CIVIL SERVICES.

HC Deb 21 March 1894 vol 22 cc789-851

CLASS I.
	£
Royal Palaces and Marlborough House	5,000
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens	16,000
Houses of Parliament Buildings	6,000
Admiralty, Extension of Buildings	8,000
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain	10,000
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain	5,000
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings	4,000
Revenue Department Buildings	60,000
Public Buildings, Great Britain	35,000
Surveys of the United Kingdom	40,000
Harbours, &c, under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses Abroad	3,000
Peterhead Harbour	3,000
Rates on Government Property	105,000
Public Works and Buildings, Ireland	40,000
Railways, Ireland	3,000

CLASS III.
United Kingdom and England:—
Law Charges	12,000
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses	7,000
Supreme Court of Judicature	55,000
Land Registry	1,200
County Courts	6,000
Police Courts (London and Sheerness)	1,000
Police, England and Wales	10,000
Prisons, England and the Colonies	100,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain	70,000
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum	6,000
Scotland:—
Law Charges and Courts of Law	10,000
Register House. Edinburgh	6,000
Crofters Commission	1,500
Prisons, Scotland	15,000

Ireland:—
	£
Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions	12,000
Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments	20,000
Land Commission	11,000
County Court Officers, &c	18,000
Dublin Metropolitan Police, &c.	20,000
Constabulary	280,000
Prisons, Ireland	20,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools	30,000
Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum	1,500

CLASS IV.
United Kingdom and England:—
Public Education, England and Wales	1,160,000
Science and Art Department, United Kingdom	116,000
British Museum	27,000
National Gallery	3,000
National Portrait Gallery	500
Scientific Investigations, &c., United Kingdom	7,000
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales	14,000
London University	5
Scotland:—
Public Education	220,000
National Gallery	400
Ireland:—
Public Education	250,000
Endowed Schools Commissioners	250
National Gallery	300
Queen's Colleges	500

CLASS V.
Diplomatic and Consular Services	110,000
Slave Trade Services	1,500
Colonial Services, including South Africa	25,000
Subsidies to Telegraph Companies, &c	17,500

CLASS VI.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances	130,000
Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions,	3,000
Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency	— —
Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain	500
Pauper Lunatics, Ireland	70,000
Hospitals and Charities, Ireland	4,000

CLASS VII.
Temporary Commissions	9,000
Miscellaneous Expenses	500
Diseases of Animals	10,000
Highlands and Islands of Scotland	5,000
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund	— —
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund	— —
Hobart (Tasmania) Exhibition, 1894-5	— —
Total for Civil Services	£3,529,768

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Customs	50,000
Inland Revenue	100,000
Post Office	100,000
Post Office Packet Service	20,000
Post Office Telegrams	400,000
Total for Revenue Departments	£670,000
Grand Total	£4,199,768

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

said, he regretted to see that the Secretary for Scotland was not in his place, because he desired to make some remarks that he should like the right hon. Gentleman to hear. The matters he wanted to speak about had reference to financial questions and to questions of policy. His remarks would be directed to the Deer Forest Commission. The Commission got into a bad condition last year, and a moiety of the members retired. He believed these members had now come back. The trouble was a financial one. So far as his information went, a job was perpetrated. Generally, a job was perpetrated on behalf of one's friends, but upon this occasion it had been perpetrated on behalf of the enemy. When the Commission was established it was composed of gentlemen who were willing to give their time free. When they were appointed they appointed a surveyor to assist them upon fair and moderate terms—two guineas a day. This gentleman did his work for some time. By-and-bye one of the members of the Commission was asked to act as surveyor, not at two guineas a day, but at the rate of five guineas a day. And this was voted to him by his own vote, and he was now being paid, and if they got a return from the Secretary for Scotland as to the amount of money paid for the Commission they would probably find that this one individual bad got more money than all the rest of the Commission put together. He did not intend, he might say here, to move any reduction of the Vote. The Commission was divided into two sections. So far as the landlords on the Commission were concerned, he thought they had shown a gread deal of wisdom and acted with fairness, but this gentleman who represented the landlords was more a landlord than all the landlords there. He had attended the Commission, and he had acted as the paid advo- cate of his class. When the question came up he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sums paid to him on the ground, first, that it was unnecessary; and, secondly, that the Commission were paying this man by their own votes for work which he did before as a member of the Commission without salary. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury would see that these amounts wore paid back into the Treasury. A more important point was the question of the mode in which the Commission was doing its work. He understood the Commission was appointed for the purpose of seeing whether there was any arable land in the Highlands available for the crofters. It was 14 months since they were appointed, and they had had no information of what they had done. He had seen reports of their meetings in the newspapers, but they had no official Report of what they had done. He wanted to know how long it was to go on. He would not be a party to the payment of another penny towards continuing the Commission. The point in dispute was whether there was arable land in the Highlands for the crofters. That was a question which could be very easily settled, if they were going to modify the Crofters Act they could very easily modify the question at once, and they could either give to the Crofters Commission or to the Sheriffs the power of giving out the land if it was there. As to the Crofters Commission, he regretted that things were going on on the same lines, and hoped that with a new Government in power they would have a change. They had a Commission composed of a Sheriff, a factor, and a farmer. These were men in whom they could not have much confidence. As a matter of fact, that same class of men were being appointed as assessors. There was no representative at all of the crofter class. The people, he repeated, had no confidence in this class of persons. There were plenty of other men among the crofters who could represent them. There was another point he wished to raise—the salary of the Under Secretary for Scotland. He went down to the Welsh Land Commission to give evidence regarding the working of the Crofters Act. His evidence manifested great ignorance. Ignorance alone might be excused. But it was worse than that. He misrepresented the facts, and traduced and maligned the crofter people. That was one of the evils which was suffered through the sending of these well-paid aristocrats all over the country. When the Vote came up he thought he would be able to convict this gentleman of ignorance and arrogance utterly unworthy of a public servant, and unless they had some excuse bettor than his letters he should do what he could to take away his salary from him as being unworthy of the position he held.

SIR D. MACFARLANE (Argyllshire)

said, he did not mean to travel over so largo a ground as his hon. Friend, but his hon. Friend suggested there should be some simpler and more rapid mode of ascertaining what land in the Highlands was available for the extension of crofters' holdings. His hon. Friend did not suggest how it was to be discovered or to what extent land was so available except by travelling over the country for the purpose. As to the methods of the Commission, he was neither going to censure them nor to express approval; but a Commission was necessary, because for years past they who had advocated the rights of these people had maintained there was sufficient laud available if they could get at it, and this Commission was appointed to see whether that allegation was true or not, and he regretted that the Commission had not seen its way to make an Interim Report, but at the same time he must say they could scarcely expect the Government to bring in a Bill to deal with the Report of a Commission whose work was not half finished, He understood, however, the Government were prepared to support a Bill to amend the existing Crofters Act, to include leaseholders and other urgent matters, but he did not see that they could expect the Government to bring in a Bill and to legislate for the disposal of available land in the Highlands until the whole amount of that land was ascertained, and that could not be done until the Commission finished its work. He hoped it would finish its work in a short time. He was aware there was a certain amount of friction in connection with the surveyor, but that had been more or less satisfactorily arranged. As to the amount of money, it was very small as compared with the magnitude of the subject. It was very clear that a job had been perpetrated, he would not say by what part, but by a part of the Commission, to secure a sum that was not necessary for the work, because they had a man appointed regularly to do it. But that was immaterial. What they wanted to deal with was the large question to settle whether there was no land in the Highlands for the Highland people. He had never himself run, what he might call, a-muck at the deer forests; he was quite content the deer should be left when the land was not fit for any other purpose; but what they contended, and were now proving by the action of the Commission, was that a very large area of the land occupied by the deer might be better occupied as arable or pasture land. While he sympathised with the object of his hon. Friend, he could not entirely agree with him in all the views he had expressed.

* DR. MACGREGOR

said, he should defer the remarks he wished to make on the condition that he could speak on Vote 27.

THE CHAIRMAN

indicated that the hon. Member could do so.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he merely wished to ask a question. The Secretary to the Treasury was aware that he (Mr. Bowles) had moved for a Return of the pluralists, simply in the interests of the Public Service, and he proposed to call attention to the whole question. However, he was extremly anxious to save the time of the House, and not to be driven to call attention to each of these pluralists as the name came up in the Votes. There were 439 of them, and he did not wish to raise 439 discussions. Therefore, he would prefer to deal with them all at one time by way of a Resolution. Consequently, he wished to ask if the Government could see their way towards affording him facilities to deal with the whole of these pluralists at the one time?

* THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham

said, he believed the hon. Gentleman had put down a Notice of Motion on this subject on going into Committee of Supply. He hoped the hon. Member would have an opportunity of bringing the question forward in that way, which would be preferable to dealing with the subject on many different Votes. If the hon. Member was unable to bring the matter forward on going into Committee of Supply, he would see what could be done.

* THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,) Glasgow, Bridgeton

said, the Committee would think, as two or three rather serious things had been said, that he should say a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). He was quite sure when his hon. Friend brought forward his rather vague questions definitely before the Committee, he would give him notice not that he had not a very good general knowledge of the matters about which he had spoken, but as some of his charges were very definite, not against himself but against certain individuals whom he was bound to defend, and with regard to whose proceedings he should be glad to have the exact facts and figures before him. His hon. Friend had treated the matter in a slight prefatory manner, He said a job had been perpetrated by the Deer Forest Commission, and a job on behalf of the enemies of the Government; that the Commission was divided into two sections, the landlord class and the friends and representatives of the crofters, and the paid advocate of the landlord class had voted himself five guineas a day, and that was a job perpetrated on behalf of the enemies of the Government. With regard to this Commission and the classes with whom the Commission dealt, the Government had neither friends nor enemies; their desire was to have all classes duly represented on the Commission in order that they might get a fair Report that might command, as far as possible, universal confidence. One gentleman, placed on that Commission, Mr. Gordon, was a very eminent land valuer and surveyor, and was placed there in order to give the Commission the benefit of his continuous services. It was not Mr. Gordon who voted this five guineas a day, but it was done by the Treasury before his appointment, on the understanding with him that he should have five guineas a day for his professional services in accordance with the very general Treasury Rule of which he (Sir G. Trevelyan) had already given the House a good number of instances. It was left to the Commission to say on what days he should be paid this five guineas. In obedience to that the Commission passed a vote by a majority—it was not the business of the Government to inquire into how that majority was constituted—that Mr. Gordon should be paid on certain days, and at the same time, by a majority, they requested the Government to take the responsibility off their bands, and lay down in future for themselves on what days Mr. Gordon should be paid this five guineas. In both cases the Government accepted, as they were hound, the decision of the majority of the Commission. With regard to his past services, they paid Mr. Gordon for the days which were recommended; and with regard to his future services they laid clown a rule, and he had been paid accordingly. The Commission had been appointed for the purpose of ascertaining what land there was in the Highlands available for cultivation by the crofters, and at the same time what land was fit for pasture by the crofters. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) said the great grievance was that they wanted more land. What land? This Commission had been appointed for finding that out. It would not take three or four years to make the inquiry: it had taken the working days of one year, and, as far as he knew, the crofting districts of Scotland would have been inspected in the course of the working days of another year, and very hard indeed these gentlemen worked in order to cover the great extent of country they had gone over. It had seriously affected the health of more than one of them, and he must say they deserved the gratitude of the House, and not its reprobation. As to the Interim Report, it was for the Commission to say whether they would make one, and it was absolutely impossible for a Government Department to dictate to a Royal Commission, and he, was bound to say that in the reasons they gave for making a Report as a whole there was a very great deal with which the Government was satisfied. His hon. Friend referred to the evidence, which Sir Colin Moncrieff gave before the Welsh Land Commission. That Commission was appointed, he took it, for the purpose of ascertaining whether amendment would be made in the Welsh Land Laws, and therefore it was ex- tremely important to ascertain what effect the Crofters Act, and the great benefits it conferred on the Highlands, bad produced on the prosperity and character of the crofting population. With regard to the evidence of the Under Secretary, he should say little or nothing, for the very good reason that the charge which his hon. Friend had made against him was of the most general nature. The hon. Member said the evidence showed ignorance and arrogance utterly unworthy of a public servant, and that he traduced and maligned the people of the Highlands. He (Sir G. Trevelyan) thought it would have been well if his hon. Friend had kept these strong words until he had quoted the passage in Sir Colin Mon-crieff's evidence. He (Sir G. Trevelyan) was bound to say he had gone through that evidence, and he thought Sir Colin Moncrieff had given, as far as statistics were concerned, an extremely brief, and by no means unfavourable, account of the working of the Crofters Act. He could not even imagine on what passage in his evidence his hon. Friend could justify the expression "traduced and maligned the people," except some expressions let drop by Sir Colin Moncrieff with regard to the industry of the Highland people. On that point it was extremely important that evidence should be before the Welsh Commission and the public as to the effect that had been produced by the Crofters Act on the Highland people. He had evidence given him on high authority and in confidence, but evidence which the same high authority would be quite willing, he was sure, to give in public before the Welsh Commission. That evidence told him that the effect of the Crofters Act on the Highland people had been greatly to increase their industry, greatly to increase their self-re-liance, and greatly to increase their self-respect. On that point he must bear witness that the poor homes in which in so many cases they often lived had now been superseded by excellent well-built houses. When once the magic of property came to be realised, the people were induced to spend labour and money on the improvement of their dwellings, and he was informed, likewise, when the Commission visited these farms, sugges- tions had been made of better fanning, which the crofters had most willingly taken up and carried forward with good results. It was extremely important that the Welsh Commission should have evidence on this point before it of a responsible character, and he had arranged that such evidence should be forthcoming. He had reason to believe they would be only too glad to hear evidence from Members of Parliament, and others, who were thoroughly conversant with the state of the Highlands, and in one case he knew that that evidence had been offered and accepted. But on the general question of Sir Colin Moncrieff's evidence, he was bound to say that the charges made in the newspapers and elsewhere had not been fair towards that public servant, who had taken great care to inform himfelf before he went to give evidence. He (Sir G. Trevelyan) admitted Sir Colin Moncrieff had not that personal acquaintance with the Highlands which would enable him to give a complete and authoritative statement on the subject, which would not need to be supplemented by others, as it would be supplemented: but the evidence was given in good faith, and when it was read in extenso it was of a very different nature from that compressed and, in some respects, adulterated, edition of it which got into the newspapers the next day. With regard to the Bill to amend the Crofters Act, the Government promised that this year they would do their best—that was to say, they would pass, if the House did not prevent them, a Bill to extend the advantages of the Crofters Act to leaseholding occupiers. That was a small promise, but it was an absolute one.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he only wished to ask a question of the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to a Vote which he saw was of the same amount this year as it was last, although the House of Commons last year decided in favour of a reduction of £500. He did not presume the right hon. Gentleman, in face of the action taken by the House, was going to ask for the same amount for the House of Lords Officers as was asked last year. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman had been in communication with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and, therefore, he was not going to press it to-day, as he did not think it a proper opportunity, and because some allies who supported him last time were rot in their places to-day; still, he thought it was a matter on which they should have some information. Therefore, he would like to know how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with the matter—whether he would suggest a Joint Committee of the two Houses or how the question was to be dealt with; but surely the House of Commons would not desire to pass the same Estimate this year as was passed last year.

* SIR J. T. HIBBERT

thought the hon. Member was quite right in raising the question, and he might tell him that a difficulty had arisen in regard to this matter. He had made a proposal to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, Lord Morley, suggesting what he considered the best way out of the difficulty—namely, to have a Joint Committee of both Houses, who should consider the question of the salaries of the Clerks of both Houses. He had not yet had any definite reply, but the matter was under consideration. He was glad the hon. Member did not propose to carry the matter further to-day, and before they reached the Vote on the Estimates he hoped he should be able to make a communication to the House.

MR. J. G. LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)

said, he wished to call attention to a matter of interest to agricultural and rural districts, and in this he hoped he would receive the support of Members for agricultural constituencies.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

On a point of Order, asked if the hon. Member was going to move a Resolution?

* THE CHAIRMAN

I do not know, but he is in possession of the Committee.

MR. J. G. LAWSON

said, the matter he wished to raise was of very great importance.

DR. CLARK

Do you mean to move a Resolution?

MR. J. G. LAWSON

Yes.

DR. CLARK

That will stop alt our discussion.

MR. J. G. LAWSON

said, the time was so short that he was compelled to bring the matter forward, even if it prevented the other question being discussed. The question he had to raise had refer- ence to the attitude taken up with regard to voluntary schools. At this moment, when it was most, difficult to raise money in rural districts, great pressure was being brought to hear upon all voluntary schools throughout, England to meet the requirements, which were of various descriptions; some of which were perhaps necessary, but others of which he considered were fads, if he might he allowed to use the expression. There were in the agricultural districts two things which the people had at heart: first, they liked their voluntary school system; and, in the second place, they hated rates. If this matter was to go on, and pressure was to be put on the managers of these schools, the voluntary schools must go down, and they would never be reared again, because if once the School Board system was established they could not go back to the voluntary schools, and the villagers would have a school rate which at present they were able to escape in so many places. It was said on a former occasion that was not the right opportunity for raising the question, that the proper occasion would be when the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Education came up. That Vote had now come on, and therefore this was distinctly their opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman had not been slow to meet any charges directed against him, and had always appeared most eager for the contest; but whenever the subject had been hitherto debated, it had been in the early hours of the morning, or at some time: when the House was anxious to hurry on with other business.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,) York, W.R., Rotherham

Allow me to make one remark. Last week this subject was tinder discussion—the exact question the hon. Member is now raising—and the Government made no request that it should he put off, or in any way postponed.

MR. J. G. LAWSON

said, the point he desired to make was not the question of the voluntary system as against Board schools, but whether pressure should be put on the agricultural districts at this moment. He knew nothing about the urban districts, with which he was not acquainted; but, as far as the rural districts were concerned, he desired to continue his remarks. They had had no opportunity of raising this particular point from the views of the agricultural Members, but there appeared, all through last Session, signs that trouble, anxiety, and indignation were growing throughout the rural districts, for week after week questions had been put by Members pointing out particular eases of hardship in their own divisions, and with so much smoke there must be some fire. The fact was, that it was well known to every Inspector of Schools in England that the right hon. Gentleman preferred the School Board system to the voluntary system.

MR. ACLAND

No, I never said so.

MR. J. G. LAWSON

said, it was a matter of common notoriety.

MR. ACLAND

I deny it.

MR. J. G. LAWSON

was very glad, was delighted, to have drawn that denial from the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped it would go forth to every Inspector in England that the right hon. Gentleman did not prefer the School Board to the voluntary system, and perhaps they would see that the Inspectors would change their tactics.

MR. ACLAND

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to interrupt him. If he makes an imputation of this sort he must give some foundation for it. He says the Inspectors, as servants of the Department, are well aware that I, as head of the Department, prefer the School Board to the voluntary system. That means that they must have some official knowledge of it. I must ask him to prove it, and I say it is not proved.

MR. J. G. LAWSON

said, that he had listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, and had drawn from them that, although he said quite truly that he endeavoured to hold the scales equally between the two systems, his own opinion was in favour of the School Board system. This was the view of the Inspectors, and it accounted for their increased assiduity and vigilance in making demands on the managers of the voluntary schools. If these demands were made in the large towns, where there were wealthy citizens able to meet them, perhaps no great harm would be done; but they were made in the rural districts, where the landlord was in a very embarrassed condition, the farmer was little better off than the labourers who worked for him, and the labourers had no money to spare, however willing they might be to subscribe to the voluntary schools. The result was inevitable, unless they could persuade the right hon. Gentleman to stay his hand for the present. If Board schools were substituted for voluntary schools the country would lose subscriptions equal to £750,000. They would also lose the greater economy of voluntary schools, where children were educated for 6s. a head cheaper than in Board schools. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would throw out some hint that zeal in bringing about the introduction of the School Board rate into parishes which were now free from it was not the royal road to his favour. The rural schools were suffering at present from the utmost rigour of what, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, was called the active persecution of voluntary schools throughout the country. If only an intimation went forth that the right hon. Gentleman was not desirous that at the present most unfortunate moment that rigour should be not only not relaxed but increased, something would have been gained which would be valued in agricultural constituencies. He moved the reduction of Item 1, Class IV., by £500.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I rise to a point of Order, Sir. If this Amendment is moved one-half of the Votes cannot be discussed or amended. The hon. Member, in moving it, is taking advantage of the Forms of the House to prevent discussion.

* THE CHAIRMAN

As there are seldom any notices of reductions on a Vote on Account this state of things always happens. It is in accordance with the Rules, and if the hon. Member chooses to move his Amendment I cannot help it.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

I rise to Order, Sir. My hon. Friend stated just now that he wanted to deal with Class IV.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I have decided the point of Order. The hon. Member who referred to Class IV. did not move on that class.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £1,160,000 for Public Education in England and Wales, be reduced by £500."—(MR. J. G. Lawson.)

DR. CLARK

I now beg to move, Mr. Mellor, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The Rule is perfectly clear, and I cannot put that Motion. If there was any doubt about the Rule I should do what I could to assist those Members who wish to discuss earlier parts of the Vote.

DR. CLARK

I move to report Progress. I say it is utterly impossible for us to do our duty if discussion upon four-fifths of the Votes before the Committee is to be ruled out of Order as it will be by the course now taken. We shall be unable to discuss the whole of Class I., Class II., in which there are 35 Votes, and Class III., which takes in almost everything. It will leave us with absolutely nothing to do.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question before the Committee. The Question is that of the proposed reduction.

DR. CLARK

The Question is to report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot put that Question, as the Rule is quite clear.

DR. CLARK

I am moving a Motion, Sir, and I am within my rights in doing so.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already dealt with that. I cannot accept the Motion.

DR. CLARK

It is your function, Sir, to maintain Order. If——

THE CHAIRMAN

Under the Standing Order I must decline to put the hon. Member's Motion.

DR. CLARK

Sir, I have a right to move my Motion and make my speech. I demur to your right to decline the Motion.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

On the point of Order, Sir, I understand that it is within the competence of the Chairman to decline to put the Motion, but I would ask is it not within his competence to refuse to have the Motion made?

* THE CHAIRMAN

Certainly. If, as I have already said, the Rule were not clear I should do what I could to assist the hon. Member, because I think it is the hard rule, and I must abide by it.

DR. CLARK

I have risen to call attention to the inconvenience——

THE CHAIRMAN

That is clearly out of Order.

DR. CLARK

It is always a Member's right to move to report Progress.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby

I would call my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that he must submit to the decision of the Chairman. He cannot inform the Chairman, after a decision has been given, of what he thinks is the proper course. Clearly, if order is to be maintained in the House, he must submit to the Chairman's ruling. It is the duty of the Chairman to state to the Committee the course that must be taken under the circumstances that arise.

DR. CLARK

I was going to give my reasons for moving to report Progress, and when I was doing so the Chairman rose and said he had put the Motion. I do not know whether I have a right to give my reasons for moving to report Progress.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I understand that when the Chairman has given a ruling of this kind, which is within his discretion, that ruling cannot be argued upon. If we once began to dispute the rulings of the Chair we should get into a deplorable state of disorder.

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

I desire to ask, Mr. Mellor, whether I shall have an opportunity of making some observations regarding the statement made by the Secretary for Scotland?

THE CHAIRMAN

When the matter arises I will answer that question.

MR. A. C. MORTON

May I ask, Mr. Mellor, whether you can refuse to put the Motion for reduction, seeing that if you do so it will put us to such a disadvantage, bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman informed you that he was going to move in Class IV.

THE CHAIRMAN

As I have already explained, I am bound by the Rule of the House. I have no power to alter it. As I have said, I would help the hon. Member if I could, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly within his right, and I am bound to administer the Rule as I find it. This has happened more than once on Votes on Account.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

Is it not the fact, Mr. Mellor, that there is no point of Order at all, and that if a Member who wishes to move a reduction on Class I. finds a Member who wishes to move on Vote 7 is in possession of the House, he cannot call upon him to give way unless he wishes to do so?

THE CHAIRMAN

That is so; that is the Rule of the House. Owing to the fact that on a Vote on Account there is no list of Notices of Motion, any hon. Member who is called upon remains in possession unless he chooses to give way.

MR. A. C. MORTON

Then if we had Notices on the Paper you would call upon us in the order of those Notices?

THE CHAIRMAN

When hon. Gentlemen give Notice of Amendments the Chair calls upon them according to their Notices, but on a Vote on Account any hon. Member who is in possession of the Committee is entitled to move a reduction unless he gives way.

MR. A. C. MORTON

Then we could give notice on a Vote on Account?

THE CHAIRMAN

That has been done repeatedly.

* THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham

As it is very desirable that we should if possible get out of the difficulty, I would ask the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. J. G. Lawson) whether, if he were afterwards allowed to continue the discussion on the subject he has brought forward, he would be willing to withdraw his Motion for a reduction, so as to give Members an opportunity of discussing other matters.

THE CHAIRMAN

But I must call attention to the Rule. The withdrawal of a Motion on a Vote on Account does not help the matter. The question is whether the Amendment has been put from the Chair. My duty is to put from the Chair every Amendment moved, and, whether it is withdrawn or not, the putting it from the Chair has the same effect.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,) York, W.R., Rotherham

wished to draw attention to the fact that on Thursday last a couple of hours were spent mainly in discussing the general question of the demands of the Education Department upon schools in all parts of the country, especially in relation to buildings. Some conversation then took place between the noble Lord the Member for Rochester (Viscount Cranborne) and himself, and it was arranged that all serious cases in which there was any question of withholding the grant should be brought before him and that the facts should be published, so that everybody might know that the schools were in danger. The effect of this arrangement would be to bring to his own notice some of the cases which he would not otherwise know of. As he had already pointed out, he had no interest in the unequal treatment of schools in any part of the country. He did not, however, object to these discussions if they brought him the unusual distinction, such as he had received since last Thursday, of a letter from a rural dean, worded as follows:— I see that complaint is made on account of orders being given that every school should have a cloak-room. For doing this you are called a 'faddist' I do not exactly know what that means, but if it has regard to cloak-rooms and sanitary arrangements. I suffer from the same complaint. Whatever polities a man may hold, if put down to teach in a school when on a wet day the cloaks, hats, bonnets, &c, are hung in the schoolroom, he would become a 'faddist,' if that, is the proper term for those interested. I must add that all the schools in my deanery and districts have been treated with the utmost courtesy by the authorities, and that there have been no 'needless orders of alteration.' This showed that there was, at all events, one ecclesiastical authority who was thoroughly satisfied with the action of the Department. The Reports which were coming in from the Inspectors stated that the suggestions they had made for improvements in the arrangements had been received with courtesy and kindness. The reason why he spoke rather warmly to the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. J. G. Lawson) just now was, that he understood the hon. Member to be attacking him as a Minister and not as an individual, and if was a very strong thing to say that the Inspectors had had it from him that they were to favour one school more than another, and were to condemn one class of school for the sake of strengthening another. Any Minister would deserve to lose all his influence with the officials of his Department if he gave any directions of that sort, even if they merely savoured of partiality for one school as against another. If his predecessor (Sir W. Hart-Dyke), as Minister for Education, had been in Office for the last 18 months, he would have had to do a great many things which he (Mr. Aclaud) had had to do. Speaking on the 31st of July, 1891, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Hart-Dyke) said that it would be the duty of the Education Department to secure greater effort in country schools, and that, as far as he was concerned, he was prepared to pledge himself and the Department that the educational methods of the country schools must be improved, and the excuse of poverty would no longer be permitted. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to carry out these words, and if he had remained in Office, he would have had to do a great deal of the work that he (Mr. Aclaud) had done. If hon. Members would study The School Guardian, as he did, they would know that the methods now adopted by both Church and Nonconformist schools were of a somewhat old-fashioned character. It was said that the Department was putting on too severe a pressure. He admitted that at the present time many of the supporters of voluntary schools were suffering from want of means, but he gathered from the Inspectors that there was great willingness in nine schools out of ten to meet all reasonable demands, and in many cases the friends of voluntary schools had raised the funds that were necessary. When in any case it, could be shown that without his knowledge, as it usually was, some Inspector or official was putting unreasonable pressure upon a school, the friends of the school ought to do their best to let him (Mr. Acland) know, or ought to send a firm and respectful protest to the Department. he thought that the publication of the Returns he had promised would help to improve the position in all cases where there was any chance whatever of a voluntary school being condemned without its being brought to his knowledge. It was constantly stated on the platform that he was actuated by mere jealousy and envy of the voluntary schools. Such was not the case. When the State was giving more and more grants to these schools—and it might interest hon. Members to know that, the grant actually given to voluntary schools this year had increased rather more than the grant given to Board Schools—it did not look as if he had shown any special disfavour to the voluntary schools. He said, however, that when the State gave from £6,000,000 to £7,000,003 to the voluntary schools the Government was bound to ask in return for thoroughly healthy buildings, and thoroughly good apparatus with which to carry on the education given. Everybody would agree that this was a reasonable demand to make.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, he had listened to the light hon. Gentleman's statement with sonic satisfaction, because it had carried them a little bit further than they had hitherto been carried in regard to the voluntary schools. The right hon. Gentleman could not blame gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House if they put on to his shoulders blame which he might be able to shift, elsewhere, He could not but be aware of the fact that during the last 12 mouths—a period of time almost. corresponding with the period during which the right hon. Gentleman had been in Office—there had been a strong and concerted action taken in the country by gentlemen who were supporters of the Government in opposition to the voluntary schools, and in support of the existence of the Board schools. Men who were identified with the Liberal Party in the districts in which they lived had forced on the creation of Board schools by the simple process of withdrawing their subscriptions. It was understood that the majority of gentlemen opposite believed in the Board system as being a better one than the voluntary system. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial Benches.] That cheer was an endorsement of the accusation of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. G. Lawson). All his hon. Friend had said was that the policy of the Government and their supporters was to support the Board schools as opposed to the voluntary schools. All he had meant to convey was that if the Government could do it they would favour the creation of Board schools to the extinction of voluntary schools.

MR. ACLAND

What he said was that I had done that.

MR. W. LONG

said, his hon. Friend's statement was that it was a matter of common notoriety that the Inspectors knew what the policy of the Government was, but it was not suggested that the Inspectors, who, as everyone who knew them would admit, discharged their duties with absolute fairness, integrity, and courtesy, lent themselves to any unfair action. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House had felt compelled to represent the views which were held by a large section of the community on this question, and to present to the Vice President almost a prayer that something more than consideration might be shown to them in the circumstances in which they now found themselves. This was not a matter of politics. There were many Liberals in country and small urban districts who held the belief that a more inopportune moment on which to press increased expenditure on those districts could not have been chosen. The Government and his right hon. Friend the late Vice President (Sir W. Hart-Dyke) might say that the plea of poverty could not be entertained, but they could not deny the most deplorable fact that since 1891 the circumstances surrounding the small towns and agricultural districts had changed in a most lamentable degree for the worse. Agriculturists now found themselves confronted with what many believed to be inevitable ruin. They had cut down expenditure under all heads which might be classed as personal luxuries, enjoyments, or amusements. Squires had given up coming to London, and given up their horses and carriages and their pleasures, many of which promoted employment, and in sonic cases they were only living in their houses because no one would rent them. He knew from his own experience that rents in some agricultural districts had fallen by sums varying from 30 to 50 and, in some cases, 70 per cent. Even with these heavy reductions of rent the farmers found it extremely difficult to carry on their industry. It was nothing short of a, farce and a mockery to insist on spending considerable sums in improving school accommodation when it was difficult to find for the labourers wages sufficient to provide bread for themselves and their children. Members knew- very well that if the people of a small agricultural district were called upon to spend £300 or £500 on school accommodation the money must come out of the pockets of the owners, or else must be obtained by the clergyman and his friends by means which were known to everybody. When things were in the condition he had described it was nothing less than a hardship and a cruelty to come down upon the owners and say, "In order that the strict letter of the law may he maintained you must find money for increased expenditure on the schools." Members on his side of the House did not differ with the right hon. Gentleman as to the provision, for instance, of cloak-rooms. No doubt it was undesirable that children and teachers should have to stand all day in a room where wet cloaks and hats were hung up. It was most undesirable that there should not be sufficient cubic space, or that all the children should be taught in the same room. It was very desirable there should be different rooms for the different grades, so that there should not be the confusion which existed in rooms where the unfortunate teachers had to teach four different classes of children of different ages. They believed in all these things as much as gentlemen opposite, but they thought that in many agricultural districts they were carrying the system of education a little too far, and putting too much pressure on the people. The Opposition were as much in favour as the gentlemen on the Government Benches of improvements in sanitary arrangements and in the matter of accommodation, and if the time were suitable and the money there they would be the last to stand in the way. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman had himself referred to what, had been done by voluntary means in this country. The action of the supporters of the voluntary schools was not to be judged by the mere amount of subscriptions and by the enormous sums they had spent on school buildings, and in other ways, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman did not say more than the truth when he said, in reference to these voluntary schools, there was always an earnest desire on the part of the people to carry out the recommendations of the Inspectors, and to find the money for this purpose. The view held by many of the poorer and smaller squires and clergymen in the country districts was that, unless they were able to manage to raise the necessary money between this and the next visit of the Inspector, by one stroke of the pen they would find themselves minus a portion of their income; whilst to start and collect £200 or £300 in a rural district of this kind was to start an enterprise so difficult that it would be almost impossible to carry it to a successful issue. It was often urged that School Board expenditure was expenditure by an elected authority, and therefore responsible to their constituents, and entitled to spend money. But there was all the difference in the world between the expenditure of a School Board and an ordinary elected authority such as a Corporation or Local Board. The latter bodies were, after all, the judges of the necessity of the expenditure, and decided how it should be spent; but the School Boards had no discretion at all in the matter, being called upon to spend the money at the dictation of a Department in London, and according to the terms and conditions laid down. All they wished to urge on the Vice President was that it would be impossible immediately to carry out in many rural districts the changes required in the shape of improved accommodation, and that by not pressing the matter at once he would be relieving the people of a great difficulty and dread, and although the Department might not get buildings quite in conformity with their present views and regulations they would get buildings which would be practically satisfactory, and they would not find the people backward to meet them half way, and to do everything they could to make the education of children in voluntary schools a success. In recommending these views to the Vice President they were only asking that his Department should be governed by the same Rules which governed other Government Departments. He had the privilege of being associated for six years with a Government Department—the Local Government Board—which had more work to do through the medium of Inspectors than perhaps any other Board. But in carrying out its regulations the Local Government Board had always taken into consideration the local circumstances and exercised a discretion before imposing or adding to the burden of debt in a particular area. That was all they asked of the Vice President and of the Government. They did not ask them to relax their energies in the direction of strengthening and improving the educational system of the country, but they asked them not to apply their rule under a set of cast-iron conditions, but to have regard to all the local circumstances and considerations, to the severe depression and real suffering which at present existed. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that such a course would do no harm, but rather do good to the cause of education, whilst it would enormously lighten the great burden of sorrow and difficulty, which at present weighed heavily on the smaller squires, parsons, and farmers of this country.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I rise to say a very few words to remove an entire misapprehension on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who has just spoken in a very able way, and on the part, of the gentlemen who sit behind him. They seem to be under the impression that my right hon. Friend and the Government are acting in this matter as if it were a question of the Board schools against the voluntary schools. My right hon. Friend disavows that altogether. The question hero is not a question between Board schools and voluntary schools. It is a question between good buildings and insufficient buildings. The view of the Government is that, considering the enormous sums of money which are contributed out of public taxation towards elementary education, it is their duty to see that the education is adequate, and the school accommodation of a good description. It is the duty of the Government to see that school buildings are fairly good buildings. If the argument of the hon. Member went for anything at all, it was that unfit buildings are to be allowed because they belong to voluntary schools and because the agricultural interest is depressed. Every one deplores the depression in agriculture, but we cannot allow a plea of that kind to be set up in defence of insanitary buildings. It would be entirely wrong.

MR. W. LONG

I did not suggest, nor did anybody hero, that that plea was in defence of insanitary schools. If there be anything insanitary it ought, of course, to be immediately remedied. All we have suggested is that where the improvement takes the direction of what may no doubt be regarded as an improvement, but one which is not absolutely necessary to the health of education of the children, that these alterations should be postponed until the great cloud of depression at present hanging over us has disappeared.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I used the word "insanitary" because of the special instance the hon. Member gave us of the cubic space for school children. A greater sanitary question than that it is impossible to conceive; therefore, he must excuse me for taking the illustration out of his own mouth.

MR. W. LONG

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I did not instance insufficient cubic space nor the keeping of children in the same room as being: desirable, but quite the reverse. I stated that sufficient cubic space for the children and the necessary separation of classes were most desirable objects which ought to be carried out. As to the provision of cloak-rooms, corridors, and other things, I did not regard them as so necessary, and suggested that they might be deferred.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to misquote him in any way. All that the Government and my right hon. Friend desire is to insist that the schools should be kept in a reasonable condition for carrying on their work, and we cannot allow the fact that a school is a voluntary school to be urged as a reason why it should be treated differently to other schools. That is the line on which the Government ought to proceed and upon which they are bound to proceed. That is the spirit in which we have acted. We have no desire whatever to enforce the rule in a harsh or pedantic spirit, and we cannot make any distinction between volntary and Board schools in respect of insisting that they shall be reasonably tit for carrying on the work of education.

MR. RICHARDSON (Durham, S.E.)

said, he wished to enter his protest against the strong language which had been used by the hon. and learned Member for Thirsk as to the treatment of voluntary schools by the Education Department. Whenever he had had to see the Vice President of the Council he had always been met with the utmost cordiality with respect to every question which had been raised by the hon. and learned Member, and had always obtained reasonable satisfaction. Of course, they had always gone with a good case; they had not contended that insanitary and bad schools should be continued. In one case the Church of England schools and the voluntary schools with which he was connected approached the right hon. Gentleman together, and they attained their object. In another case the inhabitants of one rural parish with which he was connected found themselves unable to bear the burden which would have been imposed upon them by the establishment of a Board school, and consequently it was agreed by nearly all to submit to a voluntary rate of 1d. in the £1 for the purpose of carrying on the work of education. Even then, however, they still found themselves short of money, and the poor landowners, of whom he was one, agreed to make up the deficieucy, contributing in proportion to the amount of their rent-rolls. And in that place they had earned the highest grant of any school in their neighbourhood. He thought it might be well if hon. Gentlemen opposite would endeavour to help voluntary schools in the same manner.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President had complained that this discussion was now raised for the second time this Session. That might be so; but this was a matter of absolutely vital importance to more than half the elementary schools of England, and the opportunities of raising a discussion were few. Unless they had seized that opportunity they might not have had another for a very considerable period; therefore they must be excused if they once more raised the question. In the first place, might he remark that the principles laid down so very smoothly by the Leader of the House were very plausible to the ear, but they directly militated against the voluntary and in favour of the Board school system. It was all very well to talk of equal treatment for Board schools and voluntary schools. The School Board had always the long purse of the ratepayers to fall back upon, and were able cheerfully to comply with requisitions for improvements. The Leader of the House spoke of improvements in accommodation being designed to make the buildings fairly good. That was an abstract proposition which was undeniable, but what was meant by "fairly good"? He submitted that the presumption that the buildings were fairly good was, primâfacic, in favour of the voluntary schools, which were at this moment advancing more rapidly than the Board schools. The argument as to cubic space also sounded very plausible, but would anyone with a knowledge of the subject deny that the health and appearance of the children in voluntary schools were better than in the Board schools? No one who looked at the rosy checks and healthy aspect of our children in country schools would think much of the cubic space argument. The Leader of the House spoke of it being impossible to favour voluntary schools. But why not? Had not voluntary schools peculiar claims on the country in that they had saved the general taxpayers sums of money not only in the original capital for providing the school, but in the cost of management? Did anyone doubt that if owing to this new system inaugurated by the present Government the voluntary schools were to be done away with, perhaps £1,000,000 would be added to the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Therefore, the voluntary schools had a claim upon their favour, and ought not to be treated with cast-iron rules in comparison with Board schools. They acknowledged the experience, the diligence, and the high political reputation of the Vice President. They admitted he always spoke very fairly indeed—in fact, it was difficult to take exception to any expression with which he favoured them. But they had to look at the practical result of the action of the Department; and when they came to opinions they must beg leave to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he formed part of a Government which had, through its individual Members, declared the hope that the introduction of the free education system would bring about the establishment of Board schools everywhere. He should be able from the pages of Hansard to produce ample proof of that contention in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite delivered when in Opposition. All his hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk meant to say was, that the Inspectors—gentlemen of culture and knowledge—were seised with information of the fact that there was a Government now in power who were conscientiously of opinion that the Board school system was better than the voluntary system, and when they saw there had been a marked change of policy absolutely coincident with the time of the accession of the Vice President to power, they could not be surprised that those interested in voluntary schools attributed it to the declared opinions of the gentlemen who formed the Government. The Vice President had declared that had there been no change of Government many of the things now ordered by the Department would have been done or ordered by his predecessor (Sir W. Hart-Dyke). He might remind the Committee that after the introduction of the Free Education Act in the Debates in which his right hon. Friend's utterances were quoted, his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Hart-Dyke) remained in Office for fully one year, and during that year, and after the utterances which had been quoted that day, were there any complaints of this kind? He apprehended there were none? There was, no doubt, very valuable but judicious improvement and progress which were accepted by everyone and caused annoyance to no one. That went on from the Autumn of 1891 when the Free Education Act was passed to the Autumn of 1892. Since 1892, however, there had been nothing but complaints, incessant and widespread, which were deepening every month. This was their excuse for again bringing this matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The improvements which were now being pressed upon the voluntary schools were not strictly educational but solely material, and were, consequently, of secondary importance. The question was not so much whether a school had a good playground and all the accommodation that was desired, but the far greater question was whether the children were healthy and strong, whether they were improved in the mind and moral discipline and so forth, and in all these cardinal respects nothing had been said against the voluntary schools; therefore, it was very hard, at a time when they were doing all that which was most purely and essentially the work of education, that at that very moment the opportunity should be taken of compelling them to do things dependent upon secondary and material considerations quite apart from the moral, intellectual, and educational question. If the schools had existed so many generations and gone on gradually improving under former Ministers, why should this particular spurt be put on just now at the very worst time when pressure could be put on? The schools had gone on all these years; they had complied with all the Regulations of the Education Department, and most of these buildings which were found fault with now had been approved by successive Education Departments and Ministers. Why, therefore, should this change be made now? Surely these rapid and sudden modifications of policy were greatly to be deprecated in such matters as these, affecting long-existing institutions and also affecting a most meritorious class who had long been doing a good work and who happened to be just now financially depressed. There was no doubt that the various Boards of Managers fully recognised the duties which rested upon them, and were anxious and willing to do all in their power to meet them. All they asked was that they should not be hounded on to destruction before they had had the necessary time given them in which to endeavour to make their arrangements. There was no doubt whatever, notwithstanding the statement of the particular rural dean whom the right hon. Gentleman quoted, that if they could have a plébiscite of the rural deans all over the country, there could be no mistake as to what their opinion was. It would be far more satisfactory if they could be favoured with the name and locality of the rev. gentleman, because if evidence of that important character was quoted in the House and made the basis of Ministerial argument they should certainly have some means of judging of the value of that evidence. In the absence of such evidence the right hon. Gentleman must excuse them if, provisionally, they declined to attach much weight to the case he had quoted. There was a widespread apprehension in many districts that the Inspectors were inclined to press every demand they could, and it was greatly to be feared that unless money could be found the voluntary system would be driven from many of the poorer country districts. Might he make one remark regarding this arrangement which he understood to have been entered into between the Vice President of the Council and the Member for Rochester? Unfortunately, during that afternoon he was extremely busy in the School Board for London, and had not the advantage and benefit of hearing what the Minister said. But, of course, if any Return had been promised, and that Return had given satisfaction to the Member for Rochester, he should also be inclined to be satisfied, only he did not know exactly what the Return was. If it had not been formulated and printed in such a way that they could examine it they should not accept it as satisfactory. He hoped some arrangement would be come to whereby all the demands made upon the various schools should be tabulated in a quarterly form, so that everyone should know beforehand what these demands were. After all, what was the particular request which was made to the right hon. Gentleman? Those who spoke on behalf of the voluntary system did not deny that, although the material condition of these school buildings was of infinitely less importance than the living teaching that went on inside them, yet that the school buildings and playgrounds were matters which ought to be improved with the growing requirements of a progressive ago. But what they said was that, considering that they found the money for building the schools, that they had kept them in repair, and largely through their financial exertions saved the ratepayers the grievous cost of education, they ought to be treated with tenderness, moderation, and considerateness. That was their claim, and they contended that as yet they had not been so treated. Perhaps, after hearing their constant remonstrances, the right hon. Gentleman would now be induced to show them that consideration for which they asked, and, if so, they would forgive him for all the trouble he had unnecessarily occasioned. They demanded that time should be given for carrying out the requirements of the Education Department. The time allowed should be two or three years, and even then there should be a gradual improvement; and as long as a school did a little bit this year, it should be taken as a guarantee of the earnest that it would do more the next year or the year after. [Mr. ACLAND: Hear, hear!] If the right hon. Gentleman would translate his "hear, hear" into practice, they should be thankful, and if he would only have patience with them they would make all the required improvements in due time.

* MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

said, he also had a complaint to make against the right hon. Gentleman. It had been suggested that the Vice President proceeded with the utmost rigour of the law against Church voluntary schools, so that these schools had to be closed, and the districts had to have Board schools and School Boards. His complaint was that the right hon. Gentleman proceeded with the utmost rigour of the law against British schools, which were voluntary schools belonging to the Nonconformists. He acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of the charge which had been absurdly made against him of religious persecution, because he was impartial, and what he did was to enforce at once, and strictly, the Regulations of his Department. He quite admitted that this was the right hon. Gentleman's duty; but what he ventured to submit was that he should proceed gently and with caution. To carry out the Regulations at once would mean that unless a great effort were made certain British schools in his constituency and elsewhere would have to be closed. In the agricultural districts, especially, there ought to be very gentle treatment, for they were a tender part. There was only one cure for the present state of things, and that was to consider the whole question of how far it was legitimate to place all these burdens on the land. He quite understood, when the landed interest had protection and was treated in a way they now thought improper, preferential, and unfair, there were good reasons for the imposition of such burdens; but when it had no longer this preference, it began to be time to see how far the burdens on the land should be removed. In speaking thus he was not saying anything that would be contradicted by any Liberal Member who represented any agricultural district, and was aware of the sad state into which agriculture had fallen. In dealing with agricultural districts he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember he was dealing with places in which there was great depression and poverty. No one was more anxious than he to see the schools improved in every respect, but it would be an unfortunate thing to ruin the inhabitants for the sake of their education. He rose because he could not go back to the agricultural districts without protesting against the whole of these increased educational charges being always placed on the land in all places and under all circumstances.

* SIR W. HART-DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

I have an apology to make to the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen in the House. Unfortunately I had to take the chair at a meeting in another place, and was unable to be present at the commencement of this discussion. It is perfectly obvious that I am partly answerable, at all events, for the existing state of things from the educational point of view. I should be the last man to attempt to repudiate for one instant that responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has, I am informed, made a statement, replying to a somewhat severe criticism upon the present policy of the Education Department, and J am told that he has quoted observations of mine in this House, and has also made a statement to the effect that many of the demands made upon voluntary schools are demands which would have been equally made had I remained in Office.

MR. ACLAND

Perhaps I might explain to the right hon. Gentleman that I only quoted an old quotation which he is well aware of, for I quoted it on the Estimates last year.

SIR W. HART-DYKE

That quotation was to this effect: that in asking the taxpayers of this country to pay a somewhat advanced sum for education, it was due to the Minister asking for that sum, or the Government responsible for it, that this sum should not be wasted, but that there should be a proportionate improvement in our educational system. From that pledge I do not wish to take away one jot or take, but having listened to this Debate it appears to me that two things are obvious. In the first place, there must be some reason for this universal outcry in England with regard to the present treatment of these smaller voluntary schools in rural parishes by the Department, and although I am not here to quote instances, yet I think it is fair, at all events, to urge this on the Committee: that it is impossible to listen to these complaints—especially for those of us who comefrom rural districts—without believing that harsh and cruel treatment has boon somehow or other meted out. It has been said that during the year I was in Office, after these vast changes in educational administration were made, there were no complaints, and that that, primâ facie, points to the conclusion that so far as I was concerned no hardship was inflicted. However that may be, it must be admitted that there is something more than a grievance established. I think the Department should have proceeded more on the lines of common sense, and met the cases according to the circumstances as they might arise, with a full consideration of the financial position of those who are connected with agriculture and its present disastrous condition. The right hon. Gentleman has proceeded upon a more hasty and determined policy. Instead of allowing the improvements required to be made to be spread over one, two, or three years, he has given rise by his action to the impression that his policy involves the hustling of these unfortunate schools out of existence by bringing a strain on their finances which they are unable to bear. That is the only reason I can adduce for the present state of affairs. I have known instances myself where the managers of small rural schools have made complaints of this nature. In one case they were called upon to spend £60 to put their school in perfect sanitary condition; and no sooner had they done that—for that demand was one which no reasonable school manager would resent—than they were asked to spend £,50 in providing a cloakroom for the girls. The right hon. Gentleman may ask what I would have done under the circumstances. I will tell him. I should have considered the small resources of this school, and after the school had been put in a sanitary condition I should have given it at least 12 months' rest before making fresh demands upon it. That would have been the policy I should have been inclined to adopt.

MR. ACLAND

Where was that school?

* SIR W. HART-DYKE

At Eynsford, within half a mile of my own residence. That seems to have been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to speak in any bitter Party spirit in this matter. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken in a somewhat generous spirit in reply to the demands made upon him, and that in his very moderate speech he has indicated that he would rather relax the strings than tighten them. I think we ought to meet him in a fair non-Party spirit. We none of us wish the schools to fall into decay, and all of us unite in the desire to have them made efficient as soon as possible. I will submit this point. Assuming for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman is the oppressor of voluntary schools, which many of our supporters in this country suspect, and that his object is to wreck the existence of all these small schools, I can assure him that there is no more inefficient school than the small Board school in a very poor parish. That has been proved by very severe tests. The tiny Board school in a poor, half-starved parish is just as bad, if not worse, than the worst voluntary school. This matter should, therefore, not be discussed from the sectarian or non-sectarian point of view, or as a question between Board or Voluntary Schools. The point is how, when agriculture is in such a state of depression as we have never known before, how to best encourage the managers of these voluntary schools to make them thoroughly efficient. You wish the school now earning a small grant to be converted into such an efficient school as will enable it to earn a grant practically sufficient to make it self-supporting. Is it common sense, while that process of conversion is going on, to so press it from a financial point of view as to drive it out of existence altogether? Yet that will be the inevitable effect in agricultural districts. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take to heart the discussion which has taken place. We do not wish to press him unduly, but we do ask him to give these voluntary schools a reasonable time in which to make themselves efficient. I have one more word to say on a broader question. Comparisons have been made between my action and that of the present Vice President. I wish to press upon the Committee that there can be no worse thing in the cause of education than anything like reaction as to the treatment of the schools by one Vice President and another. That is a reason why I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be merciful to these schools, so that whoever may succeed him may keep an even keel between the two contending Parties. I hope he will treat voluntary schools with common justice, which is all we can demand.

MR. GODSON (Kidderminster)

said, that in the district he represented heavy charges were thrown upon the managers of schools by reason of the demands of the Education Department. There would be a call on the Archdeaconry for the sum of £2,000, and in that district, owing to the prevailing depression of trade and agriculture, they were at their wits' end as to where to find the money. It was impossible to find it at present, but it was hoped that with outside assistance it might be collected within the next few years. Considering the terrible state of agriculture and trade in the towns, he need hardly point out to the Vice President of the Council the immense difficulty of raising these sums of money. There was a case in which, within his own knowledge, the demands of the Department pressed very heavily indeed. It was a case of a school which had always secured the very best reports, and in which those who managed affairs had from time to time effected improvements even when they had not been required by the Education Department. If this were a case where the school had not come up to the requirements of the Department the grievance, he admitted, would not be so great. But it was not. The difficulty was caused by increased attendance of children, and because of that increase and of the requirements of the Department the managers had to find a sum of over £300. There was no unseemly competition between the School Board and the managers of the voluntary schools in the district; on the contrary, the most amicable arrangements existed between them; indeed, the authorities of the School Board supplemented the wants of the voluntary schools where they could. The Roman Catholic priest had made the same complaint of the want of consideration shown by the Department. All the schools in this district had been certified as efficient for years, and it was unjust to threaten them in the way which had been done. The difficulty of the voluntary schools of the borough was that their best supporters were large employers of labour; and trade was never so bad with them as it had been lately. They were the men who had to pay the enormously increased rates, and now on the top of that came the expense of this unjust demand of the Department for unnecessary improvements in the schools. The circumstances were such as would justify the right hon. Gentleman in giving a much longer time for the completion of the improvements required.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, be was astonished at those who professed to be the friends of the voluntary schools raising these constant Debates, for he felt convinced that they did the schools a great deal of harm. For the last 20 years he had been a manager and hon. secretary of a voluntary school in his parish, He was opposed to these payments, and thought it was the duty of the parents of the children attending the voluntary schools to make the buildings decent and respectable. If they had these constant appeals for favouritism to be shown be was afraid they would in the end lead to the closing of the voluntary schools altogether. The people would say, "Rather than have a continuance of this sort of thing we will insist on our rights and have Board schools." Notwithstanding the interest he took in voluntary schools, if they asked him as a matter of principle which was the best system he should say, with more courage than the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, that undoubtedly the School Board system was the best. He was told that in Scotlaud they had a School Board in every parish, and it would not do for hon. Members opposite to claim for their con- stituencies that they were more Christian and religious than the people of Scotland. Therefore, undoubtedly, if there were too many difficulties raised the people of this country would demand—as they had a right to do—that there should be a School Board in every parish in the United Kingdom. Personally, he was not desirous of forcing that system on the country too soon, because so long as voluntary schools could be worked without religious difficulties—as they had been able to work them in London—they were a saving to the ratepayers. Until they could get an alteration of the incidence of taxation, so as to make freeholders pay a fair share of the local taxation of the country, it was their duty to rate the occupiers and present ratepayers as little as they could. As one interested in Church schools, and who bad worked for them, he must say that the gentlemen on the Loudon School Board and in the House who were raising these questions and asking for favouritism were doing their best to close the voluntary schools altogether.

SIR R. TEMPLE

asked if it was in Order on this Vote to discuss the question of the interior management of the School Board for London?

THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of Order.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he was calling attention to the objection raised by hon. Gentlemen with regard to how Church and other schools ought to be treated, and he said distinctly that if the policy adopted by a certain majority of the London School Board were successful it would bring about the closiug the voluntary schools altogether, because the people would rise and say," We will have nothing of the sort." He was anxious that there should be popular teaching in all elementary schools, and that the Bible should be read and explained in them. The action of the people to whom he referred would drive the Bible out of the school altogether. It was not the Bible they wanted. They wanted to introduce the Prayer Book and get rid of the Bible. He was anxious to keep the Bible there. They heard a great deal of talk about Church schools and the necessity of having Church teaching, but, unfortunately, Churchmen refused to subscribe to the schools. If they subscribed to them as they used to there would be no difficulty in carrying them on, but whether by general subscriptions or subscriptions in churches, Churchmen would not support their schools except by talking and finding fault with the School Board system. It must not be forgotten that by means of the fee grant and other grants they got from the Government they could pretty nearly support the schools. It was nonsense, therefore, to say that the schools were supported by voluntary subscriptions. He admitted that, owing to the assistance of voluntary effort like that of himself and others, voluntary schools were conducted more cheaply than Board schools. That might be another reason for keeping them going a certain time. And the teaching was as good in the voluntary as in the Board schools. The criterion of how they were getting on was the grant they earned, and they could earn as much in the voluntary as they could in the Board schools. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who were so anxious about these Church schools, if they would subscribe a little more to them, and do a little more work in connection with them themselves, so as to prevent unnecessary expense, they would find that the schools would be able to go on. If they continually raised agitation in the form of disputes between Church and chapel, they would be doing their best to bring about the closing of the voluntary schools.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.E., Holderness)

said, that the action of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House was directed against Board schools and in favour of the voluntary schools. The contention of his hon. Friend and others was that the head of the Education Department was interpreting in too strict and pedantic a spirit the Regulations with respect to schools throughout the country.

MR. A. C. MORTON (interrupting)

said, that there was no proof of that. So far as he was concerned, he had 20 years' experience as a manager of voluntary schools, and in that time the Department had always shown the greatest leniency in the matter of repairs and alterations.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he was delighted to have given the hon. Member the opportunity of making that explanation, but it was all a matter of opinion. He (Commander Bethell) had risen because he had a complaint to hurl at the head of the Vice President of the Council. he wished to say that, however much the right hon. Gentleman might protest, and however good his motives might be, the fact undoubtedly remained that he had not succeeded in inspiring confidence in his administration among the managers of schools throughout the country. That was what was said by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. There were two instances of the unreasonable demands of the Department during the right hon. Gentleman's administration within his own experience. In one case a school had been put to heavy expense to build an extra cloak-room, which was absolutely unnecessary from a scholastic point of view or from the point of view of health. In the other case the Department required certain windows to be put in, when the school had been specially ventilated and built on the most approved plan, and when there was no purpose to be served by the alteration but the fulfilment of a pedantic interpretation of the law.

MR. HUDSON (Herts, Hitchin)

pointed out that in some districts of the country there was a great dearth of schoolmasters and mistresses.

MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY (Dorset, N.)

said, that the Church of England, which at one time had charge of education almost exclusively, did not now wish to act as a drag on it. This was a question' affecting not only Church schools, but also Board schools, Roman Catholic schools, and schools under Nonconformist Bodies. The requirements of the Department pressed very heavily upon schools in connection with which it was not possible to raise quite so much money now as in better times owing to the dreadful agricultural and trade depression. The proposed conditions applied to all voluntary schools, and the question of the minimum space of any room used as a schoolroom became a very serious matter. He wished to point out that in many country schools the number of children who attended might not be more than 10 or 15, or even five. In such a case the present schoolroom, although smaller than the area now stated as being in future the smallest size that would be allowed to be used—namely, 18 feet by 15—was, he submitted, in many eases, amply large enough. If they were to have these largo rooms to afford accommodation to such a small number of children the result in cold weather would be that the children would suffer more from cold than overheating. He should like also to call attention to the fact that there was one stereotyped hard-and-fast rule for schools which existed in airy country districts and schools which existed in overcrowded town districts. Children who had to walk a mile to school in a, country district, and who lived a great deal in the open air—their playground being outside their cottage door—did not suffer so much from being in a small schoolroom as children who lived in a large town would. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would promise that the Education Department would not enforce their powers too hurriedly. Time should be allowed for the carrying out of instructions, and before they took steps to pull down the old schoolrooms or build new ones in agricultural districts, they would make a careful investigation into the average number of children who attended at each particular school.

MR. ACLAND

said, that he bad listened with interest to the speeches that had been made since he last spoke. It had been asked why there were no complaints under his predecessor, especially during his last year at the Education Department. One of the reasons why there were no complaints during the time in Office of his predecessor was that the managers of voluntary Church schools not unnaturally received with more willingness any direction or request from the Education Department when it was under the direction of the Party opposite than when it was under a Liberal Government. [Cries of "Why?"] Well, he thought his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Hart-Dyke) would admit that he found voluntary schools more docile, although, unfortunately, he was obliged to make demands which, if he (Mr. Acland) had made them, might have caused further ground for complaint. But he did not wish to press that point. He regretted that in some directions a great deal of alarm had been manifested as to what steps the Department intended to take with regard to certain matters which was not at all justified, and in many places there was an impression that the demand was going to be pressed on with great rapidity. He was glad, however,, to find that all hon. Members were agreed on this point—namely, that schools, whether in town or country, ought, as far as possible, to be decent, respectable, and healthy places so as to give every advantage to the children who attended. He would remind hon. Members that he had given a promise on Thursday last which indicated his desire that the pressure should not be too rapid or extreme. He-hoped that the Return which was being made quarter by quarter would enable the House to see whether too severe a pressure had been exercised, and for everybody to be aware of the exact state of the facts if the stage of condemnation of any particular school was arrived at. That should lessen the fear of any underground action by the Department against voluntary schools. The specific cases which had been mentioned he would take care to inquire into. It was a great assistance to him to have these things brought to his notice, so that he might watch the action of different Inspectors and officers to see whether in some parts of the country the pressure was more severe than it ought to be. The dearth of teachers in country schools was receiving his constant attention, and he hoped the Department was not taking any action which would make the difficulties of little schools more severe than they now were. It was not his wish that there should be large class-rooms for very small schools. He was desirous to give reasonable time for compliance with the demands now being made, and would promise to give the matter further and more special attention.

MR. J. G. LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)

said, after the interesting statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not wish to press the Motion, and was willing to withdraw it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

rose to call attention to a subject under Class VII. of the Vote.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID)

asked whether any hon. Gentleman desired to call attention to any point in the Vote relating to previous classes?

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

desired to call attention to the Vote for the British Museum under Class III.

MR. A. C. MORTON

rose to a point of Order. He desired to point out that, the Chairman (Mr. Mellor) had given a different ruling only a few minutes previously.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

wished to call attention to a subject under a previous class.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

said, only one Member could be heard at a time. Hon. Gentlemen must wait their turn. There had been no different ruling. The Chairman had deluded that no proposal could be made with regard to an item which had been passed. In order to save any question arising he had asked whether any hon. Gentleman wished to raise a question on a class prior to that to which an hon. Gentleman was proceeding to refer.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, that was refused to him a quarter of an hour ago.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! Sir Francis Powell.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

said, an announcement had been made in the public journals during the last few days as to a very considerable extension of the British Museum. He hoped the Minister in charge of this Vote would give the Committee some farther information. The reform indicated by the announcement was a very desirable one. He was glad to know this National Institution was to be rendered more secure from fire, for this was a point of gigantic importance, and he was confident the country would welcome the proposal without a dissentient voice.

* THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham

said, it was quite true that the Treasury had agreed with the Trustees of the Museum for the purchase from the Duke of Bedford of a considerable amount of property around the present building. The cost would be £200,000, but it was hoped that by adopting a system of annuities the payment, instead of being provided for in this or next year's Vote, might be spread over a number of years. By that means additions of a large amount to the British Museum Vote would be avoided. A Bill on the subject would in a short time, he hoped, be introduced. The whole of the property acquired would not be utilised at once for the purpose of extension, and so part of it would for a time bring in revenue. It was, however, proposed at once to remove the boilers and other possible causes of fire from the basement of the building, where they were now considered to be dangerous. The House would have an opportunity of considering the plan when the Bill was brought in, and all he would now say was that it was very gratifying to have been able to secure this property at a moderate price, and to know that the taxpayers would not have to provide all the purchase money in one year.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

said, he had another question to raise on the same Vote. He was thoroughly satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to his last question, and he desired to ask him now as to the National Gallery. The Trustees of the Gallery in their Report spoke in the most emphatic terms of the want of space, as not only were all the walls fully covered, but screens were also used to the fullest extent. Were the Government prepared at an early date to extend the National Gallery?

* SIR J. T. HIBBERT

explained that the barracks near the building must first be removed. When that could be done the Gallery would be extended. The matter, he hoped, had been satisfactorily arranged.

SIR F. S. POWELL

Will it be done at an early date?

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

The barracks cannot be removed until provision has been made for the troops elsewhere. The accommodation is about to be provided.

MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD (Warwick, Stratford)

asked if there were no means of separating the modern from the ancient school of pictures? If one school were removed to another gallery it would give a large amount of additional space at the National Gallery.

* SIR J. T. HIBBERT

I am not aware of any proposal to separate the two schools. I have received no communication on the subject, and am not aware that the Treasury are considering the subject.

MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD

Was there not an offer made by a private gentleman to provide a building for the modern school?

* SIR J. T. HIBBERT

Yes, a building is being provided, but I am not aware whether it is intended for modern pictures now at the National Gallery. I will obtain fuller information by the time the Vote comes on.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

next asked when the Committee might expect the statement promised by the Vice President of the Council with regard to the Vote for University Colleges. They had been informed they should have a Report on the work done before the Vote was granted. He hoped the Committee would have full opportunity of considering the matter.

* SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, he was sure the Vice President would produce the Report in time to ensure its ample consideration.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, that although he was entitled on that Vote to raise the question of our continued occupation of Egypt, he did not intend to avail himself of the opportunity. It must be understood, however, that he and those who concurred with him had not surrendered their views, and that they contemplated moving in the matter on another occasion.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he wished to make a few observations on the Franco-Siamese Question. We had placed a Representative at Bangkok mainly for the sake of British interests which constituted a. preponderating item in Siamese trade, and in commercial circles very great interest was felt in the new Convention between France and Siam. It was feared that France, might be acquiring an overweening and overwhelming influence in Siam, and that sooner or later arrangements would be made interfering with or hampering, impairing, and prejudicing British commercial interests. This apprehension was aggravated by the great delay in the publication of official Papers. There appeared to be no means of ascertaining the exact nature of the arrangement being made, and meanwhile France continued to occupy a portion of Siamese territory greatly to be injury of British prestige. He trusted that the publication of Papers would not be delayed until the arrangements regarding the buffer State on the northeast frontier of Siam wore completed. There was anxiety lest some arrangement should be made at the expense of British merchants in favour of French merchants. It was the independence of Siam which British merchants desired, so that they might be able to prosecute the commerce which had become the main faciei in their Siamese politics, and they were anxious that some Convention should be made between France and England in order to guarantee that independence, and to secure that freedom of commerce which had done so much honour to our national repute in the south-eastern portion of Asia, and which was essential to the future prosperity of Siam itself. He hoped the Under Secretary would be able to give some additional assurance regarding the early production of Papers, which would alone enable hon. Members to judge as to whether the conduct of the British Foreign Office had been worthy of the repute of England in Asiatic regions.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he wished to call attention to a matter in- volving a small sum but a great principle. It arose on the Diplomatic Vote, and had been opened up by the Auditor General. It appeared that in the Chinese and Japanese Consular Services there wore apparently no Regulations whatever regarding absence on sick leave and consequent reduction to be made in pay. It was said that there were general Rules, hut it did not seem to be clear how the Rules applied. One officer had been absent for two years and another for 18 months, and yet they had received five-eighths of their pay. He asked for an assurance from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to whom he had given notice of the question, that such a state of things would not be allowed to continue.

* SIR E. GREY

said, it was true notice had been given him; hut as he received it only an hour previously, he had not had time to make inquiry into the matter. Inquiries would, however, be made, and he would be glad to place the information which he obtained at the disposal of the hon. Member. With reference to Siam, he could only repeat what he had previously stated, that Her Majesty's Government were anxious to lay Papers on the subject on the Table, but they had been waiting until the proceedings in connection with the trial of a Siamese officer who was accused of the murder of Inspector Grosgurin had been concluded. One stage of that trial had been finished, but they must wait until they knew whether further proceedings were going to take place. As the Foreign Office understood the matter, this was the one outstanding point at present in dispute between France and Siam; and having waited so long, it would he a pity not to allow the respective Governments to come to what, it was hoped, would be a satisfactory conclusion before Papers were presented on the subject. That was the sole reason for the delay.

SIR R. TEMPLE

inquired whether the first stage of the trial alluded to did not consist of the acquittal of the prisoner?

SIR E. GREY

Yes, Sir; that is true.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he desired to move a reduction of Vote 1 in Class VII., and thereby to resume the Debate commenced at a quarter-past 12, and subsequently interrupted. The Vote he had to discuss was that in connection with the Deer Forests Commission, and, in the first place, he wished to object to the charge for a paid Royal Commission. There could be no worse plan than the appointment of a paid Commission to sit on equal terms with the unpaid Commissioners, and the objection was still more pronounced in this case, because it was known that this-particular Commission held views adverse to those entertained by the Crofters. This Commissioner, too, used his own casting vote in connection with the payment to himself of a sum of five guineas per day. It had been generally acknowledged that the system of having one Commissioner on a Board paid while his colleagues were not paid was very unfair, and, in his opinion, that made the paid Commissioner's Report absolutely worthless. If they desired expert evidence it should be independent, and not that of a paid Commissioner; and that was why he objected to the payment of Sir Colin Moncrieff, who was selected to give evidence by the Welsh Land Commission, although it was common knowledge that he was in favour of the landlords and against the crofters. For his own part, he did not believe a Royal Commission on Deer Forests was ever wanted. It was merely a scheme to delay the settlement of the question. The crofters were not satisfied with the action of the Commissioners who revised their rents, because the reductions made were notoriously insufficient, and they unanimously demanded more land. Every-body knew that that land was to be obtained, in districts from which the crofters in the past had been driven, to enable deer forests to be established, and everybody knew, too, that in years gone by crofters had been able successfully to till that laud. Why, then, was a Royal Commission needed? All that was necessary was power to take the land and re-settle the crofters and their families upon it. No Commission could give that power; that could only be granted by Parliament. The Secretary for Scotland had said that the Commissioners had been very hard-worked. Well, it struck him they had a very nice holiday all last summer.

SIR G. TREVELYAN

Not in rough weather.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, his view-was, the rougher the weather at sea the more enjoyable the trip. Of course, he was not speaking of those who were afraid of water. The truth was, the Commission was in the West of Scotland during the summer months, and it enjoyed a nice holiday at the public expense, while ordinary Members of Parliament, were really working hard in connection with their legislative duties in London. He had to protest against the Commissioners' refusal to present an interim Report, and could only attribute that refusal to their desire to secure another pleasant holiday. He had taken all the pains he could, by visiting the crofters, to understand their position, and he was quite satisfied that he knew quite as much about them as hon. Members opposite. He had gathered from the people themselves what their position was. There was no people more entitled to goodwill and sympathy than the crofters. And, therefore, he could not understand what had been done by Sir Colin Moncrieff. He was an official witness at the Welsh Commission. Evidently he did not know much about the matter. He went down, as he understood, to give official evidence with regard to figures which were in the office at Edinburgh, and the Government ought to have taken care that he did no more than this. He had no right to express any opinion whatever. [Sir G. TREVELYAN: What opinion?] With regard to the crofter population generally. Practically, what had appeared in the papers had not been denied. He did not object to the Government sending a witness down to the Welsh Commission, but they ought to send somebody who understood the matter. Let them, for instance, send a crofter who would understand the condition and wants and requirements of the people, instead of a highly-paid official who was a friend of the landlord. The least the Government could do when they sent officials to give evidence on one side was to send somebody to represent the case of the crofters also. He was going to move to reduce this Vote by £100. It was an important matter, and it was his desire to assist the Crofter Members and the crofters to obtain their rights. The crofters were a most law-abiding population and were entitled to sympathetic consideration. They were entitled to the laud, which they had been robbed of in many cases, so long as they paid a fair price for it. He was quite willing they should pay a fair price for the land, but the laud ought not to be given up to sporting gentlemen who had more money and time than they knew what to do with.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £9,000, for Temporary Commissioners, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

said, the crofter people were by no means satisfied with the Deer Forest Commission. They certainly took exception to one man, who was the friend of the landlords. The valuer of this Commission was receiving five guineas a day, while the other Commissioners received a guinea a clay. But that was not the point. The valuer ought to be in the service of the Commission, but in this case he had the right to vote, and upon one occasion he voted, and the vote was carried against the crofters. The Secretary for Scotland said the Commissioners had shown a great deal of energy. He (Mr. Weir) did not think so. No doubt they had to put up with Highland weather, but did they expect always to get brilliant sunshine in the Highlands? Of course, in the ordinary course of things they had to fortify themselves inside and out against the weather, and he saw no hardship in that. The Commissioners showed a distinct lack of energy in the prosecution of their work. Sheriff Brand seemed to him to be too frequently in the South when he should be in the North, and it struck him that Sheriff Brand had too many salaried appointments. He was Chief of the Crofter Commission, of the Deer Forest Commission, and the Sheriff of Ayrshire, and he did not know how many more appointments he held. While this Commission had been sitting the landlords had been increasing the deer forests, and they had been doing so ever since the Crofters Act was passed in that House. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate both knew that they had been doing so. He did not make the assertion upon his own responsibility that the crofters had been robbed of the land, but he would point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in 1887 referred to the necessity of amending the Crofters Act, which he considered a very imperfect Act, and that Lord Salisbury a fortnight afterwards said that the conditions with regard to the land were very different in the Highlands to what they were in the other parts of the country, and that the Highland crofters ought to have legislation which would enable them to go back upon the land. They knew that the Tory Government was in power for six years, but made no move in that direction. He supposed if they had another six years of Office they would do nothing. He hoped, however, that in this Liberal Parliament they would be able to pass an amended Act during this year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian had said he would support such a, Bill if a private Member would move it. But how could a private Member get a Bill through the House? He was very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that the work of the Commission was to be forwarded. There was no difficulty in passing the Bill if the Government had a real desire to do so. They had a willing majority, and on their part it was only a matter of will and determination, and then the measure would become law. As to opposition from the other side of the House, that would avail nothing if the Government would only lead the way, and fulfil their promise. The Secretary for Scotland alluded to the evidence given by Sir Colin Moncrieff before the Welsh Commission. He was sorry that so amiable a gentleman as Sir Colin Moncrieff should have shown so much ignorance. He could give his words, in which he showed himself that he was ignorant of the state of affairs in the Highlands, and had, in fact, passed most of his life in other lands. A highly-paid official of the Scotch Office ought not to be allowed to publicly traduce the crofters of the Highlands, especially when he admitted that he know nothing about the question. But this was how matters generally affecting the Highlands were treated. As a rule, they were treated with contempt. Was it because the Highlands were so far from the great centre of Loudon? Sir Colin Monerieff was obliged to state that he had to depend upon Sheriff Brand for his opinion, and he could read other extracts showing how ignorant that gentleman was of the condition of affairs in the Highlands.

MR. A. C. MORTON

Read them all

MR. WEIR

He would like to read them all. It was a very serious matter that a highly-paid official of the Scotch Office should have made these statements. It was only because the hour was advanced that he refrained from going into many of these matters, but he should certainly bring them before the House upon another occasion. There was much ignorance of Highland affairs exhibited by the Government themselves. The Lord Advocate had shown himself to be ignorant even of Highland geography.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will see that that does not apply, and is out of Order.

MR. WEIR

said, he should have another opportunity of speaking about that matter. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would take care that this amendment of the Crofters Act, which had been promised so long, would be energetically pushed through, and not staved off, and that the Government would see that full justice was done to the crofters.

* DR. MACGREGOR (Inverness-shire)

said, he wished to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it was true or not true that Sir Colin Moncrieff stated to the Welsh Land Commission that the Government had no intention whatever of increasing the crofter holdings? That, to his mind, went to the root of the whole matter. The rest of the evidence might be pronounced to be matters of opinion. This question ought to be answered by the Secretary for Scotland. If he was in Order he should like under the heading Highlands and Islands——

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

It would be more convenient that the Secre- tary for Scotland should answer at this point.

* THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,) Glasgow, Bridgeton

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough had raised the question which had been raised earlier in the day. He sincerely hoped it would not be necessary for him to repeat the, speech which he made earlier in the afternoon. As a. matter of fact, it was the custom of the Treasury to make a special payment for professional services. They had done this in the case of engineers and land surveyors and medical men, and in this case they made the special payment of £5 5s. a day to this gentleman when he was engaged upon professional duties. The Commission decided the details, and their recommendations were followed out, and that course enabled them to obtain the services of an able and eminent professional man upon the Commission.

MR. A. C. MORTON

Is there any Commission sitting where there is a similar instance?

SIR G. TREVELYAN

Not sitting, so far as I know. This gentleman, he was told, had done his duty with great impartiality, and had rendered good service. When the hon. Member defined the duties of the Commissioners as a. nice holiday, all he could say was that two of the members of the Commission had already suffered most severely from the arduous nature of the work which they had undergone. He appealed to those who knew the Highlands whether considerable discomfort must not have been undergone in the journeys from shooting box to shooting box and hotel to hotel? It was not the fact that the Commissioners wanted to visit a few more places so as to complete their holiday. What they wanted to do was to complete their inquiry. His hon. Friend proposed to reduce the payment for the Deer Forest Commission to express his sympathy with the crofters; but he (Sir G. Trevelyan) did not think that in proposing that reduction and attacking the Commissioners he did not manifest any sympathy with the crofters at all. What the crofters wanted was to get more arable land, and what this Commission was appointed to do was to find out what arable land and pasture land was avail- able, and by reducing the sum payable to the Commission was not the way to assist, the inquiry. As to Sir Colin Monerieffs evidence, he had been asked——

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

To refer to that evidence would be out of Order.

SIR G. TRE YELYAN

What he had said was that they were bringing forward a Rill for the purpose of extending the advantages of the Crofters Act, and that they would do their best to pass it into law.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he did not know that he should press this Motion to a Division, but he, must say that it was the only way they had of finding opportunity to speak of these matters by moving a reduction—not that they wanted to take any money from the crofters, because he was sure they did not want to do that. It was done to concentrate the Debate upon a particular matter. He wanted to say that he was not satisfied with the right, hon. Gentleman's explanation with regard to the Commission. There was no such official as a paid surveyor upon the Agricultural Commission or the Labour Commission, and one would suppose that large Commissions like these would have had one, if one was needed anywhere. What he wanted to draw attention to was this principle—that it was improper to have a man paid by a Commission who was also a member and had a vote upon that Commission. Upon, another occasion he should take the opportunity of calling attention to this matter again.

MR. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)

said, in reference to his having been asked as a member of the Deer Forest Commission to give an explanation of certain doings of the Commission, that he had no explanation to otter, because the Commission had not finished its work, and he would not do anything which would involve a breach of confidence. After what the Secretary for Scotland had said if was not necessary for him to take part in the discussion, and he would only say that he had never been engaged in more arduous physical labours. The late Prime Minister had expounded the policy that was to be pursued with regard to the Highlands, and had laid down that the survey of the Highlands ought to be made. When they remembered that some Royal Commissions had lasted for 10 years and had cost the country 20 times as much as this Commission, about which they had never heard a word of criticism, he was surprised at the attack made on this occasion. With regard to what the hon. Member for Peterborough had said, that question was debated in the Commission. A vote was taken upon it, and though, he confessed, he was a member of the minority——

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! It is very irregular to report what has taken place on a still pending Royal Commission.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

* DR. MACGREGOR (Inverness-shire)

asked what the Secretary for Scotland proposed to do with regard to the Petitions presented to him on the question of the want of roads and steamboat accommodation in the Islands of Inverness-shire. A great part of that country (Harris) had no roads whatever, and was simply isolated from the outer world. The whole of the traffic across country was carried on the backs of the country people. That was hardly creditable to a wealthy nation like this, which prided itself on being the pioneer of civilisation and Christianity. In heavy rainfalls the children going to school were positively in danger of their lives. People had to walk 10 and 12 miles to post and receive their letters. It was discreditable to our postal system that that should be necessary, and what made the matter still harder was that the mail steamer was positively seen passing regularly two miles from the shore without slopping. When he asked a question on the subject he was told that to do so would be a waste of time, and that the contractor refused unless he was paid for it. It seemed to be merely a question of a few miserable pounds whether or not people should be allowed to get their letters from the steamers. A slight amount of attention at the Scotch Office would suffice for the adjustment of this as a matter of business. He had been promised over and over again by the right hon. Gentleman that it should be considered. The right hon. Gentleman had also on behalf of the Government promised them an amendment of the Crofters Act this Session. It had been so often promised and so definitely agreed to that he would merely say now that unless the right hon. Gentleman and the Government showed a decided and early indication to introduce and pass such a Bill this Session he should have to reconsider the disposal of his vote in the House. He had a great respect for Imperial politics, but could not forget that there were local as well as Imperial affairs, and he was there to represent a cause which ought not to be neglected. There seemed no reason why the Government having a majority in the House should not carry a Bill on this subject during the Session.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the question under consideration was piers, harbours, roads, and minor works in the Highlands, and not the work of the Session.

DR. MACGREGOR

said, he would confine himself to that. He complained that there were no landing-places for the steamers to stop at. How could the people on the coast develop their fisheries unless a few piers or jetties were erected for them? They were sometimes told it was the duty of the County Council to see to these matters, but, on being appealed to, they denied that they had any such power. He did not wish to intrude himself longer than was necessary upon the Committee, but he urgently called upon the right hon. Gentleman to redeem his promises without delay, and not allow the demands of a law-abiding and peaceable population to be neglected in this way. He again called on the right hon. Gentleman to fulfil his promises. Why were hundreds of thousands of pounds given to Ireland for light railways and other things? Was it because they were not peaceable and law-abiding? Why, that was the very way to encourage agitation and law-breaking. If this neglect of the crofters continued, he would not like to be responsible for the Highland people. They were a long-suffering people, but their patience must not be taxed too long, and there was a limit to it. The promises of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be made to be broken—like pie-crusts; but in saying this he did not mean anything offensive. Sentiment, however, must give way to duty, though it was with great reluctance and regret that he had given expression to these remarks.

MR. WEIR

said, his hon. Friend had omitted to move the reduction of the Vote, and he should do so to the extent of £100. On Vote 1, Class VII., he wished to make an observation with regard to the cost of administration of the office created under the Highlands and Islands Works Act—one of the most extravagantly conducted offices, he should say, under the sun. There had been expended on piers, harbours, telegraphs, and minor works £4,131, and the administration cost £1,700. It was wrong that so large a sum should be charged for office expenses in connection with so small a capital outlay. It was true that £10,000 had to be expended on steamer communication, but that entailed no further work upon the Department than drawing cheques once or twice a year in favour of the mail-boat contractors. The engineer received a salary of £540, and an allowance of £156 for his clerk; then the clerk of works had £164, and for non-commissioned officers and other charges a sum of £544 was put down. He did not see any practical use in having a clerk of works to expend £1,000; and the cost of £300 for an office appeared to have been incurred for the purpose of finding somebody a job. They had no right to spend £1,700 in that way. The unfortunate part of the business was that £25,000 of the £41,000 granted by the House had gone back, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put his hand on it. There was plenty of scope for spending the money in the Island of Lewis, where whole districts containing thousands of inhabitants were without an inch of roads either for vehicles or foot traffic, and yet the people had to pay road rates. Why was not the money expended in making footpaths? In severe weather the children were unable to attend school on account of the risk they ran in crossing rough and stony ground, swamps, and bogs. £15,000 was granted two or three years ago for these purposes, and £6,000 had been spent on a road from Carloway to Stornoway, which was really not required. It was a political job managed by the Tory Party with the view of catching votes at the last Election. However, they did not manage to catch a sufficient number to return their men. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to giving several times the £3,000 which had been mentioned. No doubt it was very difficult to get money out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but why should £25,000 have gone back to the Treasury? What had been the result? The Secretary for Scotland had said that nothing was wrong in the Highlands, and hon. Members might naturally conclude that the people there were contented and happy and were getting larger grants than they could possibly use, but that was not the fact. The Highlands and Islands Works Act was a faulty measure as the Secretary for Scotland know, and why did not he get it put right? He had written to the Scotch Office time after time as to works which were badly needed in various parts of the Highlands, and was referred to the County Councils, who replied that they had done all they could, and that the matter rested with the Scotch Office or the Board of Trade. That had gone on mouth after month and year after year, and it was time such a mode of conducting business was stopped. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when asked for money for the Highlands, wriggled out of it on the plea that he had not got the money. No doubt times were bad and money was scarce, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and insist upon having money for these works so much required in remote parts of the Highlands. He would also press upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of making communications for the Western part of the mainland of Ross-shire with the view of enabling the fishermen to send on to the southern markets the abundant supplies of fish found off that coast. If this sort of thing continued—spending £1,700 to expend £4,000—he would be driven to the conclusion that this was another job. He now moved to reduce the Vote by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £5,000, for Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works and Communications) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Weir.)

* SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, it might be imagined that there were parts of the country which had been specially singled out for ungenerous treatment, but that was far from being the case. The hon. Member had just stated that £3,000 was was given by his Department for making footpaths in the Highlands. It was not £3,000 but £10,000 that was devoted to the purpose, and every penny of it had been spent. It had also been stated that large sums of money were given back to the Treasury instead of being spent for these purposes, and that it was time this mode of doing business was stopped. When charges of that sort were made they ought to be a little closely examined. Undoubtedly the Highlands and Islands Act was a cumbrous measure, and during the first year of its operation the money voted to be spent under it was not spent. But all the money voted for the Highlands and Islands by Parliament last year would be spent. The cost of administration, of which complaint had been made, was imposed by the Act. In the year which was now coming to an end all the money which was voted by Parliament under the Highlands and Islands Act would be spent. Therefore, he did not see that the charge which his hon. Friend brought against the Office had any foundation at all. His hon. Friend proposed to refuse the cost of administration, which, he said, was excessive. The system of administration was absolutely imposed on the Government by the Highlands and Islands Act, and it was necessary to have Inspectors going over the whole of the Highlands and Islands. The hon. Member said a job had been perpetrated. Well, if, as the hon. Member said, there had been a job originally, there was not a job now. An officer with a high salary had gone to perform other functions, and another gentleman had been appointed. So far from there having been a job, he (Sir G. Trevelyan) had not known the new official before he was recommended to him for his professional qualifications, and he had not now the slightest conception whether he was a Tory, Whig, or Radical. He was recommended by his professional chiefs, and he was appointed as a professional man. A request was made that steam communication should be procured between certain islands, but out of this Vote it was proposed to pay £10,000 for steam communication between the islands. Every six months the contracts were revised, and if, without any increase of expense, some more convenient method of arranging stoppages of steamers could be carried into effect it should be done. He must say that, in the present state of the public finances, this Vote of £36,000, the equivalent of which was not given to any other part of the country, was a very handsome Vote to give for these services in the Highlands. he must say that it was a very poor return for spending money in the Highlands to be told that the money which had been expended on a road in the Lewis at the request of those who were interested had been thrown away. It was desired at the time that the money should be spent for this purpose, and certainly the expenditure was of the greatest service in the district at the time. If the money had been badly spent it was the Local Authorities and not the Government who were to blame. He could not think that it was for the benefit of the Highlands to call on Parliament to reduce the Highland Vote by £100. This seemed to him to be a very poor return for the beneficence of Parliament, and be did not think his hon. Friend would get many Members to vote with him.

MR. A. C. MORTON

desired to support his hon. Friend's request for further assistance for harbours of refuge, &c, in the Highlands. His right hon. Friend (Sir G. Trevelyan) knew very well that the moving of a reduction was the only way Members had of expressing their opinion on the subject.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member said that twice on the last Vote.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he would not repeat it. The Vote was £5,000 less than last year, and he thought the Government might have granted as much as last year. If the right hon. Gentleman would take a trip, not in a yacht, but by the ordinary means of communica- tion, from Glasgow to Stornoway, he would find that there was need for farther harbours and piers. The House of Commons could find plently of money for the Army and Navy, for the Royal Family, for Bechuanaland, for Uganda, and for purposes in which only those who were connected with company promoting took much interest, and he said that under these circumstances a few thousand pounds might be provided for harbours of refuge, roads, piers, and other things that might be necessary for conducting the trade and business of this country, and for increasing the comfort of the people. Radical Members wanted the Government to bear in mind that it was not speculators and company promoters that they had to look after but the great mass of the people of the country. He advised his hon. Friends to keep pegging away at the Treasury and the Secretary for Scotland until they had got the just needs of the people of the West of Scotland attended to. If his hon. Friends would only adopt the tactics of the company promoters they would find that there was plenty of money to be obtained from the Treasury, and of course the money so obtained could not be thrown away on costly expeditions.

MR. W. WHITELAW (Perth)

said, it seemed to him that some of the hon. Members opposite were beginning to realise that a certain number of promises which they made to their constituents at the last Election did not appear likely ever to be fulfilled.

* DR. MACGREGOR

rose to Order. They made no such promises; the promises they made were bonâ fide promises, and not only that, but their action here to-day was not in consequence of the insecurity of their seats.

MR. W. WHITELAW

said, if he had offended the hon. Member's dignity he was sorry for it. The hon. Member told the Government that if something more was not done for the Highlands he would not be responsible for the continuance of order in the Highlands. If the hon. Member withdrew his influence for the preservation of order, he (Mr. Whitelaw) did not expect it would cause a very violent outbreak. With regard to the means of communication, he believed the Secretary for Scotland fully understood more money was required for this purpose than was given, and if the right hon. Gentleman could get more he was satisfied he would do so, and if the right hon. Gentleman had it in his pocket he would give it. So long us they could feel more or less confident the right hon. Gentleman was getting as much as he could out of the Treasury, he did not think it fair to make this sudden and wholesale attack on the right hon. Gentleman's administration of Highland affairs. Bur he did not think the way to advance the interest of the crofters or the inhabitants of the Highlands was to move a reduction of the Vote that it was proposed to give to the Highlands, and he did not think the electors of Inverness-shire and Ross-shire would be inclined to support their Members who had proposed and supported a Motion to reduce the already too small amount that was to be given.

DR. MACGREGOR

I made no such proposition.

MR. W. WHITELAW

said, he spoke of the hon. Member for Ross-shire, and whatever the sentiments of the hon. Member for Ross-shire might be, what he had actually done was to propose that £100 less should be given to this county, amongst others, than the Government was ready to give. He should take care to let all those gentlemen who had been the supporters of the hon. Member in the past understand the position taken up by the hon. Member.

MR. WEIR

said, the £100 reduction which he moved was a reduction off the administration expenses, which he took to be excessive. However, in consequence of the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Scotch Office would spend the full amount of the grant this year, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he wished to ask one question. He saw there was a sum of £200 noted——

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I have put the whole Question, and the Committee cannot go back on any Vote.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.