEPH BOLTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an equivalent increase will be made to the Scotch Colleges?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think that the footing of the Scotch Colleges is analogous to that of the English.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask whether the ordinary business of the House will be suspended to-night at eleven o'clock in order to afford an opportunity for the discussion of the various Motions with regard to the Scotch University Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am not aware that there has been any change since my last answer to a question on this subject. What I said was that I quite recognised the desirability of, if possible, commencing the discussion at an earlier hour than twelve, but I could not promise to do so unless we made good progress with the Small Holdings Bill. If we do that, I shall be prepared to move the adjournment of the Committee soon after eleven o'clock. But the hon. Gentleman will see that the Government have only power over the Government Orders of the Day; and that, unless there be an understanding that the forty odd Bills down in the names of private Members should not be taken, there will be an almost insuperable difficulty in the way.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There might have been a notice of Motion on the Paper to the effect that the subject of these Ordinances be taken after the first Order of the Day, because it is absurd to suppose
  374
  that we can run the gauntlet of 66 Orders of the Day with any prospect of getting to the discussion of the Scotch Universities question after twelve o'clock. I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he could not now make some other arrangement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If good progress is made with the Small Holdings Bill I should be willing to stop that Bill on an Evening Sitting in order that the Scotch Universities question may be discussed. That, however, seems a course hardly practicable to-night. But perhaps hon. Members would prefer a brief discussion at the Morning Sitting to-morrow, and in that case we might adjourn consideration of the Small Holdings Bill at twenty to six o'clock. There would, in that case, be a discussion of at least an hour.
  MR. J. MORLEY: On this subject I would suggest that it is possible, with the consent of the House, to now make a Motion postponing other Orders in favour of this. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me whether I am in order?
  MR. SPEAKER: If it is the general wish of the House the First Lord of the Treasury can doubtless make such a Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, with the consent of the House, I shall be glad to move—
  "That the several Notices of Motion relating to the Scottish Universities Commission Ordinances have precedence this day of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion subsequent to the first Order of the Day."
  Motion agreed to.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Do we understand that the arrangement holds good that as soon as the Small Holdings Bill is through Committee the Irish Local Government Bill will be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the view of the Government. The only conceivable doubt is with reference to the Budget proposals, which have been postponed partly because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) was not able to be in his place, and partly because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) could not make it convenient to be present at the beginning

  375
  of this week. With that exception the Order will stand as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Irish Education Bill will follow the Irish Local Government Bill?
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I should like to ask whether Supply will be taken this Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I hope so. As to the Education Bill, I can give no answer respecting that until we see how we are getting on with the Bills I have already mentioned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.—(No. 183.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 11 th April.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  *MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to propose the following Amendment:—
  In page 1, after line 13, insert—"And the Local Government Board may, by a Provisional Order, authorise a County Council to take compulsorily any land referred to in such Order for any term not exceeding 99 years, at a rent and subject to terms and conditions to be determined in case of difference by arbitration in the manner prescribed for determining a question of disputed compensation by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same, which shall apply as if such compulsory taking for a term of years were a purchase of land otherwise than by agreement."
  I do not propose to detain the House by making a long addition to what I had an opportunity of saying the other night. I desire now to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment is not new. It has already been adopted in the Crofters Act and in an Irish Act passed in 1875 by a Conservative Government. Sir, we hear now a good deal about equal laws for England, Ireland, and Scotland. Weil, I claim the same advantages for the agricultural classes of this country as are enjoyed by the Irish and the Scotch. Looking back to the Debate on the Allotments
  376
  Act, when I moved a similar Amendment to this, I find the chief objection taken to it was that it would be an injustice to the landlord. I differ entirely from that view. Instead of doing injustice to landlords, I believe that this Amendment would be welcomed by them. I admit at once that an injustice might be done to the landlord if it was proposed by compulsion to take a piece out of the centre of his estate, thereby, perhaps, ruining the amenities of that estate and reducing its value in the market. But, Sir, this Amendment proposes to do nothing of the kind. It simply proposes that the landlord shall do what in his pecuniary interest he is bound to do. He is bound to let his estate to someone, and this Amendment proposes that he shall let it to a good tenant—namely, the County Council, for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this Act. Well, Sir, the landlord can, by letting his estate to the County Council, introduce into the covenants provisions which may protect his rights; and I think, therefore, it is idle to object to such a very reasonable proposition as this on the ground that it would do any injustice to him. In my Amendment I propose that the maximum term shall be 99 years, but I am perfectly willing to give way on that point, and agree to reduce the maximum term to 40 or 50 years. There is no limitation in my Amendment to the ground to be taken, but I am ready to consent to any such limitation. My sole object is to make the Bill, if possible, of some use. The President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin), when he introduced this Bill, said it was a tentative measure. Surely, if that is the case, it would be better to try an experiment in a limited way by taking land on lease in the first instance; and, if that succeeds, then will be the time to introduce compulsory powers for the purchase of land outright. I believe, if the Government will only agree to this Amendment, this Bill may be of some practical use, instead of, as I consider it in its present condition, mere waste paper.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, after the word "holdings," to insert the words—"And the Local Government Board may, by a Provisional Order, authorise a County Council to take compulsorily

  377
  any land referred to in such Order for any term not exceeding ninety-nine years, at a rent and subject to terms and conditions to be determined in case of difference by arbitration in the manner prescribed for determining a question of disputed compensation by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same which shall apply as if such compulsory taking for a term of years were a purchase of land otherwise than by agreement."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Probably the hon. Member is aware that the Committee has already discussed the question of compulsory purchase, and has negatived the proposal. There is no need, therefore, to examine that subject again in detail. I cannot see that the Crofters Act and the Irish Act, to which the hon. Member has referred, afford any precedent whatever in support of this Amendment, which is one the Government are unable to agree to. It is obvious that its effect would be to place the landlord at a great disadvantage if he should desire to realise his property.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I hope the Committee will not refuse to accept the present proposal. It is of less magnitude than the previous one, and can be carried out without serious inconvenience to the owners of land generally. If it were proposed to give the County Councils power to purchase land compulsorily, it might be argued that they would render themselves liable for future contingencies for which future generations might refuse to be held accountable; but in a proposal of this kind, limited for 99 years, or for 40 or 50 years if the Committee wishes, the argument does not apply to the same extent. I do not see how the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman would meet those cases in which land in different parishes is in the hands of one man, who is either unwilling or unable to sell in spite of Lord Cairns' Act, or of any Act of a similar kind. There may be a difficulty in the case of such an owner, either in regard to his family or on account of his trustees, which might render it impossible for him to
  378
  sell his land to the County Council. In such a case I think the landlord would welcome a provision of the kind now proposed.
  *COLONEL EYRE: I object to any proposal which directly or indirectly introduces the principle of compulsion. Hon. Members might, by referring to a book in the library of the House, see that out of 1,100,000 owners of land in England there are 850,000 persons holding less than one acre, and if they still further investigated the Return in question they would find that, in Lincolnshire—where I have the honour to represent a Division—there are no less than 30,000 holders of land, 15,000 holding from one to ten acres, and 10,000 holding from ten to fifty acres; and in one ringed fence in part of the Division out of 50,000 acres there is only one estate of 3,000 acres, the remaining 47,000 acres being in the hands of small owners and occupiers, men who, without the assistance of the State, have been enabled to purchase their own small holdings. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the result in my Division of the attempt to introduce the idea of compulsion has been to consolidate the votes in my interest, and I can safely say that the same feeling is spreading throughout the county of Lincolnshire, the reason being that the introduction of the principle of compulsion creates a feeling of insecurity. It was only the other day that an hon. Member who represents a Division of Northampton narrated to me the following incident: At one of his meetings a man suggested that a certain field was wanted for the agricultural labourers, and that it should be taken by compulsion. The owner who was present jumped up and said, "I brought up a family on this field, which I purchased myself, and I do not see what right any one has to turn me out of it." Well, what affects the small owner affects the large owner. In one town in my Division, representing 5,000 acres, there are no less than 260 owners and occupiers, of whom 160 are owners, and the average ownership, or "take," is something like 30 to 40 acres of land. If the principle of compulsion were inserted in this Bill, any man from any part of the world could

  379
  come and take up a lodging in tha town or village and claim that these small holders should have their land taken from them. But, Mr. Courtney, there is another point which seems to me of importance. Will not the security of investments in land be affected if it is known that the County Council may take any portion of land over any part of the estate without consulting the mortgagee? Who are these mortgagees? Rich as well as poor men. Take the first class. Nearly 50 per cent. of the securities of the Life Assurance Companies is in mortgages on land, directly or indirectly through Land Improvement Companies Let us go a step further, and take the Friendly Societies, and in particular the Manchester Order of Odd-fellows, with a capital of £7,500,000. More than half of that amount, which is the hard-earned savings of the working classes, is invested as mortgages on land. There are also schools, hospitals, charities, and trust money, all of which are affected by the security or insecurity of land. If their land is to be taken compulsorily, and the value of it thereby diminished, I scarcely think that the working classes throughout the country, who are members of those societies, will appreciate the efforts of hon. Members opposite. I merely mention these facts, because I consider them to be of considerable importance in the discussion of this matter; and I know, at the same time, from letters I have received, that I am speaking in the interest of a large number of small holders in my Division.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think the hon. Member need not be alarmed at the prospect of small holdings being taken for the purpose of creating small holdings. In that part of Lincolnshire represented by the hon. Member (Colonel Eyre) there are a large number of small holdings. But that is an exceptional case.
  COLONEL EYRE: Small holdings exist all over England.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I contend that the state of things in the Division represented by my hon. Friend is exceptional, and that in a great portion of England large ownership of land is the rule. In a great number of dis-
  380
  tricts it is totally impossible for small owners to obtain land by purchase. My own belief is that in nearly half the rural parishes of England the land in each parish belongs substantially to a single owner. That is the conclusion I have arrived at after careful consideration, and it is in these cases that the Bill will operate to the best advantage, and it will be precisely in these cases where there will be the greatest difficulty in getting land for the purposes of this Bill. Now, the House has refused to give compulsory power to purchase in fee, which I should have much preferred to the present proposal. We have therefore to fall back on something less than that, and I think it would be better that there should be included in the Bill power to take land for 99 years than that there should be no compulsion at all, and for that reason I shall support the hon. Member's proposal.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment (Mr. Seale-Hayne), in introducing his remarks, stated that in the absence of the present Amendment the Bill would be nothing more than waste paper. My opinion is that, whatever may be the value of the Bill as it stands, this Amendment is worse than useless. The compulsory leasing of land will destroy the whole character of the Bill and make it inoperative, and, indeed, make it so unpopular with the ratepayers on account of the risks involved that it would be practically a dead letter. Suppose this Amendment were adopted, what would it mean? In the first place, there must be a valuation and the law costs therein involved; and then the Local Authority, which represents the ratepayers, would obtain possession of the land, with all the costs of compulsory acquisition, for a term of fifty, sixty, or, it may be, ninety-nine years. The result would be that a Local Authority might become responsible for large tracts of land—that is, for the payments under the lease, and at the same time have no security that the rents would be paid, or, indeed, that the land would not be thrown on their hands. Then, again, with respect to buildings, the proposal would put an end to all possibility of the small holder

  381
  having any buildings on his land, for, of course, the Local Authority, under a forty or fifty years' lease, cannot put up the buildings, knowing that at the end of the lease they would simply go into the hands of the landlord, and the tenant will not put up buildings for the same reason. In fact, what is being advocated now has all the evils of the leasehold system, which I thought was regarded with feelings of aversion by hon. Members on this side of the House. But another difficulty presents itself. Suppose the Local Authority acquires five hundred acres on lease, the land will have to be adapted to the small tenants; there will have to be a water supply, and various other expenses will necessarily be incurred. What will happen at the end of the forty or fifty years, when the lease expires? Will the landlord require that the land shall be put back in the same condition as it was when he leased it, or will the Local Authority simply have to lose all outlay made upon the land, and the tenant have to sacrifice his proportion in the way of what he he has put into the land? I venture to say, in view of the expense that would be involved in acquiring land under this clause, and looking at the insecurity in the matter of compensation for improvements, and looking at the other drawbacks, that the clause would be a dead letter, and no Local Authority would be permitted by the ratepayers to involve itself in the enormous liability to loss this leasehold system would involve. The principle of this Bill is to create occupying owners of the land, and I hope the Government will stick to this principle. On the other hand, there is an attempt to turn this into a Bill for creating small tenants, and I hope the Government will not make this their leading idea, but will resist the Amendment, which I regard as most damaging to; the main intention of the Bill.
  MR. R. T. REID: I agree with the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) in thinking that the leasehold system is a very unfortunate one, and I think it would be a deplorable thing if that system were introduced into agricultural holdings. But the Amendment now before the House has been proposed
  382
  only to facilitate the letting of land on lease because we are unable to get facilities for taking the land in fee, and my hon. Friend's objections are valid to a certain extent, but only to a certain extent. The defect does not lie in the object of the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Seale-Hayne), but in the unfortunate obstinacy of the Government, who refuse to give facilities for the compulsory acquisition of the freehold of the land. But I do not think this Amendment can be set aside, for that reason, and I shall vote for it. The hon. Member for Bordesley says that the task will be thrown upon the Local Authority of ascertaining the value of the fee simple; but the same task would be thrown upon the Local Authority if they were to buy the fee simple. Then he says that buildings will not be erected on the land under the leasehold system by the tenants. Buildings are now erected under the leasehold system of 99 years, and even a shorter term. It is deplorable, no doubt, that the tenants cannot get better tenure; but they are obliged to content themselves with the best they can get. The main justification of this Amendment is that in the course of a very few years this Bill will be made of value by having inserted the compulsory clauses which are now omitted. And whether that is done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian or the Member for West Birmingham, whichever it may be that will dictate the course of policy in the near future—for I believe they are both agreed on the principle of compulsion—it is desirable that, in the interval between the present time and the insertion of these compulsory powers, we should have the power of leasing land, and the leaseholders will then very easily be turned into freeholders.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: This Amendment raises two questions of the highest importance, but it raises them in a most inconvenient way. The two questions are whether there shall be compulsion in the application of the provisions of this Bill, and whether there should be leasing as well as, or instead of, the creation of absolute ownership. As regards the principle of compulsion, it appears to me that the House has

  383
  already decided that question, because all of us agree that if compulsion is to be employed at all, it would be much better to employ it in creating ownerships than in creating leasehold tenancies. And, as the House has decided against compulsion in the former case à fortiori, it will so decide in this instance, and, in my opinion, will rightly decide. I would say to my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Reid), who anticipates, as I think I am a little inclined to do myself, that in the course of a few years the objections to compulsion will die away, and that some form of compulsion will be introduced, that his argument will not be answered by introducing now the inferior form of compulsion for leases. I am well aware that the former proposal was for the introduction of compulsion for the very important purpose of creating freeholds, and what this Amendment does is to raise the question in another form; but, having settled once the issue of compulsion, I think the majority of the House will have no doubt as to what course it ought to take. But I am very sorry that the Amendment is not moved in a form in which the House might have come to a decision upon it, as undoubtedly it contains another point quite separate and apart from compulsion, which is of the very greatest importance—namely, whether, as I have said, small holdings are to be created in the shape of tenancies as well as in the shape of ownerships. I must say it appears to me that there is a good deal of confusion on this point amongst hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian is not here.
  A right hon. GENTLEMAN: He will be here.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad of that, because the other night when he was speaking on the subject of compulsion he also spoke of leases, and he appealed to me saying he thought I might agree with him on that subject. I said I did not think I agreed with him at all; but I have come to the conclusion since, partly from having had a number of conversations with him, either that he did
  384
  not explain very clearly what he meant, or that I was not intelligent enough to understand it. I now understand that what my right hon. Friend wishes is to introduce into this Bill, in addition to the provisions that are already there, provisions for enabling the Local Authority after it has obtained possession of the land to be let on perpetual feu. All I can say is that to that principle I should give my adherence.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman himself has said this discussion is raised in a most inconvenient form. The question is the acquisition of land by the County Council, and not what is to be done by the County Council in respect of the land which has been obtained. The discussion on that point will arise on Clause 3. It will be well that this discussion should keep to the point at issue.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I did not raise this discussion.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I agree, Mr. Courtney, as to the inconvenience; but I must point out how I think my remarks are in order and arise naturally out of the Amendment in its present form. It declares that the County Council shall have power to obtain land on lease for 99 years, or on periods of less than 99 years; consequently it is perfectly evident that, having obtained the land only on lease, it must let it on lease, and cannot sell it. If no shorter term than 99 years were mentioned it would be impossible for the County Council to sell to the small holders. Consequently, the whole question of leasing arises on this Amendment. I was saying that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was for compulsory feu, and that, I need; not say, is not a question which arises on this Amendment, because this must be restricted to leasing and letting for a less term than 99 years. But there is another point on which we are in some doubt, and that is what amount of land is to be so leased. Does the hon. Member mean that the terms of his Amendment shall apply to all holdings between one acre and fifty acres, this being the general limit of the Bill? If he intends only to apply this to small

  385
  quantities of less than fifty acres, then I think the Bill already goes a long way to meet him, because it provides that the County Council shall have power to lease land up to ten acres. Therefore the only point between us would be whether that power should be extended up to fifty acres. That is the point that is raised by the Amendment. Is it desirable in this Bill to give power to the County Authorities to lease land in any quantity up to fifty acres, either on annual tenancies or on any term up to 99 years? This is a subject which was carefully considered by the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman himself was a member, and, unless I am very much mistaken, he voted in a sense which I should say was inconsistent with his present Amendment. The Committee came to the conclusion that if any Bill were to be brought in with these large provisions for creating small tenancies, one great object of the whole of this legislation would be entirely lost sight of—namely, the creation of a peasant proprietary. And, unless you get that, you lose entirely that sentimental feeling of possession which induces a man to put more work and more money into the land which is actually his own than he will into land which is not actually his own, which never will be his own, and which he only leases for a term of years. I would urge upon the House the importance of that consideration in this matter. You cannot let the land to these small holders at a price as low as the landlord can let it now, because if the landlord is willing to let at all, he is willing to let at two per cent. on his outlay; but if you are going to buy the land and then borrow money at 3 or 3½ per cent., and incur the various responsibilities which necessarily follow, you will have to let at a rate equivalent to 4 per cent. The only inducement to the small holder is that under this Bill he will be the actual owner of his land, and as the owner he can afford to put much more labour and energy into the land than he could afford to do if he were paying 4 per cent., and can make it pay much better. All that you might get in the shape of small ownerships you will lose entirely if you adopt a plan of small tenants. Another thing which was touched upon by my hon. Friend
  386
  behind me (Mr. Jesse Collings) is the enormous increase of risk to the ratepayers if you substitute tenanncies of this kind for ownerships. Is it not perfectly certain that there will be fluctuations in seasons and prices, and periodically times will be bad? How is a popularly representative Local Authority to resist the pressure that will be brought to bear on it under these circumstances for a reduction of the rent? At such times the landlords will be reducing their rents; at times of pressure they invariably do reduce their rents, and if they are not compelled to do so they do so voluntarily. The Local Authority will be under compulsion to reduce the rents, and the example of the contiguous landlords will be brought to bear upon them to enforce the argument for reduction. Under these circumstances, and as a Local Authority will never be able to raise the rents, it is absolutely impossible that a transaction of this kind can be carried on without loss to the ratepayers. Perhaps you may be willing to face this; but the moment it becomes evident to Local Authorities that they cannot carry out the Bill without a loss of this kind, from that time they will cease to carry it out at all, and unless you are going to compel the Local Authorities to buy land, no Local Authority in the Kingdom will undertake any transactions under this Bill. Then we must look at the important question of improvements. If you make a small tenant the owner of the land, you get rid at once of all those complicated questions of tenants' improvements which must arise if he is to become a temporary occupier only. Although this House has been trying for a great number of years to arrange for some satisfactory scheme of compensation for improvements, I believe by common consent, it has failed, and I believe it always will fail. There is no satisfactory compensation for improvements possible, except the increased value a man may obtain on the sale of the land if he is himself the owner. That is another source of difficulty you are putting in the way of the creation of small holdings if you adopt a system of tenancies instead of ownerships. Then the question of buildings was referred to. I do not lay much stress

  387
  upon that; but, at the same time I believe that where a man is the absolute owner of the land, and has no landlord to consult, there is a probability that he will put up buildings, which, although they will not be as good as the landlord's, will be sufficient for the purpose of the tenant, and from time to time they will be improved; and, unless you leave the responsibility of providing these buildings to the tenant, the expense to the Local Authority of providing them will so enormously increase the risk, that there, again, you will almost make it prohibitory. The Amendment proposes that the Local Authority should have power to lease for any term less the 99 years, and my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Reid) said there were numberless cases in which persons had put up buildings on land which was held for 99 years. But that is assuming that the maximum term will always be the minimum term.
  MR. R. T. REID: I have known buildings put up on much less than 99 years' lease.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have known cases of forty years, and one case of 21 years, but I think that is an uncommon state of things. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree with me, that if the lease is to be for a short term, say 21 years, there would be much more difficulty in the way of the tenant putting up the necessary buildings than if he were the absolute owner. I put before the Committee the objections which struck me as insuperable to the ideas contained in the Amendment. A great number of these objections, probably all of them, would not apply to such a proposal as I understand might be made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. A proposal for a perpetual feu is, of course, a proposal for what is equivalent to a perpetual freehold. There are some advantages in favour of such a system, but I will not discuss them now. I see, also, some disadvantages, and I want to call the attention of hon. Members on this side of the House to the fact that it is not upon that we are voting now. If we must vote against this Amendment, we can vote against it without committing ourselves in any way to a general objec-
  388
  tion to the principle of a perpetual quit rent or feu; and we naturally object to the proposal in the Amendment, which, in its present form, will be absolutely unworkable.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I hope the Member for Devon (Mr. Seale-Hayne) will go to a Division, for now we have heard the Members for Bordesley and West Birmingham we understand what we are going to vote about. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the question of what is to be done with the land when it has been obtained; first, because I prefer to follow your ruling, Mr. Courtney, and not his; and, secondly, because I believe it will be very much more convenient to deal with that subject under Clause 3. This Amendment aims solely at giving Local Authorities another means of obtaining land necessarily only for letting purposes. The hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) said that he looked upon this Bill mainly and chiefly as an ownership Bill. We do not. Hon. Members who are going to vote against this Amendment regard this as a Bill mainly for the purpose of creating a yeoman farmer class. We look upon it, if it is to be of any value at all, chiefly as a means for allowing the Local Authorities to obtain land for the labourers, and this is a question we shall hear more about. The labourer does not generally want to buy the land. He cannot do it; he has not got the money to do it. He has told you so at your Congresses over and over again. If there are a few who are able to do it, by all manner of means let them become yeomen farmers. I know the agricultural labourers of the West Country, and they are not able to buy; but many of them are anxious to acquire land as tenants at a fair price and a fair tenure, and to put their little capital and their little savings into the land. The Member for Bordesley has stated the great difference of view between us quite accurately and fairly; and I am going into the opposite Lobby to him because I believe the labourers want to be tenants and not owners. This Amendment merely proposes an extra alternative. You do not prevent a County Council from buying land

  389
  from a willing landlord; but there are many landlords in England who are unable or unwilling to sell their land because of the tenure, or because of the conditions of ownership, who may be perfectly willing to let land to the County Council on lease for 50 years, and they may be willing to insert clauses to give fair compensation for improvements, which, of course, if they are honest men, they ought to be anxious enough to do. The Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) spoke about the difficulties of estimating this compensation. That is, no doubt, a very vital question, but I do not think it arises on this clause. I could tell this House, if I were in order, of land sold last week in the Eastern Division of Gloucestershire, where the rent has been run up from £3 to £10 per acre, and is now sold by auction over the heads of the tenants, who have no claim for compensation or prolonged possession. If this Bill leaves the House without some better security for compensation than is suggested by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, there will be very little encouragement for these poor labourers to put their hearts into the land. I also differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that people can get land in the open market from willing landlords at a rental based upon a 2 per cent. profit on the landlord's capital. If that is what prevails in the neighbourhood of Birmingham I am very glad to hear it. I am well aware that many large farms are let, in certain districts, at an equivalent to 2 or 2½ per cent.; but I am aware of no district where landlords, however benevolent and well-disposed, are willing to let land in small lots to labourers at two per cent. on its value. I think it will be much better, therefore, for the County Councils to get this land, in many districts at prices which will give the landlords three per cent., on long leases, and the labourers will only be too glad to pay four per cent. to the County Council. This would avoid all risk to the ratepayers, and create a sinking fund, if you like, for the possible ultimate purchase of the land. We vote for this Amendment because it gives an extra alternative to the Local
  390
  Authority for acquiring land for letting in small portions, and we vote against the view of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) that this is a Bill for creating yeoman farmers and owners only.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I feel very much, in conformity with what has dropped from the Chair, as to there being an inconvenience in discussing together two questions which are quite distinct, and each of which deals with a subject of sufficient magnitude to deserve separate attention. At the same time, after the remarks of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), I admit, when it is proposed to give a certain power to the Local Authorities to acquire land upon leases not exceeding 99 years, we cannot avoid in some degree taking into consideration the question whether, when they have got that land they can find useful employment for it? Now, Sir, my position is this. The Mover of this Amendment, I should think, in the abstract, is not at all satisfied with his own Amendment; that is to say, he is not satisfied with the limited sphere in which he, and I, and all of us are obliged to act. We wish to give powers under which the Local Authority would be able to make much more efficient arrangements; but being cribbed, cabined, and confined as we are, we are bound to make the best of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has made a concession, and an important concession, in promising when we reach the proper portion of the Bill to introduce the principle of renting land. That I admit to be a concession which we ought to welcome, and therefore the question I have to ask myself is, not whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend does all that can be desired. There I agree with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that the arrangements that can be made under this Bill by the Local Authority would be very imperfect arrangements, but still they will be worth having, and I am so convinced that my hon. Friend is right about the unpreparedness of the labourers to pay down capital sums as a general rule,

  391
  that every alternative to that is to me welcome even within the narrowest limits. I will take leave to make one comment by way of criticism on the remarks of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and that is this. He said that the labourer has no general anxiety to become a proprietor, he wants to get the use of the land, but not as a proprietor, evidently because, in my hon. Friend's view, that becoming proprietor involves paying down a capital sum which he has not got in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of one thousand. Yes; but there is one form in which, if we were in a position to give it, he would be glad to become a virtual proprietor, that is under the form of freeing the land, but that is out of our power. We look to this Bill as an interim Bill, and we accept it in the hope of enlargement and improvement in the future. But, undoubtedly, when I consider the difficulties in the way of bringing the farm labourer into contact with the land, into a use of the land for his own profit—which is the object we all have in view—I do accept every method which opens to him a door, even though it be a wicket door, and as, undoubtedly, I think endowing the County Council, with besides the option of buying the land the option of leasing it, does enlarge the limited sphere in which we are permitted to act under the provisions of this Bill, and endeavouring to look at the question simply and solely from a practical point of view, that the Amendment of my hon. Friend will make the Bill a better Bill than it is without it, I shall undoubtedly be disposed to accept it in the same spirit in which it is proposed.
  MR. BARCLAY: I hope the Committee will not introduce the leasing principle into the Bill, my objection to it being that the labourer will not bestow on land, belonging to somebody else, the same amount of labour which he would if he were the owner. There is another great objection which I have—namely, that it would lead to the compulsory purchase of the land at excessive prices, and in addition there is the practical objection that when you carry out these transactions it is of the greatest importance that all the parties should
  392
  know what they are doing. The County Council should know what price they are going to pay for land, and the labourer should have some idea of the price he may expect, to get it at. Under this system of compulsory purchase they will not know. The Council will have to serve notice on the landlords, and from the date of that notice the land belongs to the County Council, the price having afterwards to be determined. The County Council may find when that price is fixed that it is one which will prevent them letting the land at a price the labourers will pay, and the land will be left on their hands. If the County Council acts under the compulsory terms they will be saddled with land which they can only deal with at a loss. For these reasons I object to the leasehold system and compulsory purchase.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: The argument of the President of the Board of Agriculture amounts to this: that the landlord injures his estate by granting a lease. Every landlord in the country grants leases, why should he not grant one to the County Council? I cannot understand the position of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) with regard to the Amendment. I proposed an Amendment on the Allotments Bill in almost the same words, and he supported it with his vote. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham appeared to get completely mixed up in his argument, for he talked about the County Council getting land and letting land as if these were the same question. The Amendment deals with the question of the County Council taking land on lease, and not with that of letting land. I hope, after this discussion, I shall get the support of hon. Members opposite who are perfectly well acquainted with the wants of the agricultural labourer, and know that what he wants is to rent land at a fair agricultural value.
  MAJOR RASCH: I desire to support the Amendment. I know that in the county with which I am best acquainted—Essex—compulsion is not needed, as land is going out of cultivation. But I cannot understand why, having digested the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts and the compulsory clauses of the Allotments

  393
  Acts, and in view of the possible expropriation of the land by Railway Companies, hon. Members on this side should refuse to swallow the mild compulsion of the Amendment.
  MR. HALDANE: I was surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), because I have among my papers a representation from his constituency pointing out that this question of leasing is to them the most important thing which could be put in the Bill. His constituents think that the County Council of their county will not be induced to embark on a large transaction of purchase out and out. They think that the Council should be empowered to take such land as is wanted on short leases, and to re-let it in small holdings. In Forfarshire there are probably more small farms—from 50 to 100 acres—than in any other county in Scotland, and they are held under this very tenure which the hon. Member rises up to condemn. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) put one or two cases which seemed of a formidable nature, and it is true that the system of ownership is preferable. But in many cases these small tenants cannot purchase out and out, as they have not the quarter of the purchase money required; but if the County Council has power to take land on lease these tenants can come in and take a small holding on lease. It seems to me that is a useful form of transaction, and one which we ought to provide as an alternative. I have also received re presentations from my own county, from the class likely to be most intimately concerned in the matter, to the effect that they believe the leasehold system will be the one most readily available, and I, therefore, wish to take this opportunity of expressing my opinion on the question.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I only came into the House while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was speaking, and if the Division had been at once taken I should have been inclined to vote with him; but I agree, on an examination of the clause under discussion, and the Amendment, that the right hon. Gentleman got rather mixed
  394
  in his arguments. They were sound on the point to which they were directed, and I thought from them that the point he was combating was that of allowing tenants under the County Council to let their holdings to others; that would be a most objectionable proposal. But I find that the proposal is really for the County Council to take land compulsorily on leases not exceeding 99 years. I agree in the desirability of this proposal to give further scope to the Bill, but, in my opinion, the Amendment does not go far enough; why should they be limited to leases not exceeding 99 years? Why should they not be empowered to take land for 999 years or on perpetual leases? If that were done, I do not see how the difficulties referred to by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) as to buildings, improvements, and so on, would apply at all. Although in my view this is a rubbishy measure, and hardly worth our attention at all, so limited is its scope and so little good is it likely to be to those it is desired to help, I am anxious, by supporting an Amendment of this kind, to enlarge the scope as much as possible, and so make the Bill a little more useful. The hon. Member for Essex (Major Rasch) seemed to think that hon. Gentlemen on his side would object to the Amendment because of the compulsion in it. I agree with him that as compulsion has been recognised in so many other Acts it is rather straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel for hon. Members on either side to object to the compulsion in the Amendment. The principal point, however, is rather that of enabling the County Council to take land on lease. If there is no risk in the County Council going into the market and becoming speculators in land, there can be no more risk in them leasing it for a term of years.
  SIR J. KINLOCH: If the Bill is going to be any use in Scotland, it is important that leasing power should be given to the County Council.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The point to which the hon. Baronet is referring will be dealt with in a later portion of the Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 229.—(Div. List, No. 110.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Merionethshire is outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore it cannot be put, being out of Order.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: May I ask, on the point of Order, whether, during the passing of the Allotments Act, in which, so far as I recollect, no instruction was added, an Amendment similar to this, and almost identical in its words, was accepted in the course of the Debate on the Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not remember anything about that case. This Amendment is quite outside the scope of the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): As regards the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member in reference to the Allotments Bill, so far as my recollection goes the provision was originally in the Bill.
  SIR W. FOSTER: On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Channing) I beg to move in page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "agriculture," and insert—
  "Agricultural or pastoral holdings or for market or allotment gardens."
  The object of this Amendment is to bring in a number of pastoral holdings, which otherwise would be excluded from the operation of the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "agriculture," and insert the words "agricultural or pastoral holdings or for market or allotment gardens."—(Sir W. Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'agriculture' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member will find by referring to the Bill that pastoral holdings are already included within its provisions. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 runs thus:—
  "The expression 'small holding,' for the purposes of this Act shall mean land which appears to the Council to be suitable for agriculture, and exceeds one acre, and either does not exceed 50 acres, or if exceeding 50 acres, is of an annual value, for the purposes of the Income Tax, not exceeding £50."
  396
  Then, if the hon. Member turns to the definitions in Clause 13, he will find this:—
  "The expressions 'agriculture' and 'cultivation' shall include horticulture, and the use of land for any purpose of husbandry, inclusive of the keeping or breeding of live stock, poultry, or bees, and the growth of fruit, vegetables, and the like."
  I think it is, therefore, clear that the Bill already carries out what the hon. Member desires.
  SIR W. FOSTER: After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "and exceeds one acre." This Amendment would be rendered unnecessary if the provisions of the Allotments Act were extended to Scotland. I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are willing to extend the Allotments Act to Scotland? Hon. Members representing English constituencies will understand the effect of this Amendment is only necessary for Scotland. We have no Allotments Act, and, therefore, we have no means of obtaining so small a portion of land as under one acre. If Her Majesty's Government intend to extend the Allotments Act to Scotland, I should not press this Amendment to the Bill; but it is of the utmost importance to Scotland that power should be given to the County Councils to obtain land in smaller portions than one acre. I have before me the case of fishermen in large districts of Scotland. They do not require an acre of land, and still they want an allotment in connection with their cottages. I have also before me the case of a large number of agricultural labourers, who require land to build their houses upon, and very often require a bit of land for a garden, but who do not require what we call a "small croft" of two or three acres. I do not think that the excision of these words would do any harm as regards the application of the Bill to England. But I should like, before discussing the Amendment further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture whether Her Majesty's

  397
  Government intend during this Session to extend the Allotments Act to Scotland? If not, I think the Scotch Members will agree with me that the striking out of these words would, to a large extent, meet our difficulties in Scotland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "and exceeds one acre."—(Mr. Esslemont.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIE: My recollection in connection with the Allotments Act is that there was no serious desire expressed by the Scotch Members to extend the provisions of that Bill to Scotland. As regards obtaining small pieces of land for the purpose of building houses, we did not consider that a provision of this kind should be introduced into the Allotments Act. There were undoubtedly sympathetic views expressed by the Government as regards the extension of the Allotments Act to Scotland. There is no objection whatever on the part of the Government, I am sure, to extend the principle of the Allotments Act to Scotland. We would be very glad if we were in a position to do so; but I am afraid I would only be deceiving the House if I gave any assurance that we could by any possibility do it during the present Session. My right hon. Friend would be unable under any circumstances to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid, judging from the attitude assumed by the Scotch Members during the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, when it was proposed to extend to Scotland the benefit of the provisions with regard to allotments already accorded to England, it would not be possible to pass a Bill extending the Allotments Act to Scotland this Session.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I have no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman in so far as he has stated what has taken place in this House. But I may say that I was distinctly given to understand by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that if the Scotch Members expressed
  398
  a desire to have the Allotments Act extended to Scotland, Her Majesty's Government was willing to do so during the present Session. I only want the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further with regard to this matter. We have expressed repeatedly a desire to have this Act extended to Scotland, and the Scotch Members have from time to time been diverted by promises which have never been fulfilled. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I have repeatedly by question brought this matter forward. So far as I think will be essential, I am supported by very many hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies in Scotland as to the desirability of dealing with small allotments for the purposes I have mentioned. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government can be in no doubt as to the desire of the Scotch Members on this matter. I hope, therefore, the Scotch Members will have an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon this Amendment, unless Her Majesty's Government goes a good deal further than it has gone on this occasion. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has returned to his place, and I hope he will give us some more satisfactory assurance than we have got from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on this subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry I was not in the House when the hon. Gentleman raised this point. As I understand, he has said that I gave a pledge this Session that the Allotments Act should be extended to Scotland?
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I understood so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I think, in answer to a question put by him, I stated that, so far as the Government were concerned, we were prepared to introduce a Bill for the purpose of extending to Scotland the provisions of the Allotments Act already passed for England if the discussion upon it would not be unduly prolonged. Of course, we could not promise that any lengthened time should be given for the discussion of the Bill; but I am prepared to introduce a Bill similar to that which has

  399
  already been passed for England. I do not see that it will be necessary to introduce any special features into the Bill, except those rendered necessary by the different laws of the two countries. I hope it will be allowed to pass practically without prolonged discussion. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Bill will be introduced during this present Session.
  DR. CLARK: I think it would be better to move this Amendment in connection with Clauses 3 and 4, which only relate to Scotland—and then we should have the power given to one authority in Scotland—namely, the County Councils. As to the extension of the Allotments Act to Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was not quite accurate in the information which he gave the House, and which was very different from that just given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. RITCHIE: What I said was that I was afraid, from the attitude taken up by the Scotch Members on the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, that when we attempted to extend to Scotland the benefit of the provisions of the Allotment Act already accorded to England, it would not be possible to pass the Bill this Session.
  DR. CLARK: When the Act was passing through the House I had an Amendment down extending it to Scotland; and I pointed out, as we are doing now, the desirability of its being extended to Scotland. I withdrew my Amendment in the Committee stage upon the distinct pledge which was given that the Government would consider between the Committee stage and the Report stage the phraseology necessary to apply it to Scotland. And then, when it came to the Report stage, I withdrew my Amendment on a distinet pledge being given that a Bill on the same lines would be introduced for Scotland. On several occasions I myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire pressed the matter on the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and he gave us to understand that he would introduce a Bill. But I think a vague Bill introduced conditionally will not be satis-
  400
  factory. I think my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment now, and then move it when we come to Clause 3 or 4, the Scotch clauses, which are different from the English clauses. That power should be given to the County Councils in Scotland, because the conditions with regard to the Local Authorities are different in Scotland from what they are in England.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am afraid the Amendment of the hon. Member, if adopted, would not carry out the object he has in view so effectively as the extension of the Allotments Act to Scotland, which we all desire to see accomplished. My right hon. Friend has stated in unqualified and definite terms, and not in a conditional manner, that a Bill for that purpose will be introduced during the present Session, and it will be carried, if possible, to its conclusion.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I quite agree that the way proposed by the Government appears to be the best; but I should like to know when the Bill will be produced, as hon. Members would be naturally anxious to see it as soon as possible, with the view of ascertaining whether further Amendments may not be required. Scotch Members are usually practical, and I think if the Government were in a position to indicate the time when the Bill would be laid before the House for their consideration, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen would probably withdraw his Amendment, and perhaps hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would not press their Amendments.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot fix a precise date, but I have no doubt that the Bill can be brought forward before the present Bill is disposed of. I hope this will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Under the circumstances I think the statements of the right hon. Gentleman are satisfactory, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "one," and insert "half-an." I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to accept this Amendment. I think it

  401
  will come to be felt that it is unnecessary to create any tenure inferior to freehold. An agricultural labourer can acquire half-an-acre of land; but he cannot acquire one acre of land. Putting the land at £40 an acre, all he would have to furnish to get half-an-acre of land would be £5. I know that in Wiltshire agricultural labourers have no difficulty in paying their rates, which very often amount to £5, in one sum. To enable him to acquire one acre of land he would want £10, and he would want £10 more to stock that land. In the case of half-an-acre he would want nothing more than the £5; he would not require to stock it. And, even if he can save this £10 towards acquiring the stock, then he is unable to cultivate an acre of land, while he will be quite able to cultivate half-an-acre. I think it may be broadly stated that the half-acre marks the division between the spade and the plough. There is no middle to be created between this Bill and the Allotments Bill, because the Allotments Bill does not offer the facilities which are wanted. It does not give him security of tenure. In these allotments, land is very often let to labourers just when it is in a transition state. That is especially the case in my constituency, where building operations are often impending on a pretty extensive scale. I think this Amendment ought to be recommended by the fact that it would very largely extend the operations of the Bill. It would give the agricultural labourer that advantage which would enable him not to be entirely dependent upon wage-earning, and in that sense, perhaps, would do more than anything else to stop rural depopulation, which we all know is one of the objects of the Bill. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that this Amendment does not in any way touch the principle of his Bill, and I trust he will accept it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "one," and insert the words "half-an."—(Mr. Stephens.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I would point out to my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment that what he desires by it is already provided for under the Allotments Act. And even if it were not the case, I should find myself confronted with the same practical difficulty that I should have been met with in adopting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Esslemont). I hope that my hon. Friend behind me will not press the Amendment, but that after the explanation I have given him that his object is already provided for he will withdraw it.
  MR. STEPHENS: It does not, by any means, mean the same thing, because no one has contended that the process of turning land into gold is likely to take place under the Allotments Act. That is reserved for this Bill, and it is for the purpose of turning this half-acre of land into gold that I moved the Amendment; but if the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept it, I will not put the House to any unnecessary trouble, but will withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STEPHENS: I think the argument for my next Amendment is an exceedingly strong one. The House will see that under the Bill there are provided two bases of limit, one of 50 acres, or, if exceeding 50 acres, of the value of £50 a-year. I think it ought to be explained satisfactorily to the House why these two bases are put in. £50 value seems to be the intention of the Bill, but we know that with regard to 50 acres a £50 value will not be the limit of the Bill at all. It is very probable that pasture land in the neighbourhood of towns will be dear, and of a value far exceeding £50. Fifty acres of such land will probably be worth £150, and I submit that, in that case, you will be helping persons who must have a capital of something like £2,000. Persons with that amount of money are not persons to be so assisted out of the rates. Not only that, but under the present arrangement you throw across the path of the County Council a very undesirable temptation. I am quite sure a temptation of that kind

  403
  would result in much undesirable speculation. If the County Council enter into the creation of farm holdings of that size and of that great value, the penny rate will do so very little that the creation of agricultural holdings will become quite a curiosity. No one has been able to suggest even an explanation for so very singular a provision as this. I do hope it has been a matter which has really been overlooked, and that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to simplify the limit.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 16, to leave out from the word "acre," to end of Clause, and insert the words "and does not exceed an annual value, for the purposes of the income tax, of fifty pounds."—(Mr. Stephens.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: My hon. Friend asks me—and asks me very fairly—to state the reasons by which I was guided in selecting the 50 acres and the sum of £50 as an arbitrary limit—for it is an arbitrary limit—of what a small holding should consist of. The reason was this. It carries out the recommendation of the Select Committee. They came to the conclusion that that would be the most convenient definition of a small holding. I admit that it is open to the objection that the hon. Member has pointed out; but the cases to which he has referred would be more or less rare, and, on the whole, I thought it best to adopt the recommendation of the Committee, which I will read—
  "Your Committee understand by 'small holdings' agricultural tenancies or cultivating ownerships not exceeding fifty acres in extent or £50 annual valuation. Owing to the varying quality of land it is impossible to fix any particular acreage as sufficient for the support of a family. But your Committee believe that land of from £30 to £50 valuation will generally be adequate for that purpose."
  That is the reason why I put it into the Bill. I do not know that I need offer any further reason.
  MR. BARCLAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider the necessity of having two limits. The real limit is the value, and I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should leave out the question
  404
  of 50 acres, and allow the limit to stand upon the value.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: The point is that if a man has less than 50 acres, the annual value may be anything at all; but if he happens to have more than 50 acres, the annual value must not be more than £50. Surely that is an anomaly, and I think my right hon. Friend will do well to see whether he cannot leave out the limitation to 50 acres.
  MR. WHITBREAD: I hope the Government will not be induced to enlarge the scope of their Bill in the direction of giving larger holdings than the Bill already provides. I think if the Bill errs at all, it errs in the direction of having the holdings too large already. I quite understand the policy of giving large allotments or small holdings to the labouring population, because it would accomplish some very good objects. It would, first of all, increase the productiveness of the land; it would, in the second place, prevent the agricultural labourers flocking into the towns, and would fix them on the soil; and, in the third place, it would add greatly to their comfort. But when you go beyond that class, I do not know upon what principle we are called to establish a class of small capitalists. The two cases are totally different. Up to, say, ten acres—it depends, of course, upon the nature of the soil—a man can work an allotment himself; but when you get up to 50 acres, he must be an employer of labour, and you would have this absurdity—that the very labourers that he was employing would be taxed by the Council in order to get for him his holding. I think that will lead to anything but a pleasant feeling in our county districts. Let me refer to another point. Everybody who has travelled through the country districts must have been struck with the enormous increase of production from allotments as compared with large farms. That is due mainly to two causes. It is due to the abundant labour and care which the allotment holder is enabled to bestow upon his small plot, but there is another and a much more potent cause, and that

  405
  is that the allotment holder only touches his land when it is fit to be touched—he only goes upon it at a time when the conditions of climate and soil are such that he can beneficially work it. The farmer is obliged to go on his soil at a time when it would not be advisable to touch it, because he cannot keep his men and horses idle. In my belief that is the great cause of the increased productiveness of the allotment over the large farm. But the moment you get a holding over ten acres, the moment a man becomes what he really would be with a holding of 50 acres, a small farmer, he has to work under the conditions under which the farmer now works, and the increased productiveness of the soil would disappear. For these reasons I protest against being called upon to tax the poorer labourers for the sake of establishing somebody on the land who is supposed to be a fine Conservative voter, and who is to remind us of the yeoman of the past. He is a capitalist, and he can establish himself now, if he has got the money. If he has not got the money, I object to lending him the funds of the County Council.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I think, now that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has read the words of the recommendation of the Committee, he will see that the Committee did not contemplate the words being put as they are in the Clause. I appeal to the hon. Member opposite (Sir John Dorington) whether there is any good land in the Vale of the Severn which is let under 40s. to 50s. an acre? A man, if he has under this Bill a holding of 40 acres there, might have to pay a rental of £120. But directly you get to the hill country, where the land is poor, if he has a holding one rood exceeding 50 acres, then he must be limited to a rental of £50. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not contemplate an anomaly like that. I think the Amendment which limits the small holding to the annual value of £50, and leaves out the words "or if exceeding 50 acres," is the best way of meeting the question. I fully endorse what was said by the last speaker, that it would be found quite big enough for any small holdings to be established at the expense or guarantee
  406
  of the ratepayers, at all events as a first experiment.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I thought, until I heard my hon. Friend just now, that we were preparing a Bill that would form a ladder for the labourer to enable him to become a yeoman farmer. This Bill, as it stands, enables him to hire ten acres; he is then allowed to buy more, and if he is successful, he will be allowed to get up to 50 acres. If I could make it a little more I should, instead of trying to curtail it. The Amendment seems to be that a man, no matter how energetic and saving he is, or how long he may have cultivated his little holding, is to be debarred from having more than £50 worth of land per annum.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: From the ratepayers.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: It is not from the ratepayers, who will be subject to no loss. I do hope my hon. Friends around me will not curtail this Bill in any such way. I do not think the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), that these farmers will all be Conservatives, will be quite realised. I, for my part, do not care whether they are Conservatives or anything else. (Cheers.) Yes; but I do care very strongly about fixing any limitation to the prospects of the rural population; thus virtually telling them that no matter what their perseverance, labour, or savings, we shall impose a limit of £50 or £40, or, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said, 20 acres of land.
  MR. WHITBREAD: No.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: At any rate, it is proposed to make it no higher than £50. If there is any alteration at all, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should keep the 50 acres and limit the value to £75 or £80, so that a man should be able to get 50 acres, even although they cost a rent of 30s. an acre. That would be a fair limit.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am quite sure we on this side of the House have no desire whatever to curtail the Bill against the interests of the agricultural labourer. On the contrary, we desire to make it as good as possible for him, but I am satisfied that he will, in the

  407
  main, be interested in those ten acre holdings which he may hire and not buy. Not one labouring man in 50,000 will be able to buy his holding. This Bill does not merely propose a limit of £50 a year. There will be the possibility of a man holding 50 acres of land worth £3 or £4 an acre, involving thus about £150 a year. In the parish in which I live—a purely agricultural parish — all the land is worth between £100 and £150 an acre; and under this Bill, therefore, it will be possible to go up to 50 acres, involving a very large transaction on the part of the County Council, as well as a great outlay which would limit the operation of the Bill in other directions. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) that these large holdings, creating farmers of a substantial character, do really not come within the purview of the Bill; and that in order to restrict the Bill to the class requiring it the Amendment should be adopted. There might be some money limitation—such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Bordesley—so as to preclude large operations and the purchases of land of very great magnitude.
  SIR W. FOSTER: As a Member of the Select Committee responsible for the twofold limitation, I desire to explain to the Committee what was in the mind of the Select Committee on the matter. I think hon. Gentlemen who are discussing this Clause are forgetting that this Bill has, I hope, a future as well as a present application, and that it is desired that those who have now only small patches of 5, 10, or 15 acres, may, if they are prosperous, have an opportunity of obtaining a larger area to cultivate, and should keep that prospect before them. The Select Committee had two classes of land in view. First, those districts where the land is worth £4 or £5 an acre in rent. We limit the purchase of that land to £50 a year, and place the holders of it in the position of never having more than some twelve acres which, in the case of practically garden ground, is as much as they could personally cultivate. Then in Scotland, and, perhaps, Essex, where land is cheap, he limit of £50 would come in and
  408
  give the holder a larger tract partly pasture. But in both cases the intention of the Committee was to try to keep the holding such as the holder and his family would be able to cultivate. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the Clause, with its double definition, as it meets a great number of cases.
  MR. R. T. REID: While I have always been in favour of the limit of 50 acres, I should like to point out to the Committee the difference between the Report of the Select Committee and the use made of their recommendation in this Bill. The Committee recommended this as a maximum limit, because upon their recommendation the Local Authority was to derive a specific pecuniary benefit from the application of public money. But the very serious proposal of the Bill is to embark public money to the extent of £50 a year for the benefit of an individual. This is an almost novel proposal. I am not aware that in any previous legislation it has been proposed that you should authorise the application of public money to the extent of £2,000 or £1,000 on so large a scale for the benefit of people who have not been shown to require it for the public advantage I desire to point out to the House what the consequence will be if the proposal of the Government is adopted. It will be less formidable to me and to some of my hon. Friends than it may be to hon. Gentlemen opposite. If you are prepared to advance public money before you set up in business a man who may be able to pay a rent of £50 a year, or more, without requiring from him any equivalent, I am sure that hereafter, and perhaps before long, we may use this as a very valuable precedent for the purpose of suggesting that there are other persons more in need of such assistance; and I would remind hon. Members that this is not the first valuable precedent that has been established for us by the present Government.
  SIR J. DORINGTON: Looking at the clause as it stands, I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman would do wisely in accepting the Amendment. Then there would be no

  409
  mistake as to the effect of the proposal, and we should avoid difficulties which may otherwise arise.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: Speaking in the interest of Scottish small holders I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take out the words proposed in the Amendment. I have consulted a large number of persons mostly interested in this question, and their opinion is that the fifty acre limit is too small. The limit of acreage they would have is that upon which they could fully employ a pair of horses. Now fifty acres is not enough for that purpose. It would be necessary to take sixty, or seventy, or even eighty acres in order to give sufficient work to a pair of horses. The Scotch agricultural labourer would like to have a holding of sixty to eighty acres; and anything less than that limit will diminish the advantages to be conferred by the Bill so far as Scotland is concerned.
  MR. STEPHENS: I would point out that my Amendment does not limit the acreage of the land to be taken; but when you go up to £50 value I think it is time the ladder should stop. The point is whether you should go beyond the £50 or not. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not omit the words objected to by the hon. Member. I believe that the Bill may be made the means of removing a great deal of the injustice which now exists in connection with the disposal of farms. The majority of County Councils would no doubt adhere to the limit of £50, but it would be extremely hard if a tenant with sixty acres with a rent of £49 should have an advantage over his neighbour who happens to have a smaller acreage of average land at a little higher rental.
  MR. CHAPLIN: There is a good deal to be said upon both sides of the question, but I cannot accept the Amendment, and the Committee are now in a position to deal with it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to move—
  In page 1, line 17, after "acres," insert "exclusive of any common grazing or sheepwalk attached or appurtenant thereto."
  410
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the inclusion of these words, so as to bring within the scope of the Bill those tenants who may have a comparatively small acreage but who may also have the use of an adjoining sheepwalk. I believe if the addition I propose were made, it would confer benefit on a considerable number of small tenants in Wales.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, after the word "acres," to insert the words "exclusive of any common grazing or sheepwalk attached or appurtenant thereto."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: My objection to this Amendment is that it would increase the power of the County Council to provide land to an indefinite extent, and I am, therefore, unable to accept it.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I think it would be putting the tenants who have a comparatively small acreage to a great disadvantage to adopt the clause as it now stands.
  SIR J. BAILEY: I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment, even if it is confined in its operation to Wales. All Welshmen will bear me out when I say that almost all the farmers in Wales have the right to a sheepwalk upon the adjoining hills, and that this sheepwalk is never measured with the farm.
  MR. AINSLIE: I hope that this Amendment will be made to apply not only to Wales, but to all parts of the kingdom; and that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot accept the Amendment, but I will undertake to consider it between now and the Report stage.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: Then I will ask permission to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BARCLAY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out "fifty," and insert "seventy-five." It is the great ambition of the agricultural labourer in Scotland to have a small holding, and I hope we shall be able to make such

  411
  arrangements under this Bill as will enable the Council to let small holdings on convenient tenure. The tenant could be asked to put down a certain amount of premium, or to pay so much in the first few years, so as to secure the County Council against loss. The Bill should not limit the powers of the County Council. I hope that the Government will allow the Councils to exercise a certain amount of discretion, so that the holder may have sufficient land upon which to employ two horses.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "fifty," and insert the words "seventy-five."—(Mr. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word "fifty" stand part of the Clause."
  SIR W. B. BARTTELOT: I hope my right hon. Friend will not agree to go beyond the limit mentioned in the Bill. I believe it would be most unwise to do so.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley has said that the sole purpose of the Bill is to create a yeoman class.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I did not say that was its sole purpose. I said it would enable labourers to become yeomen.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I think the hon. Member said the main purpose of the Bill was to create a yeoman class. Now I have had an opportunity of speaking to agricultural labourers during the past fortnight, and they have told me that they cannot see how they could ever hope to become yeomen in the sense referred to. They are, however, anxious to have small holdings, and I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be accepted.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot accept the Amendment. The limit of £50 was adopted on the recommendation of the Select Committee, and I think we must adhere to it.
  DR. CLARK: I do not see why we should limit the holding to the rent of £50. The desire is to have sufficient land upon which to employ
  412
  two horses. If a man has less than that he can only keep one horse. A much better class of farming is done upon a holding upon which two horses are employed, and I therefore hope the Amendment will be accepted.
  *SIR J. KINLOCH: The limit of fifty is quite unsuitable for Scotland. Indeed, this Bill will not do our agriculturists the least good, for they are not the men who take very small holdings. The only thing that will do in Scotland will be the one pair farms, which would necessitate raising the limit to £75, or even £100.
  MR. STEPHENS: It appears that it is now desirable to drop the fifty and to increase it to one hundred. But if that be so, I must point out that, having this limit of a penny rate, you will restrict the operation of the Bill immensely Indeed, I wonder how many men could face a constituency and say this was a Bill for the relief of the agricultural population.
  MR. R. T. REID: I desire to say that the smaller holdings are looked for in that part of the country of which we have had experience. For my part, I must say that I am not prepared to spend public money for the purpose of setting up farmers.
  *SIR W. FOSTER: I do feel in the interests of the passage of the Bill that we ought not to allow the amount to grow, and I would ask that the Amendment should not be pressed.
  DR. CLARK: If the wording means that there might be forty acres, say at 30s. or £2 per acre—that if above fifty acres it is not to exceed £50, and if below may exceed that amount—then the clause in its present form will suit me, because I do not want to go beyond fifty acres for that class of land. If that is the construction the Government place upon the definition of small holdings in Clause 1, I think it will satisfy us.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to move—
  In page 1, line 18, after "pounds," add,—"(3.) Where common or grazing land or sheepwalk shall attach or be appurtenant to or be held or enjoyed with any land acquired by the County Council under this Act, and the County Council shall divide the land so acquired for separate holdings, then a pro-

  413
  portionate part of such common or grazing land or sheepwalk shall be set aside for each separate holding."
  In many pastoral Welsh districts small farms have in years past been consolidated into one large farm, with the result that each farmer obtains not merely the small tenancies, but also the pasture among the mountains. Suppose, in the operation of this Bill, a County Council, on the application of a certain number of labourers or small farmers, acquired a large farm, and that this large farm had attached to it certain acreage of common grazing or sheepwalk, if the County Council were to take a certain amount of land in the valley without also taking what was attached to it—the common grazing or sheepwalk—the real object of this Bill would be defeated. The Amendment simply means that in case a large farm is cut up for small holdings, the mountain land attaching to that farm shall be set aside in proportion to the small holdings created.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 18, after "pounds," add,—"(3.) Where common or grazing land or sheepwalk shall attach or be appurtenant to or be held or enjoyed with any land acquired by the County Council under this Act, and the County Council shall divide the land so acquired for separate holdings, then a proportionate part of such common or grazing land or sheepwalk shall be set aside for each separate holding."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  *MR. CHAPLIN: What I understand the hon. Member to propose is that where the County Council may require land for the purpose of small holdings in districts where there is common and grazing land, and, having acquired it have divided it into small holdings, they shall at the same time set apart a portion of the sheep grazing land for each of these particular holdings. I listened to the hon. Member with deference because of his close knowledge of Welsh affairs, but I have two points to submit to him. In the first place, if he makes it obligatory on the County Council to do this, is it not possible that on some occasions there may be a purchaser, or would-be purchaser, who may desire to have his holding without grazing land; and, in the second place, is it not sufficient to
  414
  leave this matter to the discretion of the County Councils? These are points which I should like to submit to the hon. Member for his consideration. If, then, he desires to press the point, I shall ask him, in reference to this particular Amendment, to do what we agreed in a previous case—to let me consider the subject and make suggestions upon Report.
  DR. CLARK: This will affect the Highlands of Scotland equally with Wales. Unless you have a change of the kind proposed, it will be almost impossible for the small holder to make a living. As it is necessary that the holder should have the grazing land during the summer, and the lowland during the winter—that the sheep may be fed while the snow is on the ground—there should be a concurrent division of the two classes of land. This, as was done by the Crofters' Commission, will be absolutely necessary for the Highlands. The North of England, too, will be affected. In view of these matters, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will either adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend, or, when he draws up a modified clause, will insert a recognition of this proposition. In my opinion, it will be requisite that these large tracks should not be divided, as the cost of division will be great, and as there is a desire that the system of co-operation should be in operation.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Although it may be desirable that something should be done, I venture to suggest that we ought to accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, and allow him to consider the subject.
  SIR J. BAILEY: I desire to disassociate myself from the hon. Member's propositions with regard to the commons.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I did not submit my Motion at all in regard to commons in the ordinary acceptance of the word. I referred to the grazing land on the mountains, and to the sheepwalk which is commonly attached to the farm.
  SIR J. BAILEY: But common land in Wales is common not to the particular farm which is divided, but common to the whole. If the hon. Member intends to devote a certain marked piece to each holder, I wish to

  415
  say, in my judgment, that is impracticable. If, on the contrary, he means to divide and enclose it, then I say he is ousting the rights of the lord of the manor and owners, and making a very serious alteration in the law—an alteration going far beyond the motive of this Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: My hon. Friend does not propose that the land shall be divided for each particular plot. He asks that provision should be made in favour of the purchaser of every small holding that he may have the right which had attached to the land up to that time, but only the common or grazing land on the mountain. I really wish to press home the fact that in Wales this is a very important matter indeed. Unless something of the kind is done the tenant of a small holding might be obliged to keep his cattle indoors during hay season; so that the loss of grazing rights would be serious. But if the clause were passed, it would then be obligatory on the County Council to meet that contingency. I do not know whether some alteration might not be made in order to make the matter optional; yet, so far as the Welsh tenants are concerned I do not think there would be a single one who would require a small holding without also requiring the grazing land. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will either now meet the views of my hon. Friend or will, on Report, bring up such a clause as will carry out our views on this matter.
  *MR. LLEWELLYN: I think the matter had much better be left to the right hon. Gentleman to bring up in a clause on Report. I understand the hon. Member desires that where a County Council acquires any considerable quantity of land which carries with it the right of sheep pasture, the latter shall be distributed among those holders who shared in the purchase. I think that is very desirable indeed. As I understand the Amendment, there is no contemplation to rail or fence in any part of the common.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: In order that my meaning may not be misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) I will give a case.
  416
  Suppose we had a farm of 200 acres in the low-lands. As a rule it would carry with it the right of pasture for 600 sheep over the mountains. Now, if the County Council should cut this farm up into four of 50 acres each, would it not be ridiculous to leave the former tenant, who is allowed to retain 50 acres, the right of the pasture whilst the three other tenants had none? No County Council would be able to let such a farm without this right of grazing, and unless some such Amendment as this is passed, I do not see how the Council can attach that right. I am quite willing that the right hon. Gentleman should consider this question and bring it up at a later stage, but I should like a promise that he will accept the spirit of the proposal.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I sympathise with the view of the hon. Member, and I will undertake to carefully consider the question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "sale" to add "or letting," so as to extend the scope of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to move the following Amendment:—In page 2, line 11, to leave out from "holding" to end of sub-section. The words proposed to be left out are, "and cannot be made by the purchaser or tenant." I think these words contain a grave statement, because a purchaser or tenant might be able, at a great sacrifice, to put up these buildings. At the same time it might be far better if the work were done for him, or the necessary money advanced for the purpose, thus leaving him so much more capital to be employed in cultivating his land. At any rate, I would leave the matter to the discretion of the County Council. This is only an enabling clause, and therefore I would not hamper them with being obliged to determine whether the purchaser could or could not do this.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I take it that it is desirable the holders or tenants should put up these buildings themselves, but when that is not possible, and only in those cases, do I feel it wise to cast upon the County Council the performance of that duty.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I do not attach much importance to this Amendment except that it seemed to be necessary to prepare the way for another Amendment of mine which follows. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I will ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I now beg to move the following Amendment:—
  In page 2, line 12, at the end of the Clause, to add the words: "(4.) The County Council may also make to any person acquiring from such Council under this Act any Small Holding, loans for buildings or other improvements on such holding.
  (5.) Terms of repayment of such loans shall be so arranged that the loans and all interest thereon shall be paid off within a period not exceediug thirty-five years from the making of such loans.
  (6.) Any such loans shall be a charge on the small holding in respect of which such loan is made, next in priority after any other sums due in respect thereof to the County Council."
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment, which, I think, is of the utmost importance. If hon. Members consider what took place before the Select Committee, they will find that the majority of witnesses pointed out the necessity for provision being made for the erection of buildings. Lord Wantage, in the course of his evidence, said that it would cost him, as a landowner, twice as much to put up buildings and make the necessary repairs as it would the man who had a small holding. No doubt the buildings on his Lordship's estate would be of a needlessly expensive character for a small man. I know if you leave a small holder to himself, and let him find out his wants, he will make buildings such as will fulfil his purposes at a cost, including his labour, so small that you can scarcely estimate it. What I propose is, not to forbid the County Councils to erect these buildings, but to leave it to their discretion. I think that, under certain circumstances, the
  418
  Councils might advance a sum of money to the small holder to enable him to put up buildings such as would suit him. That might not be quite the case if the Councils do the work themselves. Such loans would be of quite a different character from the loans on the land because buildings wear out, and, therefore, the suggestion is that they shall be paid for by annual instalments during 35 years, and that the money so advanced shall be a charge on the small holding next in priority after any other sums due to the County Council by such owner. I am quite sure that the difficulty of erecting buildings for small holders will be a great drawback, unless the right hon. Gentleman will consent to some such proposal as this.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 12, at the end of the clause, to add the words,—"(4.) The County Council may also make to any person acquiring from such Council under this Act any small holding, loans for buildings or other improvements on such holding.
  (5.) Terms of repayment of such loans shall be so arranged that the loans and all interest thereon shall be paid off within a period not exceeding thirty-five years from the making of such loans.
  (6.) Any such loan shall be a charge on the small holding in respect of which such loan is made, next in priority after any other sums due in respect thereof to the County Council."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CHANNING: I wish to confirm what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said. From my own experience of small holdings in my own neighbourhood, I think the question of cheapering the provision of essential buildings is a very important one. It is within my knowledge that small holders can erect buildings quite adequate for their purpose much cheaper than is likely to be the case if the County Councils take the work in hand. This Amendment I consider to be a very wise one. I do not think the County Councils would be deterred from carrying the provisions of this Bill into effect, because of the introduction of this proposal. On the contrary, I think they will see that the security is ample, and that they are furthering their own interest in promoting the interest of the smallholders.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I think the proposal contained in the Amendment will be, to a large extent, provided for by a subsequent clause, which enables the County Council to make allowances for the erection of buildings. This is Sub-section 6 of Clause 5, which reads as follows:—
  "The Council may, if they think fit, agree to postpone for a term not exceeding five years the time for payment of all or any part of an instalment either of principal or interest, or of a terminable annuity in consideration of expenditure by the purchaser which, in the opinion of the Council, increases the value of the holding, but shall do so on such terms as will, in their opinion, prevent them from incurring any loss."
  This surely goes a long way to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman. If a man who has a plot of land is unable to put up buildings, the County Council can postpone his payments for five years and allow him to use the money in the erection of buildings.
  MR. R. T. REID: I think the provisions pointed out by my hon. Friend opposite give everything that can in fairness be claimed. I do not know that I am very easily shocked, but I am beginning to ask myself what is to be the end of all this. What is really proposed is that a gentleman who has been favoured by public credit to the extent of acquiring property worth £100 a year or so is, in addition, to have loans for the purpose of erecting farm buildings. Contrast the position of that man with that of a struggling tradesman in the village who wants to increase the size of his shop. That is surely for the benefit of the inhabitants; but that man cannot obtain a loan from the County Council to assist him, and I should like to remind the House that there are small holders who have made their way without the assistance of this Bill. I am thoroughly in sympathy with this Bill, but I think we shall make a most unfair differentiation between two classes of small holders if we allow the man who is now the favourite of the Legislature to receive public money for the erection of his farm buildings, and withhold that advantage from the man who by his own industry and thrift has secured a small holding in the ordinary way, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.
  420
  Chaplin) will not accept the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend for reasons which I think must be apparent to the Committee. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire said that the security would be ample, but I do not think this would be the case. Assuming that the proportion of money to be paid down is one-fourth, that is not a very large amount to begin with; and when this subject was considered by the Members, of the Select Committee, an entirely opposite view as to the risk involved on the ratepayers was taken from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will read two sentences from the Report of that Committee—
  "Some witnesses have argued that the Local Authorities should advance money on building improvements, and even on stock. Your Committee cannot adopt this suggestion, which they consider extravagant in the case of stock, and which they believe even in the case of buildings would be attended with great risk."
  I am bound to say I share that view myself, and I cannot see that the hon. Gentleman has said anything to diminish the fears I entertain with regard to the risks which this will impose, or to diminish the force of our view. The majority of the Select Committee held the view that I have expressed, and I believe that view will also be shared by this Committee. I am sorry I cannot meet my hon. Friend by accepting, his Amendment.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think we have already gone a long way to benefit the small holder, but my own view is that when once the tenant purchaser has entered into possession he is not entitled to any more consideration than any other farmer. Many farmers would be glad to receive advances from the State to enable them to build houses and farm buildings, and there are many who have not had the advantage of having State money lent to them to purchase their holdings, and I do not see any reason for the proposal contained in the Amendment. I shall not support the Amendment, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has acted wisely in refusing to accept it.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Economically, the hon. Gentleman who has proposed this Amendment is quite right. It is better economy to lend the money to tenants, and allow them to put up the buildings than that the County Council should do the work. I question, however, whether it is advisable that the tenant purchaser should be assisted by public money further than is indicated in the 5th clause.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I shall vote for the Amendment, because I believe it is one of the most important and most valuable that has been moved in relation to this Bill. I have heard with some surprise the observations of the hon. Members for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid). I think it is a little late in the day to talk about alarm, and I think it comes with somewhat bad grace from us, who insisted on the Government introducing compulsory powers into their Bill, to complain of this somewhat innocent Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings). We want to make the Bill as effective as possible, and we recognise the right of demand and the duty of the County Council to make provisions of an exceptional character for the class of tenants pointed out by the Mover of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) spoke of Sub-section 6 of Clause 5; but if you look at the legislation of other countries upon this subject, particularly of Russia, you will see that the Government have been most careful to make provisions by public loans for the erection of buildings on the small holder's estate, to provide stock, and even to provide seed for the farm. I regret that the Bill does not go further in that direction; but the Mover has justified his Amendment on another ground, and that is, that the tenant himself can do the work at much less expense than it can be done by the Local Authority. We are not asking that the County Council shall have an indirect power in this manner, that they shall be able to make remissions extending over five years, but that they shall have the direct power to make an
  422
  advance in money—a moderate advance for the purpose of enabling the tenant to erect the necessary buildings. I think the Amendment is a moderate and reasonable one, and I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to give it further consideration.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I am loth to detain the Committee, but I am so satisfied that the success of the Bill depends largely on this question of buildings that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) to re-consider his decision. I was astonished to hear the remarks of the Member for Bradford, and I think he can scarcely have read the Amendment. He said that the small holder, having, had his buildings put up for him, could not expect any more. It is the man who has not had the buildings that this Amendment is endeavouring to assist. If the County Council think it better to erect the buildings themselves they can do so under this Bill. But they might be disposed to let a small holder, who had sons perhaps to assist him, have a small loan to enable him to put up the buildings that he requires, and he could do it very much cheaper than they could. Perhaps the tenant could not put up all the buildings, but could put up some with a little assistance, and I want to give the County Councils in their judgment and prudence, in which I have the greatest confidence, the power to advance these small sums. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is less security, but I think the security is the same. Suppose the County Council erected £100 worth of buildings, they would charge, I suppose, £4 per annum. If the man put up the buildings himself, he would probably only borrow £50, which would reduce the interest to £2, and the buildings, would be there all the same. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks the sub-section of Clause 5 meets the case that I put forward, and I must say I have not yet heard a good and sufficient reason why the County Councils should not be allowed to advance the money. All the economic arguments are in favour of the proposal, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is nothing new in my proposal. There is, I maintain, the

  423
  same security and increased economy, and I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to take the matter into further consideration.
  MR. STEPHENS: I should like to point out that the tenant might put up buildings which would not have the effect of increasing the value of the holding, and it is supposed that a County Council would put up buildings which would improve the permanent value. I think the sub-section of Clause 5 is a preferable way of dealing with this matter, because under that there is time for the tenant to have given some proof of his fitness and reliability, and it will not involve the risk that is contained in the Amendment. Hon. Members must remember that we are not dealing with an unlimited fund, and that, on the contrary, we are dealing with a fund which is extremely limited.
  MR. CHANNING: I would suggest to the Member for Bordesley words which at the beginning of his Amendment would make it clear that what is suggested is an alternative. If he were to preface to his Amendment "Where the County Council do not think fit to provide buildings" these words, or words to this effect, would make it perfectly clear that these loans are not to be in addition to money spent on the erection of buildings. I contend that this will be a more economical manner of doing the work, and I think these words will make it clear what is the real intention of the Amendment.
  (8.30.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 123.—(Div. List, No. 111.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: Mr. Chairman, I am very much afraid it is no use explaining this Amendment to the Minister of Agriculture, as the Minister of Agriculture is not present in his place.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: The Committee has previously discussed at considerable length the question of giving to the County Council various methods of acquiring land. I am sorry to say the Committee has refused to accept many of the Amendments which were moved from this side of the House to give powers to County Councils to take land on lease, as well as to take it in feu. The Amendment I have to propose, in page 2, line 16, which is to insert the words "occupation or" after "holdings for," raises the question of giving County Councils the right not only to sell land to the labourers or others, but to give them the power to give land on occupation—either to lease it or to hire it—from year to year, or upon any terms the County Council may see fit, under rules to be incorporated in this Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman must admit the strength of the arguments which have been advanced by, I think, the vast majority of Members on this side of the House, by two or three Members on the other side of the House who are very well acquainted with agricultural districts, and also from the members of the various Congresses and Conferences which the right hon. Gentleman has himself attended and addressed during the last two or three months. Naturally I read the reports of these Conferences with very great interest, because one was able to see there the opinions of those who were Conservatives, and also of those who are very anxious to obtain easy access for the labourers to the land. As far as I can remember, many of those who spoke at those Conferences were very anxious that the County Councils should have power under this Bill not only to sell land, but to let it as well; and I think that the arguments which have been brought forward by several on this side of the House, more especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, must have carried conviction to a large number of Members on the other side, that under this Act it will be for a long time impossible for a large number of labourers to buy land out and out. They have not the capital, and even if they had the capital to buy the land, they would not then have enough capital to stock it

  425
  and to pay the first few instalments of the purchase money. So that if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to carry out the real purport, as it seems to me, of all such Bills as this—namely, the bringing of the labourers into nearer contact with, and the giving them an easier access to, the land, he must give the County Councils some other power than that of selling out and out to the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman, when I moved a previous Amendment, was willing to make a certain concession with regard to this clause. We appreciate very much the concession he made, but, as I read his concession, it simply enables the County Council to let land under ten acres to those who are unable to buy it out and out. What I desire the right hon. Gentleman to do is, not to set up this artificial limit of ten acres, but to give the County Council as wide and general a discretion as possible in the matter. The County Council is not likely to embark on all sorts of risky land speculations. They will be very chary indeed of letting or selling land, except upon good security and with something like a reasonable prospect of repayment, but what I venture to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman is that it is unwise to set up this artificial limit. In some parts of the country ten acres would be quite as much as a labourer could deal with, but in other parts of the country, where the soil is very thin, the labourer could not possibly obtain a decent subsistence out of ten acres. Twenty or thirty acres let to him, especially if it were let in connection with certain grazing land on the mountain side, would enable the labourer to start as a peasant farmer, and to get enough money gradually to become the owner of the land, or of some other land, at the disposal of the County Council. Such a process as that is the process for which we have been looking for many years, and a process which the right hon. Gentleman desires to give by means of this Bill. I am sure he cannot give it, unless he accepts an Amendment enabling the County Council not only to sell land, but also to let land up to fifty acres. Now, it may be said it is a very risky experiment for the County Council to become landowners, but it seems to me that a
  426
  certain element of risk is contained in any transaction whatever with regard to land on the part of the County Council. But once you do away with this fear of risk, I think we could very well trust the County Council to draw up such rules as will make the risk as small as possible. The County Council may, by means of these rules, enable the labourer to lease land for thirty or forty or fifty years at what he might consider thoroughly fair and reasonable terms; or, on the other hand, it might give a shorter lease, or even an ordinary year to year tenancy. What I wish by this Amendment is to give the County Council as large a discretion, and as large a liberty as possible to carry out what I consider to be the main purpose of the Bill—namely, to make it easier for the labourers to obtain access to the land of this country.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, after the words "holdings for," to insert the words "occupation or."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I listened with great attention to everything the hon. Gentleman said, and I do not think upon this point there is any wide difference of opinion between us, although we desire to arrive at the same end, I acknowledge, by somewhat different means. The discussion which the hon. Gentleman invites us to enter upon in this Amendment is really a repetition of the discussion which was conducted at very considerable length upon Clause 1 of the Bill. The hon. Member refers to the numerous Conferences which have been held in different parts of the country, at some of which I have been present myself, to meet a number of people of all classes interested in this question. Then he says, so far as he can judge from the reports, he has gathered that the great majority of these people were unanimously in favour of hiring rather than of purchasing land.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I did not say the majority, but a large number of them.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I beg pardon. The hon. Gentleman said a large number of

  427
  them were in favour of hiring rather than purchasing.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: As well as purchasing.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: Within certain limits I acknowledge that is perfectly true. There are, and there always will be, a certain number—probably a large number—of agricultural labourers and others in the country districts whose means will not enable them to buy land, however desirous they may be of doing so. Consequently, being perfectly alive to that fact myself, it was one of my first duties, in considering the framing of this Bill, to devise some means by which that difficulty might be overcome. I think I shall be able to show the Committee that the difficulty has been clearly and substantially dealt with; and when the mode in which it is dealt with was explained to the various classes at these Conferences I do not recollect a single occasion upon which the methods proposed in the Bill of the Government did not give complete and entire satisfaction. I will not repeat what I said on the introduction of the Bill with regard to the desire of the Government that in the first instance it should, if possible, create owners, rather than tenants of land. There are numerous good reasons why I think that object is desirable which will commend themselves to the Committee—reasons which, had I been in order, I should have stated at some length to the Committee on the first clause, and which were dealt with at no inconsiderable length by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to-night. But as I have the charge of this measure, perhaps it is desirable that I should point out to the Committee some of these reasons. In the first place, if the Local Authorities are to let the land instead of selling it to purchasers, they begin by losing what, after all, is the chief security against loss to the ratepayers—namely, the proportion of the purchase money which the Bill requires shall be paid upon the completion of the purchase; and you will, to that extent, undoubtedly increase the risks which have been frequently referred to in the course of the debate this afternoon as being imposed upon the ratepayers.
  428
  The next difficulty I find is this—a difficulty which also has been constantly referred to to-night—the provision of the buildings. How are the buildings to be provided if the land is to be let? It must be obvious that if the land is let it must be upon either a yearly tenancy or a lease. If it is to be let upon yearly tenancy it is perfectly clear that the tenants cannot erect the buildings, and that that duty undoubtedly must fall upon the Local Authority. If, on the other hand, it is let upon lease, I admit that it would be perfectly possible for the tenants themselves to provide the buildings, but, if they did, would it not be infinitely preferable, in their own interests, that instead of being leaseholders they should purchase the land, because the difference between what they would have to pay as rent and what they would have to pay as instalment upon the purchase money would be very inconsiderable? They might possibly pay something less as rent, but if they bought the land and paid a trifling addition in the form of instalments, every year would be bringing them nearer to the time when not only the land but the buildings upon it became their own. I think I have shown two good reasons upon the point of buildings alone. Surely it is more desirable that the new holders should be owners instead of tenants. I now come to the consideration of the next question, and that is whether the Local Authorities in this country are well calculated to occupy the position of landlords. Everyone knows how numerous, important, and difficult the duties of a landlord are—and it must be seen that they would be enormously increased for a Local Authority—and what an army of agents, bailiffs, and surveyors would be required for the management of their estates, which would perhaps be situated in all parts of the county. Not a gate would require to be hung, not a drain to be made, or any other trifling matter to be attended to without the Local Authority being called upon to deal with it; and I submit that they would not be able to undertake this responsibility with anything like the economy and advantage with which it could be done by the landlord. Then, again, everybody knows what happens to a landlord

  429
  when his tenants suffer from bad times. He is called upon to make reductions in the rents; and he generally does so. He is able to do so, because he is dealing with his own property; but the Local Authority would be placed in a totally different position, because they would be dealing with the property of the ratepayers, for which they would be only trustees. Moreover, the Local Authority would be elected by the very people who are pecuniarily interested in the management of the estates, and enormous pressure would therefore be brought to bear upon them. If the Local Authority gave way, the trust of the ratepayers would be betrayed; whilst if the Local Authority resisted, they would become the most unpopular landlords in the world. I cannot think there will be in the minds of anyone who has carefully and impartially considered this question any difference of opinion as to its being preferable that the land should be sold, and not let. At the same time, we were disposed to make some provision for that class of persons whom it is desirable to put upon the land, but who cannot afford to purchase. The Bill provides that the Local Authority should be empowered to let the land in holdings of ten acres to such persons. The limit of ten acres does not, however, represent any fixed principle; and if good reasons can be advanced for altering it, we shall be prepared to make the alteration. I will now venture to refer to some observations I have frequently heard advanced during the course of these Debates. Many hon. Gentlemen have declared that, as far as the agricultural labourers are concerned, there is not one in 50,000 who would ever be able to purchase a small holding. Now, I believe that statement to be entirely unfounded, or, at all events, to be a very great exaggeration of the facts of the case. It has been my duty to make inquiries into this question during the last few months, and I have been astonished to find what a large number of farmers there are in a prosperous condition who have been agricultural labourers themselves, or the sons of agricultural labourers. Surely that is a most encouraging thing to learn, and it
  430
  supplies a very decisive answer to the declarations of hon. Gentlemen that not one in 50,000 would ever be able to purchase a small holding. I believe that, with the provisions in the Bill which I have mentioned, a large number of labourers will be able by their own industry to purchase small holdings, and that they will thus be in a position to mount the ladder, to which the hon. Member for Bordesley has referred. I think I have now given reasons for the decision we have arrived at in regard to the Bill, and I will only further say that I shall be unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: While I agree with the intentions of the hon. Member, I do not think his Amendment expresses his meaning, or that it is one we can embody in the Bill. The Bill in itself is not inconsistent with occupation; indeed, it distinctly contemplates that the purchaser should occupy. There is no reason why the power to let the land should be restricted to those who cannot purchase. There may be many cases in which people may be well able to purchase, but who prefer to rent; and I see no reason why such persons, whom it would be very desirable to get upon the land, should not benefit by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman contended that Local Authorities could not perform the duties of landlords, but I would point out that there are already a large number of public corporations throughout England who possess land and who lease and let it. I admit that there are some cases in which they have not been good and satisfactory landlords; but the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that there are many corporate bodies, large and small, which have managed their estates in a very satisfactory manner. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should be so tenacious in opposing a merely enabling clause to give the County Councils the power of letting as well as selling the land, and I hope he will reconsider the matter. We would agree to any reasonable condition the right hon. Gentleman might wish to impose in regard to it. I speak

  431
  now as a friend of the Bill. I think that altogether it is an exceedingly good Bill, reflecting credit both on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, and I wish to do nothing to impair its usefulness. The Amendments I have put on the Paper are more in the nature of suggestions than anything else. My object in making them is to improve the drafting in two or three places and to give the Bill a wider scope, and to enable it to reach a class of people it would otherwise not reach. I agree that this Amendment cannot be accepted in its present form, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it if it is so altered, and thus give the County Councils the power of letting as well as re-selling.
  MR. HALDANE: I wish to support the appeal of my hon. Friend, and in doing so I will read some words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford himself. I find in Hansard of 26th January, 1886, this passage in his speech—
  "With regard to a large creation of small holdings by the action of the Legislature I hold a totally different opinion altogether. I am satisfied that not only would it do nothing to mitigate, but, in my opinion, it would have precisely the opposite effect, and it would only tend to aggravate and increase the agriculture depression, of which we all so much complain. Something, no doubt, may be said in favour of small tenancies, but I have yet to learn whether by means of small holdings, as a general rule, small tenancies or small freeholds are meant by the author of this Amendment. I admit that in many cases a tenant of a small farm, holding his farm under favourable occupation, has probably been able to weather the storm of depression as well as, and possibly better than, some of his neighbours in larger occupations; but the small tenancy is one thing, and the small freehold is another."
  If these words of the right hon. Gentleman were true then, are they not also true to-day? So far as the present Bill is concerned it compels the purchaser to pay down a quarter of the purchase money. Now, I should like to know how many of the class to whom this clause would apply would be in a position to do what is required of them. Not only would they have to be in a position to put down a quarter of the purchase money, but they would also require money with which to stock the
  432
  land. The small holder is placed in a sufficiently difficult position without the additional difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman would place in the way of the purchase of the freehold. If this Bill had been analagous to the Irish arrangement for the purchase of the freehold, there would have been little need for the Amendment; but I do feel that but a very small class of those whom we wish to benefit will be reached unless the principle of this Amendment is accepted. I do not care in what form it is put so long as the ten acre restriction is taken off. I would, therefore, appeal to the right, hon. Gentleman to act up to the sentiments which actuated him when he made the speech from which I have quoted on the 26th January, 1886.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: In the present discussion there is no question of principle involved—that has already been conceded. My right hon. Friend has mentioned several reasons why he thinks the substance of this Amendment ought not to be admitted in the Bill. He observed that if the Local Authority is allowed to let land without restriction as to the amount or persons who may be allowed to hire it, the Local Authorities lose security by reason of not having a certain amount of money left in their hands. If that is true, it is also true that the Local Authority can get rid of a bad tenant; while under the other conditions the bad tenant may go out of the land after he has ruined it, the land ultimately coming into the hands of the County Council in such a condition as to require considerable expenditure before it is again brought to its proper value. I would point out here that this Amendment, as does the Amendment I should have moved, really gives greater elasticity to the County Council. As to the question of buildings, I do not suppose that the County Council would let land in such sizes as would necessitate the erection of buildings. As has been pointed out, you cannot let land on a yearly tenancy and expect the tenants to put up buildings, and in a great many cases where small holdings are not far from villages buildings of the nature contemplated would not be required. In that respect I would remark that the elas-

  433
  ticity which this Amendment proposes is really desirable. Wherever buildings are concerned, I take it that the land will be sold. Then he further mentioned the case of the Local Authority as landlord, and in this connection there would, no doubt, be some difficulty; but I do not think it is of such a nature that we should trouble ourselves much about it. With reference to the case he submitted, where a County Council, possessed of a considerable quantity of land, might have pressure put upon it order to lower rents, I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the number of people with whom the County Council is concerned, and also the vastness of the area. While you might possibly bring pressure upon the parish Vestry, you could not bring influence of that nature to bear on the County Councils. What we ask is that those who do not wish to buy may hire land. If the hon. Member goes to a Division I shall feel it my duty to support him, seeing that I have an Amendment of the same nature on the Paper.
  MR. BARCLAY: I sympathise very much with the desire to give the agricultural labourers a footing upon the land; but I think the system of hiring land for a limited period is so unsatisfactory that I cannot give it my support. It is necessary for the proper cultivation of the land that the men who hold it should hold it in perpetuity of tenure on certain known terms; and I think that object might be accomplished if we induced the Government to adopt the principle of the Irish Land Act by taking payments for the land by instalments extending over a period of years. He would then have the ownership of the land so long as he paid the instalments every year, and, at the same time, the security of the County Council would increase. I think you will find that a man taking land on a lease for 20 years will deem that period not sufficient to justify the expenditure of money on the land. I think the hon. Member, instead of pressing the Amendment, should take the alternative of pressing for the acceptance of the proposal to take payment for the land by instalments.
  MR. CHANNING: This discussion, if I may say so, has been somewhat disorderly. The real question will come on in the next sub-section, and then the discussion can properly take place. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that, as his Amendment is open to serious objection, he would be wise in withdrawing it, and leaving the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) in its place.
  *SIR W. BARTTELOT: I venture to say that the ten acres which my right hon. Friend proposes the County Council should be allowed to let is amply sufficient for all purposes at present. My right hon. Friend has stated that this is an experimental measure. Surely, when we find that everybody wants to rent land, then will be the time to consider the subject. There are at this moment many landlords who are anxious, ready, and willing, to let to any small tenant land of the kind in question. I myself should be exceedingly glad to find small tenants wanting to rent land. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not go one inch further than he has done in the direction of leasing, because I am certain it would be a step in the wrong direction.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I rise to meet one argument which has been used by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin). He pointed out that one reason why this Bill should pass is because there are many agricultural labourers who have now become by industry and thrift occupiers of land. Yes, they are occupiers of land, but they are not owners, and the whole point is that by this Bill they are to become owners. The fact that there are men who have risen from the position of agricultural labourers in this country to be farmers is in no way an argument why we should not lease land. On the other hand, it is the strongest reason why we should lease land. Therefore, the argument that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced tells more against himself.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: What I said was this. I referred to gentlemen now farming on their own account who have risen from the position of agricultural labourers, to prove, not that it is necessary they should become owners of land, but that they would have sufficient money to pay down, under the provisions of this Act, to purchase small holdings.
  MR. H. GARDNER: That explanation seems to tend still further in our direction, because it is obvious that agricultural labourers must be assisted to farm more than ten acres in order that they may save sufficient money to purchase land for themselves and become the yeoman class which we desire to see. It seems to me that leasing should be put on an equality with purchase in this Act, and it is in this direction I shall vote. I venture to think that some of the Amendments which follow more completely raise the issue than this one does. At the same time, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I venture to join in the appeal which has been made from every quarter of the House to extend the operation of the Bill in the direction now sought. As has been already said, this proposal of my hon. Friend is only a question of degree, and not one of principle. Not only is the principle conceded by the right hon. Gentleman himself in Sub-section 2, but it is also conceded in Section 8, where the County Council are authorised not only to sell lands in accordance with the rules and terms of the Act, but to sell lands, if they happen to be superfluous, upon any terms they please. Therefore there is no question of principle involved. Now, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it is safe to pass the 2nd sub-section if he adheres to the opinion that it is unsafe to adopt my hon. Friend's Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Local Authorities as bodies not very well qualified to manage estates. Well, I do not think the management of estates by Local Authorities would come into
  436
  operation very much. Once they had leased or let the land for occupation they would not have to manage the estates as if they kept the land in their own hands. In the interest of the Bill, in order to carry out the objects of the promoters, that of bringing the labourers step by step, if necessary, into actual ownership of the land, and inasmuch as the question of principle has been conceded, I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will help to make the Bill much more thorough and comprehensive and satisfactory by accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be of opinion that the Local Authorities should have as much power to let land as they have to sell it. The Government, on the other hand, is still of opinion that it is desirable in the first instance, if possible, that they should sell it. That opinion is founded on reasons which I have submitted to the Committee, and to which no sufficient answer has been given to induce me to change my view. The reasons are that it is desirable, where possible, that the land shall be sold instead of let, so that the Local Authorities shall not be placed in the position of landowners. I have recognised from the first that it is inevitable some land will have to be let by them, but I do not think it is desirable to extend that provision more largely than is necessary. I am obliged, therefore, to adhere to the proposition which I have made, which really comes to this, that land is to be offered for sale in the first instance. If it is not sold, and cannot be sold, then the Local Authorities are empowered to let. I hope the Committee are now sufficiently well acquainted with the point under discussion to allow them to come to a decision.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: There is one point I must mention. The success of this Bill depends upon the goodwill of the ratepayers, of whom there will be twenty or thirty to every tenant or owner of land. I can quite understand that the ratepayers will allow the County Councils to buy land for the purpose of creating peasant proprietors, and that they will allow a certain

  437
  amount of letting of land. But if, under the proposals of my hon. Friend, the County Councils are to enter into gigantic land speculations with all the possible financial dangers, I say that the ratepayers will not allow this Act to be adopted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 164.—(Div. List, No. 112.)
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I have three Amendments on the Paper. The first is in page 2, line 18, to leave out from "where" to "tenants" in line 22 inclusive. The second, which is merely consequential, is in line 22, after "the," to insert "county," and the third in line 22 leave out from "which" to "extent" in line 23. The effect of this Amendment will be to make that part of the clause read—
  "The County Council may in the case of any small holding, instead of offering it for sale, offer to let it in accordance with the Rules under this Act."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Amendment is inconsistent with the action of the Committee on previous Amendments.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I submit, Sir, that the first part of the Amendment would be in order, and I trust that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government, because the sub-section as it now stands deals only with abnormal conditions, whereas this Amendment is intended to meet cases which are not abnormal, but normal. The first words in the section appear to be more or less unnecessary, and I think they might very well be omitted. Accepting this Amendment will not interfere with the subsequent Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from the word "where" to the word "tenants," in line 22.—(Mr. Francis Stevenson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  *MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Gentleman said there would be no difficulty if I accepted this Amendment; but there is this difficulty, that it raises practically the question we have been discussing the last hour and a half, and on which we have already voted.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment is that in the case of holdings under ten acres the Local Authority should have absolute freedom to either sell or let.
  *MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I do not care to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who has made no concession yet; but I want to recall what he promised. He said he would carefully consider the question, and try to meet us when we got to Sub-section 2 of Clause 3.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I am going to make a concession directly, by accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).
  *MR. WINTERBOTHAM: We already have that in black and white; but it was after you had accepted the Amendment that you promised to further consider the matter. A long discussion was finished up with these words by the right hon. Gentleman—
  "I take it to be a general understanding that leasing powers should be included in the Bill in respect of all holdings where no buildings are necessary. I should be perfectly willing to fairly and fully consider that point, though without absolutely pledging myself upon it."
  I want to know what the result of this "full and fair consideration" is. When the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford is accepted the County Council will have to be of opinion that persons desirous of buying and themselves cultivating small holdings are unable to buy. How unfair that is to the agricultural labourer! There might be many labourers to whom the County Council might say, "You have £20 in your pocket and you can buy." But the man might have a large family, and therefore prefer to rent, or he might have views as to his future, and, therefore, not wish to tie himself to one spot of land or one parish. Why should you prevent him

  439
  being a tenant for the first few years, and then buying if it proves to be to his interest and if he likes? We want to make it clear by this Clause that the County Council shall have absolute power to let up to ten acres, where no buildings are required, to persons desirous of cultivating without any other condition.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The right hon. Gentleman is going to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, and I cannot see why, if he is going to admit that some of the small holders shall be tenants, he should keep in the words "buying and." The right hon. Gentleman has already conceded the point, and if he will not drop all the words of the Amendment, he might drop out the words "buying and."
  *MR. CHAPLIN: The words "buying and" are in reference to Clause 1, but I am prepared to leave out those words.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will drop those words, I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "buying and."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, to leave out all after "Act," to "the," in line 22.—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to move the omission of the word, "In the case of any holding which does not exceed ten acres in extent," my object being that the County Council shall have power to let holdings of larger extent than ten acres. Ten acres is an arbitrary limit, and I do not see why if they can let ten acres they should not be able to let eleven or twelve or any
  440
  other number of acres. I hope the Amendment, which is a fair and moderate one, will be accepted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, to leave out all after "may," to "extent," in line 23.—(Mr. Esslemont.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  *MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this is an arbitrary limit, but I have taken it because it was recommended in the Report of the Select Committee, and that appears to me a good reason in a case of this sort, as opposed to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, which fixes no limit whatever. I cannot accept the Amendment, as I think it very undesirable that land should be let to any extent.
  *SIR W. FOSTER: A great many of us think that the ten acre limit is much too low, and I think the discussion might be much simplified if the right hon. Gentleman would extend the limit to 20 acres. I am sure that this would be a concession on the part of the right hon. Gentleman which would be very acceptable on this side of the House, and very acceptable in the country generally, to the agricultural labourers, and other people concerned.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The claim is made on behalf of the agricultural labourer, of whom we have heard a good deal in the course of this Debate; and we are told that the agricultural labourer is a person who, by no conceivable circumstances, can be expected to have saved any considerable amount of money. We are, therefore, told that this Bill for the creation of small owners is perfectly useless, because the agricultural labourer who has not saved any money would not be able to pay the small sum which would be required as a deposit in order to reap the advantages conferred by the Act. And then comes the hon. Member who has just sat down, and other hon. Members, who claim that this same pauper agricultural labourer—("No, no!")—for that is their own statement—
  SIR W. FOSTER: NO, no; not pauper.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Pauper in the sense of being poor. That this poor agricultural labourer, who has no capital whatever, should be put in possession of a tenancy of 20 acres. Very well, how much capital is required to work a farm of 20 acres? In order to work a farm of 20 acres, so that it may pay, a man must have at least a capital of £200. If he has a capital of £200, I say it would be very much better for him and very much better for the country that he should become a small owner under this Bill.
  SIR W. FOSTER: My point is this—the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to misrepresent what I said.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I submit to you, Sir, if that is in order? The hon. Member says that I have endeavoured to misrepresent what he said.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have called the hon. Member to order, and I must ask him to withdraw.
  *SIR W. FOSTER: The point I wish to raise—("Order, order!")—I withdraw at once to satisfy the Chair. What I wish to say is that my point was not put in the way in which I intended it to be put. I would add that I hope the agricultural labourer will not be limited to ten acres; and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to allow him to have an opportunity of getting beyond that limit. A man may be poor at the commencement, and yet he may in time, by his industry, be capable of adding on five acres, and later on he may be able to take ten acres. We want him to have the opportunity of going on beyond ten acres up to twenty acres. Surely those who profess to be the friends of the agricultural labourer ought to sympathise with us in this. We have heard something about the ladder this evening. I want to make the ladder have one or two rungs more, so that the agricultural labourer can raise himself higher; and I think I
  442
  ought to have the sympathy of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division, as well as of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in this matter. I assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this is a concession which will be very useful and very popular in the country. The amount of money which the agricultural labourer requires to stock his land has been over-stated. He does not want £10 an acre, nor half of it. If an agricultural labourer has £40 or £50, it would be much better spent in the position of a tenant than in purchasing land in order to become the owner. It is to give him an opportunity of using his money to the best possible purpose that I ask the right hon. Gentleman for the small concession of extending the letting of it from ten acres to twenty acres.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I venture to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do so with some hope and confidence, because the right hon. Gentleman who is passing this Bill through the House, even in the last words he has used, seems to have more sympathy for the agricultural labourer than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, because he has given us some hope that he will extend the limit of ten acres as I understand him only just now The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has very much over-stated the amount of capital which would be necessary for an agricultural labourer to work a holding of 20 acres; and I speak of that with some experience. But if you take it at £200, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is quite obvious that to work 100 acres he would require £100; and my experience of the agricultural labourer is that it would be as difficult for him to produce £100 as £200. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman's idea of the amount of capital is a correct one, and that we must adopt the limit of ten acres which he prefers, it would be equally difficult for the agricultural labourer to work that quantity as it would be to work 20 acres.
  COLONEL EYRE: In considering the letting value of land, the hon. Gentleman entirely forgot the value of the tenant right, which, in all probability, taking an average clay farm and the four-course system, would range from £7 to £1 or £2 an acre. He omitted that altogether from his calculation, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is perfectly right.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Why, we were told not long ago by many right hon. Gentlemen that it was quite possible for an agricultural labourer, a saving man, to work his way to a farm which would employ a pair of horses, and the hon. Member for Forfarshire, who ought to know something about these matters, said that was a very proper limit for him to go to, namely, a farm that he could work with a pair of horses. But now we have the dictum laid down that we are not going a step beyond ten acres for the agricultural labourer. If that be so, what use is the right hon. Gentleman's Bill? I admit that some limit should be fixed; but what I fail to see is that the right hon. Gentleman has given any reason whatever why we should have the limit of ten acres, and why it should not be left to the discretion of the County Council either to let or sell according to the circumstances of the case. There is no reason that I can see for this limit except the Report of this Committee, but the Report of this Committee is not like the law of the Medes and Persians which could not be changed.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am inclined to doubt very much if this concession would be anything like so very acceptable to the agricultural labourers as hon. Gentlemen seem to imagine. I dare say I have had as many opportunities of meeting the agricultural labourers and of obtaining their views, especially on the merits of this Bill, as any Gentleman in this House. I can say without exaggeration that I have met some hundreds, I might say thousands, of agricultural labourers, and
  444
  explained the Bill to them precisely as it stands now; and from all the agricultural labourers that I have met, both in public and in private, I never heard one single suggestion made to me that the limit of ten acres should be exceeded. The agricultural labourers are exceedingly practical men; they know perfectly well what they can do, and what they cannot do. They thoroughly understand the land and its management quite as well as any farmer in the country. I am perfectly confident of this, that if there had been any general desire, such as is supposed to exist among hon. Gentlemen opposite for an increase of the limit of ten acres to twenty acres, on the part of the agricultural labourers themselves, I should have been one of the very first to have heard of it. I must say that I agree altogether with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. He was instrumental in forwarding through the Committee the Bill which is now before the House; and I do not think that anybody deserves more credit for this Bill than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
  MR. BARCLAY: I would be disposed to support this Amendment in the interest of the County Councils. If the County Councils were unable to let all their land, the Amendment would have this effect, that it would enable them to let the surplus to some person to whom land had been already let, and who might want more. The clause, as it stands, would, as I understand it, prevent them from doing this.
  MR. HALDANE: This is a matter of some importance, and as it is now after eleven o'clock, I beg to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Haldane.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely understand the wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite to get to the other important business

  445
  before the House, and I desire to meet their views by proceeding as rapidly with the discussion as possible. But I think we might without difficulty dispose of this clause before the other important business is taken, as I believe, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) says, there is nothing controversial in the rest of the clause.
  MR. CHANNING: In supporting the Motion to Report Progress I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he said he did not attach much importance to the number, ten acres. I think the discussion has not gone sufficiently into the merits of the case whether or not we should enlarge the ten acres to twenty acres, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept some limit which would meet the views of other hon. Members. I think it is only quite reasonable that you should report Progress in order to afford time to consider the question, and I beg to support the Motion.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It is true that I made that statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But the reason why I have not accepted the Amendment is because, with great respect to hon. Gentlemen, I have not heard any reason advanced in support of the Amendment, contrary to my own knowledge, which would induce me to do so. I admit that this is a matter of very extreme importance, and if I can see my way to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen I shall be willing to accept 15 acres. I also wish to point out that I made one error in the observations which I made just now as to the character of this clause. There is, I observe, an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devon which is an important Amendment.
  SIR W. FOSTER: If "fifteen acres" were inserted that would meet our views.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will bring this clause into harmony with the 2nd sub-section of Clause 1 by fixing a money limit as well. The sub-section would then read—
  446
  "Which either does not exceed fifteen acres, or if exceeding fifteen acres, is of the annual value, for the purposes of the income-tax, not exceeding £15."
  DR. CLARK: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now agree to report Progress, in order that this question may be considered by the Minister for Agriculture, and because the understanding was that at eleven o'clock we would begin to discuss the very important question raised by the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think my hon. Friend has heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He has undertaken, in order to close the discussion, to make it fifteen acres.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not think fifteen acres is what we should like in Scotland, but in order to shorten discussion I shall ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I am wishful that the Committee should recognise that we are willing to meet concessions as far as possible, and although I can see no harm in removing the limit altogether, I shall in the interests of business withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, after the word "which," to insert the word "either."—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "fifteen."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 23, after the word "extent," to insert the words, "or if exceeding fifteen acres, is of the annual value, for the purposes of the income-tax, not exceeding £15."—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: My Amendment is a very simple Amendment, and one which the right

  447
  hon. Gentleman and the Committee will, I think, be able to accept without any difficulty.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, after the word "Act," in line 24, to insert the words,—"The County Council shall have power to let one or more small holdings of not more than fifteen acres each to a number of persons working on a co-operative system, provided the same be approved by the County Council."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: There is no necessity for this Amendment as far as I understand it. There is nothing to prevent the County Council doing the very thing which the hon. Member proposes in his Amendment.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: It is quite true that they can let 15 acres to A, 15 acres to B, and 15 acres to C; but according to the Bill, as I read it, they cannot let three or four 15 acres conjointly to a number of people. The Amendment cannot do any harm.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I accept it.
  DR. CLARK: I beg again to move that you report Progress. A quarter of an hour has already passed since the hour agreed upon by the right hon. Gentleman for the discussion of the Scotch Universities Commission, and I trust he will give us the time agreed upon, and not keep us here till three or four o'clock.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I trust that, as there is no objection to this Amendment, it will be allowed to pass. That will not cost any time, whereas if we are to discuss the question a considerable time will be wasted. The hon. Gentleman below me will not find that there will be any delay if he allows the Amendmant to be carried to which there is no objection.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: Will the hon. Member for Bordesley explain what he means by the words "the same" in his Amendment?
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress. It was a clear understanding that we should commence the Scotch Universities Commission at eleven o'clock.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Clark.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must remind the hon. Member that what I said was that, if we made good progress with the Bill, at eleven o'clock or soon after I would report Progress. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his proposal.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that something else has happened. We were engaged in discussing a knotty point whether the Committee should accept ten acres or fifteen acres. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said, "If you bring this discussion to an end, in order that we may pass to the other Bill, I will accept the Amendment." It was understood both on the part of the Government and the Members on this side of the House that when that matter was disposed of we should pass to other business. If we are to go on and finish the clause, we do not know how long the other Amendments may take, and in the end nothing substantial will have been done.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. What I said was that we should finish the clause, there being only five Amendments on the Paper, some of which I had already agreed to accept. I propose to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley.
  Question put.
  (11.18.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 192.—(Div. List, No. 113.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. FARQUHARSON: As a pledge was given that the discussion on the Scotch Universities question should come on at 11 o'clock, and it is now half-past eleven, I shall move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would point out that the hon. Member cannot make the Motion in that form, and that of the 30 minutes since 11 o'clock, 25 of them were occupied in the preliminary discussion of the Motion which has just been rejected. For that reason I cannot agree to the proposition, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion?
  *DR. FARQUHARSON: I will withdraw it and move to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  MOTIONS.

    UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND), ORDINANCES.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. HALDANE: In rising to propose the Motion which stands in my name, I wish to explain the spirit in which I bring it forward. The last thing I desire to do is to cast any reflection on the distinguished men who have given their services and devoted so much trouble to the work of this Commission. It would be impossible for the House to undertake the task of tinkering the Ordinances. It can only consider general principles in connection with them, and it is in that spirit that this Motion is brought forward. Now, the Commissioners have issued certain Ordinances, and have left aside other Ordinances which deal with the Universities and their machinery, and I submit that until we have them all before us we cannot come to a judgment with regard to the whole scheme. The points of substance on which I rely are points which were raised in the discussion on the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889. There were certain
    450
    points then raised upon which the Scotch Members were practically unanimous. One of them was that there should be a very large extension of the teaching power of the Universities. I do not mean necessarily in extramural teaching, but in real organisation of the professoriate to enable professors to cover more topics, and with a view to increasing the number of professors. The Scotch Universities stand in a peculiar position. They have relatively large funds; but they pay, or did pay, under the old system some very high salaries, and we felt that in the future we ought to use the funds more widely and economically in reorganising the teaching staff not only in relation to extra-mural teaching, but in reorganising and multiplying Chairs. There was another point we were all agreed upon. We desired to see the examination system of the Universities improved. We all remember the Debate on the recent occasion in reference to a teaching University for London, and there were two points of view. The one sought to provide a purely teaching body, the other an examining body, the teaching machinery to be altogether subordinate. But in regard to the Scotch Universities, teaching is a very important part of the question. We want to see teaching reorganised and improved, and the addition of a stronger examining body not entirely independent, but standing in a sort of reciprocal connection. Then we desire to see a chest established into which all fees of students should go, and that the contents should be used in apportioning the salaries of professors and lecturers in a way which does not obtain under the present system, where fees are received by individual professors. These are the three main points upon which I think we were all agreed, and we expected to see that carried out in the Ordinances of the Commission. But when we come to these Ordinances we find ourselves in a great difficulty. It may be that the Commissioners intend to appoint a University chest. I have heard that this is so, but the Ordinance for the purpose is not before us, and we have no opportunity of saying what the position will be in regard to lectureships, or if profess-

    451
    sorial arrangements are adequate to the situation of the Universities with which we have to deal. The point is of pressing and serious importance. In common with a good many Members of the House, I have had the advantage of the education given by a Scotch University; and one used to find that, when a student in the Arts Faculty, one was shut out from the chance of attending lectures of a professor on a particular point, say, of logic, because one was obliged to go through a specified course of attendance on lectures adapted to all students. Now, suppose some of us have gone—as many have—to a German University, there we find the opportunity given of attending the lectures not of one, but of three or four, of the most distinguished men of the day, dealing with different parts of the subject, and the student can get the particular kind of instruction he wants. What is true of the Scotch Universities in the Faculty of Arts is still more true in regard to the Faculty of Medicine. In the Faculty of Medicine at Edinburgh University in 1889–90 there were 2,003 medical students, and there were twelve professors. Now, at Leipzig there were 35 such professors to 944 students, and at Strasbourg 28 professors to 353 students. We do not see why similar advantages should not be open to the students at Scotch Universities, knowing as we do that in the German Universities the funds are less adequate and the machinery at the disposition of the University less easy to handle. Now, Ordinance 17 deals with the subject of assistant lecturers. I have said it is impossible for us to criticise the Ordinance properly unless we have the Financial Ordinance before us, and my first point in asking that the Ordinances should go back is that we should have a second and revised edition prepared along with the Financial Ordinance, so that we may see how the Universities of the future will stand as a whole. The second objection is that this Ordinance 17 is not in itself adequate. It does not propose to reorganise the professorial chairs, it does not multiply lecturers or professors; what it primarily seeks to do is to put the class of assistant lecturers on a new footing. These assistants are an
    452
    admirable body of young men, and they are paid extremely small salaries, and they will be, if this Ordinance is passed, nominated by the professors and the University Court. It is obvious that under this provision there will be no real extension of the teaching power. Then we come to lecturers, and the view the Commissioners take seems to be that the lecturers and assistants at the will of the University Court shall have interchangeable functions. They do not propose to put lecturers on the footing of professors—they are only to hold office for a limited time and in a subordinate position. They are not to have control of the laboratories or demonstration rooms; these lecturers are to hold an altogether subordinate position. Under the proposed Ordinance the Court has power to appoint lecturers on subjects not taught in the University in the Faculty of Arts with which I am now dealing, and so far so good; but when you come to the other subjects which the professors do teach, for instance, Logic, you do not find any general power in the University Court to appoint lecturers. The scheme only recognises that the Court shall have power where it is necessary, "from the number of students, or any other cause." Then the Ordinance in regard to Arts fails entirely to carry out what we all agreed should be done. I do not want to weary the House with details in which it will be apparent things will be no better than they now are. In regard to women, they are according to the Ordinances, placed on a footing in regard to extra-mural and extra-professorial teaching different to men. In regard to some of the detailed matters in the Faculty of Arts, there are points which seem to me to partake of the nature of oversights. In the House of Lords this afternoon, I believe, one of these oversights has been corrected, the slip in the Ordinance with regard to Mathematics having been put right. Well, there is another slip in connection with the Ordinance extending extra-mural teaching to women, and which, I think, the Government might assist us in requesting the Commissioners to put right. The proposition of the Commissioners is to put women

    453
    on the same footing, as regards facilities for instruction, as men, and it is part of these facilities that in all subjects for graduation they shall have the full advantage of extra-mural teaching. But when we come to the case in which all the professors are not in agreement, or where all the professors except one agree, the effect of the Ordinance as it stands, for instance, in reference to the Faculty of Arts—in Sub-section 2 of Section 3—is that no woman who finds a professor willing to instruct her in qualifying for Arts will be allowed to receive this extra-mural teaching in his subject. Revision of the Sub-sections 2, 3, and 4 are necessary to reconcile them with the proposition that women shall have the same facilities as men for extra-mural teaching. I am not going through the Ordinances in detail, but one matter of importance I must refer to, and upon which we were agreed. We were very anxious to raise the level of Scotch Universities. They are too much in the condition of secondary schools, and secondary schools of a very elementary order. I remember well, when I attended the Greek class some years ago, some of the students were hardly able to conjugate a Greek verb. Now, it is not desirable that Scotch Universities should be hampered by the necessity for elementary teaching. We thought it well that there should be instituted an entrance examination. This to some extent has been done in the Arts Faculty so far as candidates for degrees are concerned. I believe there are outside bodies—for example, the General Councils of Edinburgh and Glasgow—who are unanimous on this topic, and are of opinion that unless some step of this kind is taken it will be impossible to bring up the level of the Scotch Universities to what it ought to be. It is not extra-mural teaching I am insisting upon, though that is a good thing. What is wanted is a reorganisation of professorships and the extension of lectureships on a substantial footing. In the second place we want, as I have said, the Financial Ordinance before us as well as the other Ordinances. Thirdly, we want the Ordinance in regard to women students corrected, that they shall be put on the same footing as
    454
    regards extra-mural teaching as male students. We also want a preliminary examination or something equivalent instituted for the purpose of raising the level of the Universities. For these purposes what we ask is not that the House should endeavour to amend the Ordinances in detail, for we recognise the difficulty of doing anything of the kind, and we could not attempt to do it so well as the distinguished men who have given their attention to the subject; but we feel it is desirable that the Ordinances should go back to the Commissioners not in any hostile spirit, but in order that they may let us have them as a whole. No doubt they thought it well to deal with the more urgent subjects first, but we feel strongly that the system of issuing the Ordinances piecemeal puts the House at a disadvantage. We ask that the Ordinances may be re-issued in a collective revised form, so that we may be enabled to pass judgment upon them as a whole, amended, as we hope, in the points I have ventured to indicate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her assent from the Ordinances numbered 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, made by the Commissioners under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889."—(Mr. Haldane.)
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I have a Motion to reject Ordinances 14, 15, and 16, but I prefer to follow my hon. and learned Friend on broader and more general grounds in the proposal to appeal against the Commissioners back to themselves—back to the deliberate judgment they at first arrived at when the Ordinances were laid before the professors. More particularly I wish to draw attention to the teaching of Materia Medica, which I consider of considerable importance. The course prescribed for pharmacy under the Ordinance is insufficient. The original proposition was that the student should attend fifty meetings of practical pharmacy, and the examinations were appointed after the student had devoted some

    455
    study to pathology and physiology, and had attended some course of medicine. But after the Ordinance had been before the professors, a distinct change was introduced and I do not know on what grounds. Pharmacy has been reduced to 25 courses, which I say is wholly insufficient for proper study. Then the examinations in Materia Medica and therapeutics are transferred from the end of the fourth winter session to the end of the third winter session, and before the student knows anything of pathology. It is impossible to expect a student to have any intelligent or coherent apprehension of the action of drugs on diseases when he has no notion of the diseases these drugs are supposed to affect. As well expect to find professors in astronomical science without knowledge of mathematics, or a student to pass an examination in surgery without knowledge of anatomy. It is hopeless to expect any efficiency in the examining under such conditions; it is against the experience of those who know anything of the subject. The professors of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen have petitioned in favour of the status quo that examinations shall be held at the end of the fourth year, and in the same sense there has been a petition from all the provincial lecturers on Materia Medica, as well as from all except one in London. I can say from my own experience as a lecturer that it is hopeless to expect a student to know therapeutics intelligently before he has attended a course of pathology and medicine. I shall be curious to hear what the objections are to restoring Materia Medica to its old position. I do not want to express any want of confidence in the Commissioners, who, I believe, left the consideration of the subject to the two medical members of the Commission. They are gentlemen of the highest ability and professional standing. Sir Arthur Mitchell is an acknowledged expert in lunacy matters, and as such I with great pleasure admit he stands at the top of the profession. Dr. P. H. Watson is equally eminent as a surgeon. Should I require a limb removed with celerity and safety there is no man I would rather trust myself to than Dr. Watson. But
    456
    neither of these gentlemen carry authority in reference to the teaching of Materia Medica which should outbalance the opinion of all the professors of the Scotch Universities, and the almost unanimous opinion of lecturers in favour of the old plan. I may be told I am making too much of Materia Medica, but I say it is quite impossible to make too much of it. The treatment of diseases by drugs is the culminating point, the apex in the medical student's career. All the study culminates in the making of prescriptions. It is all very well for a man to say he has no faith in drugs. I do not say that, and no man of experience will deny the benefit of a judicious use of remedial drugs. The public demand drugs, and medical men fulfil their expectations. It is not always sufficient to cut off a man's leg or his liquor, drugs must be used to cope with diseases, and so I say the study of the medical student culminates in his written prescription for his patient; and this is a question of the highest importance not only to the student but to the general community, or that portion medical men have under their charge. I do not ask for anything revolutionary; I only ask for the replacement of the old status quo. I second the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend, with whose remarks I generally though not absolutely agree, to refer these Ordinances back to the Commissioners for reconsideration. To adopt this Ordinance (15) will be to take a retrograde step—it will injure medical teaching and practice; and I strongly urge upon hon. Members that the House will incur a serious responsibility if it backs up the Commissioners against the united opinion of those experts best qualified to form an opinion on the subject.
    MR. JEBB: I should scarcely have presumed to intervene in this discussion were it not for the circumstance that during several years, and until a recent date, I had the honour of holding a professorship in the University of Glasgow, and so have had the opportunity of forming a judgment upon

    457
    some at least of the matters now under discussion. I shall not attempt to cover the whole field presented by these Ordinances. I will deal with only a few definite points, and with these as concisely as possible. Some of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane), whose speech I listened to with great interest, I will notice; but on the other hand I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire into the medical department of the subject. Nor shall I confine myself to the points noticed in the speeches of those two hon. Members, because we know that the grounds upon which these Ordinances are exposed to criticism within and without the House extend over a still larger area. At the outset I would pray for that indulgence which the generous usage of the House extends to one who addresses it for the first time, and I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to dismiss from their minds any prepossession they may be disposed to entertain towards one who as a former professor in a Scotch University might be supposed to hold a brief for academic privilege. Like hon. Gentlemen opposite, I approach the subject with no thought or aim but that of discovering what is for the true interests of the Scotch Universities, and though I am not so sanguine as to hope that I shall convince hon. Members opposite, I am sure they will bear with me while I try to state clearly some of the reasons which weigh with me in supporting the Ordinances and declining to assent to the Motion now before the House. Now, there can be no doubt that one of the broadest grounds on which exception has been taken to the Ordinances as a whole is the ground which was indicated, if I am not mistaken, in the vigorous speech of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) on Thursday afternoon, namely, that the Ordinances as a whole do not recognise the principle of extramural teaching. Before touching on the question of the lecturers and assistants to which the hon. Member for Haddington has referred, I think it is indispensable to indicate the particular reasons which have weighed with
    458
    thoughtful men like the Commissioners against admitting the principle of extra-mural teaching into their proposals for legislation. It will be within the memory of many that the principle of extra-mural teaching, or rather the question of extending that principle from the Faculty of Medicine to the Faculty of Arts, was one of the questions before the Commission of 1878. They dealt with some of the arguments for and against the principle of extra-mural teaching in their Report, Section 9. The first argument in favour of the proposal was an argument from analogy. No one questions that the principle of extra-mural teaching has worked well in the Faculty of Medicine; and so it is argued by friends of the principle, "Why should it not work well in the Faculty of Arts?" Then the second argument is that competition would be a good thing for the professors themselves, and would afford an incentive to exertion where such might be needed. Then, thirdly, it has been pointed out with great force that if a particular professor happens to be inefficient it is hard that the student should have no alternative teaching. Now, with reference to the first and second arguments, counterarguments were brought before the Commission of 1878. As to the alleged analogy between Medicine and Arts, it was pointed out the analogy was not a real one. The study of medicine is a professional study. The medical student, when he goes in for his examination, has his information tested, and it is of little moment where the information was acquired provided he has it. Beyond the examination is the ordeal of medical practice. The medical student has lost his time if his study, besides enabling him to pass his examination, does not suffice to render him an efficient practitioner. But the Faculty of Arts is in a different position—its aim is a liberal education, and there is no such test as there is for the Medical Faculty. It is true the examination in Arts can, to a certain point, test the knowledge of the student, and to a certain point enable the examiners to judge of the degree of his mental cultivation; but still it is of extreme importance that there should be

    459
    a guarantee that the quality of the teaching is such as not only to enable a student to pass an examination, but to educate him. We must inquire, then, what would be the real effect of such competition as extra-mural teaching in Arts would introduce? What would be the effect on the extra-mural teacher on the one hand and the intramural professor on the other? Those who know Scotch and English Universities will agree with me—I am sure my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), will do so—that it is of the greatest importance to the efficiency of a University that its teaching should not be cramped and fettered by habitual regard to examinations. That has hitherto been one of the best features of the Scotch Universities. The professors have taught a certain proportion of work required for examinations, but they have taught a great deal more besides; and, moreover, the standard of their teaching, both in regard to the ordinary degree and with a view to honours, has been higher than the standard required in the respective examinations. Now, suppose extra-mural teaching was instituted, what will be the quality of the teaching given as a general rule by the extra-mural teacher? Let me at once meet a possible objection. I am not assuming that among the extra-mural teachers there will not be a considerable number of men whose aims in teaching are as high as those of any professor, and whose capacity is adequate to such aims; but I wish to point out that by force of circumstances, by stress of competition with other extramural teachers and with professors, they will be practically compelled in almost all cases to teach with a view to examinations. What will be the effect of that on the professors? The professor who finds his class dwindling under stress of such competition will inevitably be tempted to meet his extramural rivals by lowering his standard. I hope and believe that in most cases this temptation will be resisted; but the fact that the proposal will expose professors to that temptation is in itself an argument against the proposal. It was on the consideration of these arguments that the Commission of 1878
    460
    came to the conclusion that it was not, on the whole, expedient to introduce extra-mural teaching into the Faculty of Arts. But they did allow full weight to one argument in its favour, namely, that if a professor is inefficient the student should have an alternative resource. Ordinance 17 destroys that argument, because by Section 9 the University Court is enabled to appoint a lecturer in a subject already taught—
    "When, from the number of students, or any other cause, it appears to be necessary that provision should be made for increasing the teaching power in any of the said subjects (subjects which are already taught) within the University."
    Therefore, if the professor of a particular subject happens to be inefficient, it will be in the power of the University Court to appoint a lecturer in his subject. But there is a still larger question to be considered. What would be the probable effect on the general character of the Scotch Universities? If the lectures of the extra-mural teachers are to count for graduation, there can be no reason to restrict the privilege to such extra-mural teachers who reside in the University towns or their immediate neighbourhood. It was observed on Thursday by the hon. Member for Caithness that many a schoolmaster in Scotland is capable of teaching for a University degree. I entirely agree with him, and I am sure he would not confine that statement to schoolmasters living at St. Andrew's, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. But if extramural teachers living anywhere were to teach for a University degree, then students need no longer resort to the University for teaching, and the University would tend, so far, to become a mere centre for purposes of examination. The Universities of Scotland have hitherto been teaching as well as examining bodies, and I am sure that the great majority of their friends desire that they should preserve that character. I sympathise with the reasonable wish which is at the basis of the demand for extra-mural teaching, though I do not believe that extra-mural teaching is the best way to carry out that wish. There is nothing, I think,

    461
    more desirable, more urgently needed, than that the Scotch Universities should open an academic career to such of their own graduates as have proved pre-eminent capacity for such a career; and one of the grounds upon which I most cordially welcome the Ordinances—though I do not say they are perfect—is that they take a long and most important step in that most desirable, I might say necessary, direction. Now, I invite the House to consider briefly what will be the effect of Ordinance 17 in so far as it relates to lecturers and assistants. A lecturer can be appointed by the University Court either in subjects not already taught within the University or in subjects which are already taught. Objections have been made to these regulations on several grounds, and I will mention the chief of these, so far as I am aware of them. First, it is urged that there will be no competition between the lecturer and the professor, and that, therefore, the competitive principle on which the friends of extra-muralism insist is not recognised. Now, that is not the case. When the subject of the lectureship is one not already taught in the University, the lecturer will have the field to himself; but when it is a subject already taught, then the lecturer will compete with the professor in one of two ways. If the lecturer takes a special branch of the subject, which has not been usually or fully covered by the professor, such special branch will be an alternative which the candidate for a degree may take, instead of the branch or branches taught by the professor. Here, then, there will be indirect competition, since the student may choose between the part taught by the lecturer and that taught by the professor. If, on the other hand, the lecturer traverses the same ground as the professor, then there is, of course, direct competition. It is true that, under Section 10, the University Court may determine that the teaching of a lecturer shall not count for graduation; but the case thus contemplated is an exceptional one—namely, when the subject is too narrow to be fairly allowed as an option in graduation. The whole spirit of the Ordinances shows clearly
    462
    that, as a rule, the lectures of the lecturer are intended to count for graduation just as much as those given by the professor. The second objection raised is that the lecturers will have no independence—that the lecturers will be dependent on the Senatus—that is, the professors. The 12th section of Ordinance 17 provides—
    "They (the lecturers) shall be bound to conform to all regulations with respect to their teaching arrangements which may be made from time to time by the Senatus, after consultation with the Board of Studies or the Faculty concerned, and any questions between them and the professors shall be determined by the Senatus, with appeal to the University Court."
    This regulation merely expresses the fact that the lecturers are to hold a definite place as members of an organised academic body. Each individual professor is similarly subject, in respect of teaching arrangements, to his Board of Studies, and so ultimately to the Senatus. (Ordinance 11, Sect. 18.) Without such an arrangement the work of a large University staff could not be carried on; and I venture to think that the so-called "independence" would in practice be another name for academic anarchy. Again, it has been argued that the lecturers will be reduced to the status of assistants to the professors; but that is really an inversion of the fact. Under Section 13 an assistant can be made also a lecturer; but in such a case it will be the status of the person who is an assistant which will be raised, not the office of the lecturer that will be lowered. It is further objected that, when a lecturer is also an assistant, his tenure of his lectureship will be insecure, because, if the professor does not recommend his assistantship to be continued at the end of the year, it will be difficult for him to retain his lectureship. But in Ordinance 17, Section 11, it is provided that the University Court shall be the "sole and final judges" of any question of culpa in a lecturer. The Court would not dismiss a lecturer merely because he had proved unsuited to an assistantship. A man might be unsatisfactory as an assistant, and yet be a very good lecturer. Further, the University Court will have entire financial control, and could compensate a lecturer whom it held to have been

    463
    unjustly deprived of his assistantship. A most important feature of these proposals is the improved status given to the assistants; they are made officers of the University, and the University Court can grade them in regard to emoluments. It is true that the University Court appoint assistants on the recommendation of the professors; but it is necessary that the professor should be satisfied as to the competence of the assistant, and should be able to work harmoniously with him. Then as to the new Boards of Studies. It is objected that these are intended to give to the Senatus a stricter control over the students and non-professorial teachers. It is enough to observe that the object of these Boards of Studies is to insure a higher organisation of studies. The lecturers are represented upon them, and they give a better position to the lecturers by associating them on a footing of equality with the professors. It is the reverse of the fact to say that these Boards are in the interest of the professors as distinguished from the lecturers. Exception has been taken to the complex restrictions imposed for degrees in Arts; but I ask the House to remember that these restrictions are necessary, because of the numerous options as to subjects which the new Ordinances offer to students. They are necessary in order that the student may not pick out easy subjects, or parts of subjects, and form for himself too easy a road to a degree. The restrictions are to insure that the various courses shall be fairly equivalent in point of difficulty, and that each course shall have a certain unity. Lastly, it is objected that too much power is given to the Senatus or professorial body, and too little to the University Court; but that is contrary to the fact. The University Court is the supreme administrative body, and it is representative in the most comprehensive sense. In Edinburgh and Glasgow it consists of 14 members, and represents the General Council, that is the whole body of graduates; it represents the students, through their Lord Rector and his assessor, usually appointed after consultation with the students; it represents
    464
    the Municipal Authority in the person of the Provost or Lord Provost and a member elected by the Town Council; and it represents the Senatus or teaching body. This Court, thus thoroughly representative, has absolute control of the finances. The Senatus is given the functions of teaching and discipline; but on any point within the competence of the Senatus there is an appeal to the University Court. The Ordinances simply follow this general demarcation of provinces, as laid down in the Act of 1889. Viewed as a whole, these Ordinances represent an attempt to promote the natural growth and expansion of the Scotch Universities from within. They represent an attempt to bring about a higher, larger, and more effective organisation; one in which a place shall be found for some, at least, of the ablest and most qualified teachers who can be found among the graduates of the Universities; an organisation, too, in which a place shall be given to every branch of study which ought to be included in an academic system. In contrast with such an organisation, the extra-mural system would surround the Universities with an indefinitely large fringe of teachers not related to any system, but each following the impulse of individual enterprise, each selecting his subject at will, less with a view to the interest of the academic commonwealth than to the prospect of successful competition. Speaking from personal knowledge of at least one Scotch University, I do not hesitate to say that these Ordinances as a whole are a large and important measure of reform. I respectfully thank the House for the indulgence shown to me; and, in conclusion, I earnestly appeal to hon. Members opposite to consider whether the good contained in these Ordinances does not far outweigh such defects as they may find there. I ask them to reflect whether the object which they and I have in view—the welfare of the Scotch Universities—will not be better promoted by now accepting these large benefits, than by a course of action which, if successful, might possibly defer the prospect of all academic reform in Scotland to an uncertain future.
    *SIR H. ROSCOE: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down upon the admirable and lucid speech to which I am sure everyone in the House must have listened with the greatest pleasure. Also I have to thank the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from this side of the House for the kind way in which they have alluded to the efforts which the Commissioners made to bring about a really lasting and useful reform in Scotch Universities. As to the special point, to which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) drew attention, I must say I think the House of Commons is not the proper body to discuss the intricate and difficult questions in relation to materia medica, whether it should have a course of 50 or 25 lectures, or whether the examination should be taken at the end of the third or of the fourth year of study. But I may assure my hon. Friend that the subject has received the most deliberate attention of the Commissioners, and that it was not without consultation that the change was made in this matter after the draft was passed. The Commissioners received both oral and written communications, and it was on the balance of evidence, after careful consideration, that the Commissioners decided to place materia medica in the position it now occupies in the Ordinance. But the particular points raised will, doubtless, be discussed—they ought to be—before the Privy Council, and parties will have the opportunity of bringing the subject forward, and of being heard by counsel—the right and proper course to take. With regard to the Medical Ordinance generally, I should like to say that the object of the Commissioners has been to lighten the burden which has hitherto pressed heavily upon medical students. We all know the complaints made, that the students are overburdened with lectures and work, and our object has been to put forward a curriculum by which a sound medical education can be given without overburdening the students with too heavy a mass of lectures and medical work. Passing from this to a subject mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington
    466
    (Mr. Haldane), who complained, and justly complained, that the Ordinances are not complete, I may say that no one can regret more than the Commissioners that this is so. But it was impossible for the Commissioners to report fully and wholly until the financial position was made clear to them, and it was but a few days since that this was made clear. Until the sum of £30,000 was voted, the total amount the Commissioners had in hand for any improvements which they might make was £14,000. With this sum they had to make the alterations, and the number of new professorships my hon. Friend referred to could not be created. For this and no other reason it was necessary either to wait until the whole matter was finished, or to issue the Ordinances one by one. I think we took the right course in issuing the Ordinances as we did. The hon. Member (Mr. Haldane) has urged the case of the German Universities. Now, we all know what the German Universities are. We know that they are supported entirely by the State, and that the whole system is one which in Scotland it is absolutely impossible at the present moment to endeavour to imitate. The number of professors in German Universities is, as my hon. Friend has stated, very large, and it is obvious that it was perfectly impossible for the Commission to attempt to apply the German system to Scotland. The question of extramural teaching has been so ably handled by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Jebb) that I think I need say nothing on that point. In regard to the teaching of women, the hon. Member (Mr. Haldane) complains that women are not placed on exactly the same footing with men. I must say that is not the case. We have given them certain retrospective priviledges which are not allowed to men, and we have endeavoured to do all we can to place them on exactly the same footing as men in the future. We have had no objection raised by women themselves, and we believe that from what we learn they are perfectly satisfied with the Ordinances as they stand. I trust the House will support the Commissioners. Let me

    467
    add that the Commissioners have endeavoured to make an arrangement by which the professors shall not be directly dependent on the fees of their own classes. There will be a fee fund, into which the fees of the different Faculties will be thrown, and a minimum fixed salary will be apportioned out of the revenues of the University for each professor. A maximum salary will also be recognised, but this will depend upon the total fee fund. In all these matters I believe we have the support of public opinion, and meet a real desire, that while upholding the dignity of the professorship—a matter we consider of great importance—we should take care that the emoluments should not depend on the fees of the class, but be a fixed sum, determined by the welfare and success of the University as a whole.
    MR. WALLACE: With admiration I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University in regard to conception, argument, and style, and I should, have hesitated to rise in opposition to his line of argument but that I recognise in the hon. Gentleman himself a living refutation of his own argument. Is he not a brilliant example of the triumph of that extramural teaching identified with the two great English Universities? Are not the colleges in relation to the University of Cambridge a collection of separate houses for extra-mural teaching? Do not the colleges compete in those examinations which the hon. Member deprecates as the ruin of the highest culture? In my opinion, the Commissioners have erred in rejecting extra-mural teaching, and in that they have not carried out the spirit of the Statute, which mentions extra-mural teaching as, I think, to encourage it. I think in closing the door against extra-mural teaching the Commissioners are introducing the principle of protection into our scholastic institutions in Scotland. All the Scottish Universities are not equally provided with professors and teachers. They may, and some have, a larger number of teachers suitable to the different options given in Arts. The consequence will be that students desirous of degrees will flock to the better equipped Universities, still further im-
    468
    poverishing the poor and weakening the weak. It is important to have a choice of teachers, and I do not allow that the extra-mural teachers would be susceptible to those temptations the hon. Member has indicated. It is also foreign to the traditional character of the youth of Scotland that, ambitious of distinction, they should resort to the mere "grinder" or "crammer." I do not fear honourable competition in these matters; I refuse to believe that the competition will be degrading. Much may be said in favour of training your future supply of professors. To get the best men you must have the means of wide selection. It is unwise and foreign to our idea of a University to shut the teacher up in cloistered seclusion in the University, and I may suggest the importance of the diffusion of learning among the community. I know there are a great many people who owe a deal to the old curriculum. I think most of us think that the old curriculum has had a good effect on, and has done a great deal of good for, many of the present holders of it, and I think many may be under the impression that some of these newfangled options perhaps promise more than they are able to perform. If I may quote the words of a distinguished holder I would say that they are more prominent in prospectus than they are likely to be in dividend. That preliminary examination is an actual discouragement, it is a positive discouragement to the degree that has been proposed for literature and language. This is certainly a most excellent option, but aspirants are compelled to go through the highest preliminary examination in five or six subjects as contrasted with the fact that some other degrees require only two subjects. And then the position in which these Ordinances leave the Greek language is a matter which fills me with melancholy. I am not one of those who insist upon compulsory Greek for all people and for all purposes. There are certain persons whom Nature has made incapable of appreciating Greek, whether compulsory or voluntary, and to insist upon forcing it upon such unfortunates is a cruelty and is unworthy of the end of the nineteenth century. But there are other people whose highest possible

    469
    usefulness in this world is bound up with a thorough knowledge and possession of the Greek language, and of all that is implied in the possession of that key to an immense repository of knowledge. I say people who insist upon compulsory Greek for all are not more foolish than those who refuse to have compulsory Greek for anybody. I hope there never will come a time in the history of this country when there shall not be under the œgis of our educational legislation a class of scholars suited to Greek, and to whom Greek is suited in order to keep alive—and here I am sure I shall carry with me the consent of every intellectual and thoroughly educated person in this Assembly, which of course means the whole Assembly which I am allowed to address—this great language. I hope there never will be such an evil day when one of the most important chapters in the history of man and in the history of human thought shall be a sealed book to any of the intelligent persons in such a country as this, but that they will, either through first hand or through the secondary evidence of friends whom they can approach—though they cannot obtain it as clearly and directly from this source as can be done from the original fountains of thought and beauty—obtain a knowledge of what the Greek community were enabled to bestow upon mankind for their everlasting instruction and delight.
    MR. CRAWFORD: I think the main ground of complaint in the Debate to - night has been directed against the failure of the Commissioners to introduce extramural teaching. I would like, first of all, before touching upon that point, to acknowledge the assistance which the Commissioners have received from the eloquent remarks of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, on the subject of Greek. I think we all agree with what he said. We should have been glad to do more for Greek if we could, and I am glad he has answered by anticipation the objections of some hon. Friends of mine who consider that we have already done too much for Greek. With regard to extra-mural teaching,
    470
    I think I may test the weight of the arguments against it by the remarks which my Friend who has just sat down made with regard to the English Universities. He said with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University that he himself, his career and his speech, furnished the best argument that could be made in favour of extra-mural teaching. That is an argument which, I think, can hardly have been seriously advanced—certainly it could not be seriously advanced by anyone who was acquainted with the working of the English Universities. It is absurd to compare the college system of Oxford and Cambridge with the extra-mural teaching which is demanded now for the Scotch Universities. In the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge the students are in statu pupillari. They are under the care of the University, and they form members of a large and important corporation. We have no objection to see that system introduced into the Scotch Universities. We should welcome the establishment of more colleges in the University. There have not been in previous time more colleges than one in the Scotch Universities, and we have the amplest powers—and we shall be glad to see them exercised—of affiliating several colleges; but that has nothing in common with the licensing of individual men of whose qualifications very little may be known, and recognising their lectures for graduation. The point we start from is this: The Scotch Universities are teaching Universities. They have been teaching Universities, and, in our opinion, they ought to remain teaching Universities. We do not desire that they should be, or that they should approximate to be, mere examining bodies. If I am not mistaken, my hon. Friend who has just sat down, in the Debates when this Bill was passing through the House of Commons, boldly took up the view that Universities ought to be examining bodies. He took the view that we had no right to inquire where the knowledge was obtained so long as the knowledge was there. We respectfully and unanimously join issue with those who attack our Ordinances on this ground. We think that the Universities ought to be

    471
    primarily teaching bodies. Let me examine for a moment or two the observations against the Commissioners in this respect which were made by the hon. Member for East Lothian. He advocated, so far as I understood him, the system of the German Universities. He said, in the course of his remarks, that in the German Universities you find a large number of professors; that while in Scotland you might have twelve professors, in Germany you might have three times that number, and consequently that there were larger numbers of students. I have two observations to make upon that argument of the hon. Member for East Lothian. In the first place the Commissioners have no funds to establish professorships to that extent. If we had the funds, of course we should be very glad to do so. But I can go a great deal further than that. I would almost have said—if I had not thought it impossible in his case—that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian had framed his objections and drafted, mentally, his speech before he had read the Ordinances which he intended to attack, because he says that the Universities ought to have the power of selecting teachers for eminence in their particular subjects, and give the students the opportunity of attending those lectures. Why, that is exactly what we say, and that is one of the main features, and it is one of the new features, of the Ordinances we have introduced. We have taken advantage of the power given by the Act to invite the University Court to appoint several lecturers whose position will be such that their lectures will qualify for graduation. What we do not do, and what we decline to do, is to recognise his calling as a teacher for graduation, which may be said at first sight is now the case in medicine, and that it works tolerably well. Why does it work tolerably well in medicine? The reason is this, that the medical lecturers are invariably certified, chosen, selected, and appointed by various medical corporations outside the University, such as the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons. So that in that way, indirectly, the process of selection which we have explained is already done in
    472
    medicine. But in Arts it cannot be done. That is where we join issue with those who attack us. It is to that point, the point of extra-mural teaching, that I confine my observations. I do not think it would be reasonable that the House should listen to other details of the Ordinances. These are the principles we stand by. We think the Universities should be teaching Universities, and while we feel bound, to appoint as many more teachers as possible, we maintain that that must be done by selection and not by the recognition of the first course.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I recognise that it is extremely late, and I think I have given the very strongest earnest on former occasions that I am very unwilling to keep the House after twelve o'clock, for I think I may say that I am perhaps as responsible as any other Member of the House for the twelve o'clock rule. I am, therefore, going to give my reasons for supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Haddington most briefly and in the shortest time possible. There has been one point which has been left out of sight during the whole of this Debate; there was no allusion to it, as far as I remember, in that speech which most gratified the House at large—the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University. And I hope my hon. Friend opposite will allow me at once here, and for the old friendship I have had with him since we sat side by side in examination, in which the only honour I or any other of his competitors had any chance of winning was that of having entered into the same lists, to express the pleasure I feel as a personal friend, as one of his constituents, and as a Parliamentary Colleague, in such an exhibition of cultured talents as he has given to the House which he honours and which I hope he will frequently address. But in his speech, and in all the speeches which have followed and preceded him, no mention was made of the important fact that both of the great bodies of graduates of the two great Scottish Universities, the General Council of

    473
    the Glasgow University and the General Council of the Edinburgh University, have taken very grave exception to these Ordinances. Thus the representative educated opinion of these Universities outside what may be called the official circle is opposed to these Ordinances as they at present stand. That is a body of opinion to which we ought to give great weight, for I will venture to say that if it had not been for the General Councils of Edinburgh and Glasgow we should never have had this University Act and this University Commission. They were called for by these two bodies on account of their dissatisfaction with the then existing system, and they now complain that that system has not been changed. They complain, in terms of great respect towards the Commission, two members of which have addressed us to-night, in the first place that the main object for which this Act was brought before the House of Commons three years ago was in their opinion laid down in the words that provision was to be made for increasing the teaching power of the University, whether by extra-mural teaching or otherwise. They say, and I think they say rightly, that absolutely nothing whatever has been done in these Ordinances for extra-mural teaching. In the case of medicine the number of courses which may be pursued in extra-mural teaching has been doubled, and the number of courses in order to get the medical degree has been doubled likewise. The extramural teachers of Glasgow and Edinburgh in medicine lie under this very grave disadvantage, that whereas twelve out of the sixteen courses may be pursued under extra-mural teachers if the student is being educated at Leeds, at Newcastle, at Manchester, or at Durham; on the other hand, only eight can be pursued under extra-mural teachers if the teacher resides in Edinburgh or Glasgow. Extra-mural teaching has not been increased in science and in arts—it does not exist at all. My hon. Friend behind me says it was not their business to give facilities for studying under eminent men of whose qualifications very little might have been known. There is only one way of determining
    474
    whether a teacher is distinguished or not, and that is to give him fair play; and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) that the real teaching in our English Universities is extra-mural teaching. The highest honours are got not by attendance at lectures, but by private studies directed by able men who can give special and careful attention to the pupil. My hon. Friend opposite says that in his opinion the personal supervision of the teacher was of all importance, and that he does not want a mere examining University. But what is the use of talking of personal supervision of professors who teach these enormous classes; who draw these fees of £2,000 and £3,000 a year, representing some 600 or 700, or 300 or 400 pupils? What is the use of talking of personal supervision in a case like that? You refuse the personal supervision of the teacher who relies on his own merits outside, and what is given instead? This Ordinance, No. 17, appoints assistants and lecturers; but, in the first place, the appointment of assistants appears to the General Councils of these Universities to be far too much in the hands of professors. It is entirely in the hands of the professors, and the power of the lecturers, whose appointment is in the hands of the Court, in conducting the education, will be largely determined by the professors. They will be responsible to the Senatus, with only an appeal to the University Court; and no one who knows the practical working of any educational body will believe that this appeal will be of any serious avail except in case of very gross scandal and spiteful conduct on the part of the superiors; but it will be of no real avail, as against the steady daily supervision of the nearer body. And when we find on the top of that that the apparatus for instruction and the material belonging to any particular Chair shall be under the exclusive control of the professors, what will be the lecturers except the mere puppets, of the collective body of professors in the Senatus? The four objections which the Council take are these: First of all, that the educational policy is made over to the Senatus, who practically are the professors; secondly

    475
    the failure to provide an effective remedy for the evils of the large classes, by which the assistants and others do the work, while the professors get the fees; thirdly, the failure to provide new Chairs; and, fourthly, the refusal to extend to the Faculty of Arts and to other Faculties extra-mural teaching. Those are the objections taken by the great bodies of graduates of Edinburgh and Glasgow, and I do not think they have been answered in this Debate. But my hon. Friend behind me has taken an objection of his own, which I think is a thoroughly House of Commons objection, and that is that he ought not to have had the administrative and teaching Ordinances without the financial conditions. Putting extra-mural teaching aside, and the other great reason for this delay, that the monstrous scandal of these overgrown classes is not dealt with, I should like to know whether these lecturers are to be practically the rivals of the professors, co-equal with the professors, getting the share of fees which represents the number of students who come to their class, that being one system; or whether the other system is to be rigorously adopted, namely, where all the fees are to be put into the public Chest, and where salaries are then to be paid to the professors without respect of persons? It is because that subject is not embodied in these Ordinances, though we can find other great objections, many of which I have not mentioned, but which have been mentioned by hon. Friends who sit behind me—such objections as that the junior classes are still kept up, to the great disappointment of the advocates of secondary education in Scotland, and, as we think, to the great disadvantage of the Universities, and that the compulsory preliminary examination is not extended to all students—it is because of these objections to the Ordinances as they exist, united with the cardinal objection to their being separated from that which is the basis of the Bill, the financial scheme, that I think we should do very well to vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    MR. PARKER SMITH: I do not desire to
    476
    keep the House very long, but I wish to say one or two words with regard to the speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bridgeton. In the first place, I wish to say something with regard to these junior classes to which he referred. The junior classes do not consist of boys. In reality they consist of men. The age, I think, is much higher than the age in the other classes. They are not boys who ought to be at school. They are, nearly all of them, more than twenty years of age—young men whose education has been backward; men, some of whom would be better away from the University, but men to whom it has been the honour of the Scotch Universities that the opportunity of learning has been, no doubt, offered them. I do not want to go into other points, except this: that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton put forward the action of the University Councils of Edinburgh and Glasgow as his main reason for his action in the matter. I should like to say a few words as to what the history of the action of the University Council of Glasgow has been. That Council consists of the whole body of over 5,000 Parliamentary electors of the University. It has had this question before it, not only recently, but for the last ten years, and repeatedly, again and again, and it has decided against the principle of extra-mural teaching. In the present year—on the 16th of March last—a Motion in favour of extra mural teaching was carried by a majority of 21 to 11, out of a total constituency of a good deal over 5,000. It was that Motion which came up again for approval at a second meeting, and the whole of that meeting apparently consisted of less than forty persons. I venture to think that that does not show any feeling that you can speak of in the University at large. The only previous occasion on which such a Motion has been passed was in the previous October. That Motion, as it stands, sounds a strong one. As it stands it is this—

    477
    "The University Court shall have power to recognise for purposes of graduation in arts duly qualified teachers who are not professors in the University."
    That sounds as though it went some way; but it is to be taken with this explanation. Immediately after that Motion came on, there came on the election of assessor to the University Court. Two sets of men were standing against each other—one set consisting of the gentlemen who had proposed the Motion I have just read; the other set consisting of gentlemen who were opposed to the Motion. A supporter of the Motion boasted of having passed a week before in the University Council a Motion which he described thus—
    "Providing for distinguished graduates having the opportunity of teaching in the University under the appointment and supervision of the Court."
    He limited the scope of his Motion by describing it in those words, and it was quite true that in his speech in proposing that Motion in the Council he did limit it in the extreme, and only carried it by the fact that he so limited it as to take away all its meaning as a defence of extra-mural teaching, and to make it merely the expression of a desire for additional power in the University—a desire in which everyone is agreed. The opponent of this gentleman pointed out that he did not understand this Resolution in its limited sense, or it would never have been opposed at all, but would have been passed unanimously, and certainly would not have been opposed by any anxious for the expansion of the Universities and the increase of the teaching staff. The Mover replied that while the terms of the Motion had been quoted the terms of the speech explaining the Motion had not been quoted, and gave a reference to the speech in which he had supported it, and in that speech he says that he had laid down—
    "That the proposed teaching was to be under the sanction and control in every respect of the University Court, and that the students receiving such teaching should be matriculated students of the University subject to academic discipline in all respects. The issue before the meeting was clear—extension or no extension of University teaching. The recognition given was to be entirely at
    478
    the discretion of the Court who would consider how much extra teaching was required, and every point connected with the man who asked it. He desired that the Court should be supreme in giving recognition, and supreme also over the man after he had got the recognition."
    Such a scheme is not at all what has been advocated as extra-mural teaching. That is the extreme of what has been accepted by the University Court, and that is something totally different to the views which have been put forward by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh to-night and by the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down. These are all the views for which the right hon. Gentleman can claim the support of the University Council; and it seems to me that these views, not as put in the Resolution but as embodied in the speech that explained the Resolution, that moved the Resolution, and to which afterwards, when challenged as to the meaning of the Resolution, the mover appealed, as a necessary, accompaniment and explanation of it—these views are embodied sufficiently in the Ordinance dealing with lecturers and assistants to give no cause whatever for such a strong step as to throw back on the Commissioners these Ordinances. It seems to me, in the first place, that we should be throwing very great discredit on the Commissioners if we did that; and, in the second place, that we should be doing very great harm to the Universities by delaying a reasonable settlement.
    MR. HUNTER: I do not propose to trouble the House with the subject which has just been before it. The question of extramural teaching and other matters that have been referred to are all questions which principally concern the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow; but there are one or two questions, not of great magnitude, but of considerable importance, which affect the University of Aberdeen. One of these I am happy to say has already been disposed of by the action which has been taken in another place—I refer to the mistake which occurred in the Ordinance regarding arts, with respect to the subject of

    479
    mathematics. And there remains one and only one matter in which the University of Aberdeen is greatly concerned, and upon which the University Council have raised strong objection, and that is the two lines in Section 12, Subsection 2, of Ordinance 11, which provide that Greek shall be compulsory for candidates for honours in mental philosophy. Now, Sir, there is one part of these Ordinances which I cordially approve of, and that is the introduction of options. The old and narrow groove in which we were all compelled to travel in times past has been very widely opened up, and, undoubtedly, I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge, in so far as he gave general approval to that portion of the Ordinance. Now, Sir, the effect of that Ordinance is that henceforth a person will be able to take his degree in Arts—his pass degree—and he will be able also to take his honour degree in seven out of eight groups, and for some incomprehensible reason this privilege, which is conferred upon the pass man in all subjects and upon all the other honours, is denied to those who seek for honours in mental philosophy. What would be the result of that prohibition if it should be maintained? We shall suppose that a man goes in for the honours examination in mental philosophy. We shall suppose he is a first prize man in logic, and is first prize man in moral philosophy; that he is an extremely distinguished student, and would be fully entitled to first-class honours; but, under this unhappy provision, he will not get his degree, and he will not get honours, unless, contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance, he has denied himself the choice and the option of omitting Greek in the early part of his career. Suppose he fails in his Greek examination. You would then have this extraordinary result: that the man who will have taken every prize in Scotland will be debarred from honours in the subject because he has not passed through Greek. Surely anything more inconceivably absurd was never suggested to the mind of man! The next matter is this. The Greek option operates at the entrance examination. It is not necessary, in order to pass the entrance
    480
    examination, that you should take up Greek. What will be the effect of that regulation? The young man who from the first intends to become a clergyman will undoubtedly adopt Greek as one of the subjects. I doubt very much whether anyone else will adopt Greek at the first stage. The labour which is required for passing in Greek absorbs valuable time which is essentially required for more useful and remunerative subjects. In a few years no one will take up Greek for a pass examination who does not intend to be a clergyman. The subject of mental philosophy is one which is not taken up until three or four years after a man's College life has begun. It is not an elementary subject. It is one that naturally follows after a man has attained a certain degree of maturity. Consequently, many boys will discover, when they have arrived at that stage when they desire to take up mental philosophy, that they will be debarred from honours in that subject because they did not, when they were at school, take up Greek. This is a most unsatisfactory and most deplorable restriction. I am told that the reason why no one is to get honours in philosophy unless he knows Greek is because Plato and Aristotle wrote on the subject of philosophy, and that they wrote in the Greek language. If it were absolutely essential to the modern student, to a man of business, to know either Aristotle or Plato, it would not be necessary that he should know Greek for the purpose. Professor Jowett has translated the whole of the Dialogues of Plato, and I think there are very few graduates in Scotland or England who, if they were to apply their united skill in the translation of these works, could accomplish it so well as Professor Jowett has done. But because there were two gentlemen who wrote in Greek and treated of the subject of philosophy, therefore Greek must be made absolute! You must go on further than that. Take Art and Language. Descartes and Leibnitz wrote in French, and certainly, if it is necessary to read Plato and Aristotle in Greek, it should be none the less necessary for the student to read Descartes and Leibnitz in French before they can take honours. But you cannot stop

    481
    there. You must also make German compulsory, because Hegel wrote in German. You cannot stop even there. You must also say that if the student is going in for a degree in mental philosophy he must know Sanscrit, because if he does not know Sanscrit, how is he to understand Hindoo metaphysics? I want to know why this extraordinary condition is to be imposed upon the English student of mental philosophy? I should like to know why the students of history are going to escape? You may get your honours in history without knowing anything of Greek, and yet there was a man whose name was Thucydides who wrote in Greek, and I shall be told that no one appreciates Thucydides who does not know Greek. There is no conceivable propriety, but there is the greatest impropriety, in connecting two such subjects as Greek and philosophy. Philosophy deals with ideas; Greek deals with words, and it seldom happens that a man displays equal aptitude in the practice of arts and also in the region of thought. Nothing could be more violently opposed. It would be quite as reasonable to say that no man should get honours in mathematics unless he added to that a knowledge of Greek, of Sanscrit, or any other language. And it is so particularly absurd for this reason: that the quantity of Greek acquired is absolutely useless for philosophical purposes—a mere knowledge of Greek is not sufficient to elucidate the mysteries of Plato. The amount of Greek which is provided by a pass degree is of no value whatever even for Plato or Aristotle. Well, then, I want to know why the Commissioners, the champions of Greek, who have been defeated all along the line, who have not been allowed to interfere with the mathematicians, who have left the man of natural science in peace, who have even allowed the Eastern languages and the English language to escape—I want to know why they should come down and impose this unhappy embargo upon mental philosophy? The University Council of Aberdeen have stated their views, which I have endeavoured to translate to the House. I shall now move, in order to give effect to that
    482
    contention, that after the word "eleven," these words be inserted,
    "So far as it makes Greek compulsory for honours in mental philosophy."
    I think this question of the future of our Universities, might very well be left to ourselves, and that hon. Members on the other side should not overrule the wishes of the Scotch Members on this subject by their larger numbers.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "eleven," to insert the words "so far as it makes Greek compulsory for Honours in Mental Philosophy."—(Mr Hunter.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Question put.
    (1.45.) The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 107.—(Div. List, No. 114.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    DR. CLARK: I should like to know whether the Government intend to say anything in reference to the matter? I think the ought to say something—either through the First Lord of the Treasury or Solicitor General for Scotland. If they do not, we shall take some opportunity of bringing the forward again.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are quite prepared, either I myself or the hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland, to deal at length with the various points raised; but, as a matter of fact, I think the House will feel that the subject has been thoroughly threshed out, and little or nothing requires to be added from this or from any other Bench. For this reason, and in mercy to the Members who have now sat for three hours discussing this matter, I hope hon. Gentlemen will be content if I venture to rest my case upon the admirable and eloquent speech which my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Jebb) addressed to the House at an earlier hour of the evening.
    Main Question put.
    (2.1.) The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 99.—(Div. List, No. 115.)
    DR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, on the Question of moving the Adjournment of the House—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! We are bound to go through the Orders of the Day according to the Standing Orders.

    STILL BIRTHS IN ENGLAND AND OTHER COUNTRIES.
    Address for—
    "Return from the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, specifying the following information with regard to each Country:—

    1. Whether the registration of Still Births is compulsory; and, if so, what Act regulates this;

    2. Is the registration carried out by the authorities who register ordinary Births and Deaths;

    3. Are Still Births registered as Births or Deaths, or both;

    4. What is the legal definition of a Still Born Child;

    5. What are the penalties for neglecting to register a Still Birth;

    6. Is the number of Still Born Children, interred and registered in the year 1890, known; and, if so, what was such number;

    7. What are the penalties for criminally causing a Child to be Still Born;

    8. Copy of regulations and forms of certificates used in registering Still Births;

    9. Is a certificate of Still Birth, signed by a Midwife, accepted by the registering authorities;

    10. Are Midwives recognised by the State, and is the bulk of the Midwifery practice in their hands;

    11. Under what regulations, if any, are Midwives allowed by the State to practise;

    12. Is it known, and, if so, what is the rate per 1,000 of Women who die in their confinements or in the four weeks immediately following."—(Viscount Grimston.)

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 304.)
    Read a second time, and commited.

    BALLOT ACT (1873) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 189.)
    Order for Second Reading [24th May] read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    DUBLIN BARRACKS IMPROVEMENT BILL.—(No. 218.)
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 179.]
    Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 334.]

    UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
    Copy presented,—of Statutes made by the Governing Body of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, on the 21st December 1891, and sealed on the 30th January, 1892, adding to, altering, and amending the Statutes made by the Commissioners appointed under the Act in relation to the said Hall [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]

    TREATY SERIES (No. 8, 1892).
    Copy presented,—of Treaty and Convention between Great Britain and the United States of America, relating to Behring's Sea. Signed at Washington, February 29th and April 18th, 1892. Ratifications exchanged at London, May 7th, 1892 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.