Commons Sitting of 28 February 1895

Preamble
The House met soon after Three of the clock.

CHELSEA WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
On Motion to postpone the Second Reading of the Chelsea Water (Transfer) Bill,
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he objected to the postponing of this Bill. He saw no reason why the County Council should be empowered to use one company in order to invade the district of another. He did not hold a share in these Water Companies, but he had the honour to be Chairman of the Thames Conservancy, which looked on these water Bills as a very serious question. He and those who thought with him were strongly of opinion that these water Bills should proceed pari passu. He had no objection to a central authority taking charge of the water supply, but he objected to the County Council being enabled to work one company against another. He wanted all these Bills to be considered by the same Committee. He begged to move that the Bills be now read a second time.
SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he was surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, who was responsible for the Motion to defer the Second Reading of these Bills till May 3. When he himself moved last week that the whole of the Bills should stand over until the opinion of the ratepayers had been expressed, the hon. Member offered a most determined opposition. These Bills must inevitably lead to a very great increase in the rates, even if the London County Council worked the water undertakings as economically as they were worked at present, which he very much doubted, because the present ratepayers would have not only to pay for the water but for the redemption of stock. To that argument no answer had been attempted by those who supported the Bill. The analogies drawn from the case of other Municipalities were entirely misleading,

5
as there were no other Municipalities to which the Water Companies stood in the same relation as did the London Water Companies to the Metropolis. Another argument which had been put forward was that the authority having the control of the streets should also have the control of the Water Companies, so that there should not be two bodies with the power of opening up the streets. But in the case of London the power of opening up the streets did not rest with the County Council, but generally with the Vestries, so that the argument did not apply.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the question before the House was whether the Second Heading of the Bill should be deferred or now taken.
SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he would not pursue the argument further, but he had desired to explain to the House why he did not keep down the Amendment standing in his name before. He hoped that the Committee would take into consideration the views, not only of those who represented the Metropolis, but also of those representing districts outside.
MR. J.STUARTsaid, the Motion which was now made for deferring these Bills was made for the purpose of carrying out a distinct understanding which had been arrived at. Last Thursday he said:—
"We cannot consent to withdraw Clause 6, but we are prepared to give a locus standi to the other Companies on the first Bill, on the under-standing that the other Bills will he postponed."
He would not press the understanding if hon. Gentlemen felt that it did not exist, but the 3rd of May was the earliest possible date, he thought, at which the Second Reading of these Bills could be taken. He should put down for Monday a Resolution which would give a locus standi on the two Bills to all the Water Companies, and also move for the postponement of the Second Reading of the other Bills until this Bill was gone through. It had been suggested that County Councils should have a locus standi, and they had put that also into their proposed Resolution.
MR. F. G. BANBURYthought that the hon. Member had not answered the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Uxbridge. The point was this, did the County Council really intend to proceed with all the
6
eight Bills, or did they intend to post pone the last six for an indefinite period, and having purchased two Companies use those Companies as a lever with which to depreciate the property of the remaining Companies.
MR. STUARTsaid, the only reason for the proposed postponement was that it was impossible to deal with the Bills simultaneously. The County Council could not compete against any Water Company, even if they wished to do so, except with a most minute portion of the Kent Company.
MR. BANBURYsaid, he understood that it was the distinct intention of the London County Council to proceed with the remaining six Bills, and he understood, also, that the hon. Member for Shoreditch had practically told the House that he would not use the two Bills which had already gone to the Committee in order to exercise any pressure on the remaining six Companies. He understood that that was not the object at all, but that it was simply and solely because it was more convenient to take the first two together.
MR. STUARTsaid, that was so, and they were about to move for a locus standi for the other Companies in order that, if their interests were prejudiced in any way, they might have an opportunity of presenting their case before the Committee.
MR. BANBURYsaid, he was quite satisfied. It was not his wish that the London Water Companies should receive a farthing more than they ought to receive.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that on the clear understanding which had been expressed he would withdraw his Amendment.

CHELSEA WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time on Friday, 3rd May."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "now read a second time."—(Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill to be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd May.

  LAMBETH WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That any County Council and any of the London Water Companies be entitled to be heard before the Select Committee on the above Bill on any Petitions praying to be heard by Counsel, presented by them on or before 14th March next, and that such Petitions be referred to the said Committee."—(Mr. James stuart.)
  MR. BOULNOISthought, the 4th of March would not give sufficient time for the County Councils to meet. He suggested that a later date should be fixed, for it was necessary that the Councils should get the Common Seal affixed to their Petitions.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "County," to insert the words "or District."—(Mr. Byrne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Debate arising—Debate adjourned till Monday next.
  MR. J. STUARTrecognised the propriety of the request of the hon. Member, and said that the object of the County Council was to afford public bodies directly interested all reasonable opportunity of petitioning and presenting their case. He had reason to believe that if the date in the Motion were extended to the 14th of March it would meet the circumstances of the case, and he would move that that date be substituted for the 4th of March.
  MR. E. W. BYRNEpointed out that there were District Councils very deeply interested in the matter. In the constituency he represented in Essex were two District Councils affecting populations of 78,000 and 60,000 respectively, that would be largely affected by the Bill, and he thought their interests ought to be safe guarded, as well as those of County Councils. He, therefore, moved as an Amendment that District Councils be inserted in the Motion.
  MR. STUARTsaid, the Amendment raised a wide and difficult question. There would already be a large number of petitioners, and it might be inconvenient to extend their number. Still, the County Council would be ready to Consider the claims to a hearing of any persons or bodies who could show that they were reasonably entitled to it by their interests being directly affected. The Amendment, however, had been Drought to his notice only 10 minutes ago, and he could not assent to it at the moment, but might say that if the hon. Member would confer with him on the matter something might be done at a later stage to meet his views.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid, it would be found that the number of District Councils that desired to be represented were not many; but there were several which were greatly concerned in the matter, and it would be very unfair that they should be shut out.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, West Kent was more interested in the question than East or Mid Kent, and that it was more important that West Kent should be represented than Kent as a whole.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said, the proposal of the hon. Member for Shoreditch was a fair one, for he had said that the County Council were anxious that all direct interests should be fairly represented before the Committee. The Committee did not meet until after Easter, and possibly if the point were postponed for a few days the Council might in the meantime be able to do something to meet the wishes of hon. Members with regard to the District Councils, of which, it appeared only a certain number were affected. No prejudice would ensue if the matter were postponed for a few days.
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, he believed the County Council would have no objection to the representation of a District Council in regard to any particular Bill by which it was directly interested.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSmoved, that the Debate be adjourned until Monday.
  Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  ARTILLERY FIRING ON DARTMOOR.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the inconvenience to the farmers and general public which arises from the possibilities of artillery firing being practised on every day of the week in the summer months on Dartmoor, he will take steps to prevent any artillery firing on Dartmoor on Saturdays?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,: Steps have been taken to restrict firing on Saturdays as far as is possible consistently with batteries completing their course of instruction within the period of their encampment. The local notices issued by the military authorities at Dartmoor state that as a rule no firing takes place on Saturday except when there has been much foggy or wet weather during the week. I am informed that it would be impracticable to prohibit entirely firing on Saturday without endangering the success of the programme of instruction for the season. Dartmoor derives many advantages from its military camps, and these advantages must, I fear, have attached to them this one counterbalancing inconvenience, but every care will be taken to reduce it to a minimum.

  THE TOWER OF LONDON BARRACKS.
  MR. F. W. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the drainage of the barracks in the Tower is of a defective character, and that the drains are in an insanitary condition; and whether he will cause an immediate inspection, with a view to their reconstruction on scientific principles, so as to avoid any dangerous consequences which may arise from the drains remaining in their present state?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A thorough inspection of the Tower drainage was completed last month, with the result that the system generally was not found to be defective. Some minor defects were detected which are receiving attention.
  In answer to a further question by MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON,
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the inspection was carried out with the assistance of an accomplished professor of sanitary science.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman knew that some of the sanitary work previously done was imperfectly carried out, that the population of the locality was very dense, and that the health of the people had been injuriously affected by the defective drainage?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was true that a small portion of the work of certain alterations which were carried out a short time ago was imperfectly done, but those defects had now been remedied.

  PARISH MEETINGS.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the case where a parish meeting has had conferred on it all the powers of a parish council, in pursuance of section 19, subsection 10, of the Local Government Act, 1894, the decision on matters that may come before it is to be by a majority of the votes of the members present as at a Parish Council, or whether a poll may be demanded as at a parish meeting?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAWLEFEVRE,): It appears to the Local Government Board that any powers of a Parish Council conferred on the parish meeting under section 19 (10) of the Local Government Act, 1894, must be exercised by the parish meeting subject to the rules in part I. of the First Schedule to the Act, and that, consequently, a poll may be demanded of any question to be decided by the meeting in the exercise of such power.

  ENGLISH GIRL AT AMSTERDAM.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of that Department has been drawn to the application made at the Worship Street (London) Police Court, on 22nd February, by a girl who stated that, having been induced by erroneous statements to accept a

  11
  situation at the Café Royal, Amsterdam, and being desirous from what she there discovered to leave at once, she was not permitted by the proprietor to remove her personal property; and, having appealed to the British Consul, Mr. Robinson, was by him referred to the Dutch police authorities, without obtaining justice; whether he has any information from the Consul on the subject; and whether British Consuls have been, or will be, instructed to afford applicants under such circumstances the utmost assistance in their power?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The Consul has been asked for a report, and would, in any case, give all the assistance in his power if the circumstances were as stated.

  CROFTERS' DOG LICENCES.
  SIR DONALD MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the grievance of Crofters who are required to pay 7s. 6d. for a licence to keep a dog for the protection of their holdings from the depredations of sheep and cattle who trespass upon their ground and destroy their grass and green crops; and, whether it would be possible to grant a general exemption, instead of leaving the question to be determined by the local Revenue Officer?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBEKT, Oldham): There is no exemption from the Dog License Duty granted by law in favour of Crofters as such. The relief is directed to be given "in the case of dogs kept and used solely for the purpose of tending sheep or cattle on a farm or in the exercise of the calling or occupation of a shepherd." This exemption is interpreted liberally, and the Authorities are always ready to consider cases of individual hardship. It would not be possible to grant such a general exemption as is referred to without an alteration of the law; and on this point I would remind my hon. Friend that the yield of these licences goes into the Local Taxation Fund, not into the Exchequer.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not see his way to grunt the exemption, whether he will not reduce the rate to
  12
  very small holders, so that it may bear some proportion to the 7s. 6d. annually paid by the very large farmer?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: As I said, that change would require an alteration of the law, and it would have to go much further than the hon. Member anticipates. There is no reason why, if it should extend to the Crofter, it should not extend to any person in the country having a small holding, or even an allotment.

  THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.
  MR. F. G. BANBURY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the condition of the roadway of the Thames Embankment; and, if he will bring pressure to bear on the London County Council to compel them to put it in proper order?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I think this is a question which the hon. Member may more properly ask his representative on the London County Council to put at the next meeting of that Council.

  LONDON CARMEN.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that London carmen are fined, and, in addition, lose a day's wages, for leaving their vans unattended while delivering goods, and that when single handed they cannot in many instances avoid leaving their vans; and, whether he will consider what steps can be taken to put an end to this grievance?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): Section 54, Sub-section 4 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, provides that any person having the care of any cart or carriage, who shall be at such a distance from such cart or carriage as not to have complete control over every horse or other animal drawing the same, shall be liable to summary prosecution and to a fine not exceeding 40s. This seems to me to be a very proper provision for the public safety: the police only take action under the section where the public safety renders proceedings necessary, and I think that any relaxation of the existing Law would not be in the public interest.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that hundreds upon hundreds of vehicles are left unattended in the streets of London daily; and whether the arbitrary and haphazard selection of a minute proportion of these cases tends either to greater safety in the streets or greater respect for the law; and considering that these cases which come into Court mostly result from inexperienced or over-officious constables, whether he will take into consideration the advisability of sending a circular to the Metropolitan Police suggesting that they should not summon men when they have a chain on the wheel, or when they are only absent for such a time as may he considered reasonable to enable them to deliver goods?
  MR. ASQUITH: The principal consideration in this matter is the public safety. I cannot admit either haphazard or arbitrary action on the part of the Police, but if my hon. Friend will bring forward any case of real hardship I will make inquiry in regard to it.

  THE NIGER PROTECTORATE.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause to be supplied in the Tea Room or Library, a map setting out the boundaries dividing the territories of the Niger Coast Protectorate and of the Royal Niger Company; and, whether he will permit a Return to be presented to the House setting out a comparative statement of duties now existing in the territories of the Niger Coast Protectorate, the Royal Niger Company in Lagos and the Gold Coast, and the German Tariff in the Cameroons.
  SIR E. GREY: A map will be supplied. A comparative statement of Import Duties in the Niger Coast Protectorate, Niger Company's Territories, Lagos, Gold Coast, and Sierra Leone will be found in Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, No. 1,144, pp. 21–22. There have been no changes since which would affect the value of this statement for purposes of comparison. We have not got a recent list of the Cameroons Tariff.

  THE ZETLAND PIER AT ADR1GOLE.
  MR. J. P. GTLHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Zetland Pier, built at Adrigole as a relief work in 1891, at a cost of £5,000, is being constantly covered by the spring tides, and that a great portion of the work is being washed away; and, whether he intends to take any steps to prevent the injury being done to this pier by the spring tides?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): I am informed that some of the gravel inside the pier referred to was washed away recently, but that the injury is very slight and no damage was done to the concrete. The matter has been brought under the notice of the county surveyor.

  CARRYING ARMS IN IRELAND.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that a man named Ned Brady, of Ballinaglera, County Leitrim, who was convicted of assault at last petty sessions in Dowra, and placed under a rule of bail, holds a licence to carry arms; and, will he order inquiry to be made as to whether Brady is a proper person to possess a licence to carry arms?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to the circumstances leading to the conviction in this case, and I am inquiring into the matter referred to at the end of the question.

  THE CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Congested Districts Board has recently launched a new steam yacht at a cost of £10,000 for cruising about the west coast of Ireland; what was the sum allowed by the Treasury for a steam cruiser for the west coast of Scotland; and what is the value of the fish caught on these coasts respectively; has he observed the statement in the Board's Reports that the cost of administration of their income of £45,000 a year amounts to close on £9,000 a year; and would he state what is the amount given

  15
  by the Treasury for defraying the salaries of secretary, assistant secretary, and staff of clerks, and how many of the latter are there; will he furnish a Return of the items of administration as passed by the Auditor General, and especially of the sum of £1,367 5s. 5d. for an expenditure of £1,589 10s. in connection with the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, and of £768 13s. 4d. for an expenditure of £957 10s. 4d. for piers, roads, bridges, &c.; is it intended to allow the expenditure of £9,000 a year of the Board's income being spent on a stud farm in County Wicklow; is it the case that the Board has given £600 for the improvement of the town of Donegal, which is not in a congested area; and will he state the terms of the contracts which have been entered into for the approaches and ironwork of the viaduct over the Gweebara Estuary in County Donegal; and, are cheques signed by members of the Board, and how are powers of surcharge exercised by the Auditor General?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone this question until after the next meeting of the Congested Districts Board to be held on the 15th March.

  ENGLISH GIRLS AT AMSTERDAM.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been directed to a statement made by Annie Nightingale to Mr. Bushby at the Worship Street Police Court on Friday last, indicating a system of sending girls to the Continent for immoral purposes by an agent in York Road, Waterloo Road; whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the facts; and, whether he can inform the House what means, if any, are taken, or can be taken, to prevent such a traffic from being carried on.
  MR. ASQUITH: As I said in reply to a question on this subject on Tuesday last, the police are making a thorough inquiry into the case, and I must defer my answer till I get their report.

  THE IRISH TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, if his attention has been directed to the circumstances of a late appointment of a
  16
  second class telegraphist, transferred from Killarney to the city of Limerick, and promoted to a first class appointment over the heads of the whole of the second class staff in that city; what were the special reasons and recommendations for such appointment; if the Limerick staff have protested against such practice of introducing outside officers over their heads; and, if further inquiry will be made in the matter, with a view that the claims of the local officials for promotion will not be ignored, and that no such further appointments be made.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): The telegraphist to whom the hon. Member refers was transferred from the Killarney staff to a vacancy at Limerick caused by the promotion of a first class telegraphist from that office to a clerkship at Killarney. The staff at Limerick have appealed against this exchange, which was necessary in the interests of the Service, but, I think, without good reason, as one of their number has been promoted to a more valuable appointment at Killarney.

  GUATEMALAN DEBT.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE; I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the non-payment, since July last, of interest on the External Debt of the Republic of Guatemala; whether he is aware that the sum arising from the duties specially allocated to the payment of debt has been impounded under the pleas of the depreciation of silver, that the Government is constructing railways and telegraphs, and that generally the country is very prosperous; and, what steps, if any, Her Majesty's Consul General has taken to urge the Government to pay the interest due to its creditors?
  SIR E. GREY: Attention has been called to the suspension of the service of the Guatemalan External Debt. Mr. Gosling, Her Majesty's Minister in Guatemala, has been instructed by telegraph to inform the Guatemalan Government that the Council of Foreign Bondholders urge that a commissioner should be sent at once to this country to treat with the bondholders, a mode of proceeding that seems well calculated to

  17
  bring about a settlement. Mr. Gosling has also been authorised to recommend, unofficially, that the Guatemalan Government should come to terms with the British creditors, and he has been authorised to present a letter addressed to the President of Guatemala by the chairman of the Council of Foreign Bondholders urging that a representative should be despatched to England, or that the President himself should make a reasonable proposal to the bondholders.

  ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  MR. G. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether any steps have been, or are being, taken to advance duly qualified engine-room artificers to the position and rank of warrant officers; and, if so, what steps have been taken in this direction; whether he can state to the House why candidates from amongst the ranks of the engine-room artificers were not allowed to compete for the position of temporary service engineers, a body now wholly drawn from outside sources; and, whether the Board of Admiralty will consider the advisability of instituting an intermediate grade of engineer artificers who shall occupy the status of assistant engineers, with avenues to promotion according to merit, upon passing the ordinary examination suitable to such rank?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The inquiries made by the hon. Member on the subject of the present status and rank of engine-room artificers cannot be conveniently dealt with in the limited scope of an answer to a question. I will therefore ask him to wait until the Navy Estimates come on for discussion in the House. I may, however, state that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to engine-room artificers not being allowed to compete for the appointment of temporary service engineers. Provided that an engine-room artificer possesses the qualifications laid down in the Regulations for the entry of these engineers, the Admiralty have no wish to discourage them from entering into competition with other candidates whenever the convenience of the Service allows of it.

  THE METROPOLITAN CAB SERVICE.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the Report of the Committee on the Cab Service of the Metropolis; and whether he is prepared to take steps to carry out the administrative and legislative changes recommended; and, if so, when the former will come into operation?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am in communication with the Commissioner of Police on the subject of the administrative changes. He has the matter under immediate consideration, but has not as yet been able to furnish his report. I hope in the course of the Session to introduce a Bill to deal with the practice known as "bilking."

  SHOT FIRING IN MINES.
  MR. J. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the proved danger to life of the manner in which shot firing is now carried on in many coal-mines, and the investigation, report, and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Explosions from Coal Dust in Mines, he is prepared to introduce and press forward a Bill dealing with the subject?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have prepared a Bill dealing with fiery and dusty mines and with the precautions to be taken in firing shots in mines. The recommendations of the Royal Commission have been attended to in framing the Bill, and I hope to introduce it at an early date.

  MALA REAL PORTUGUEZA COMPANY.
  MR. J. PARKER-SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Mala Real Portugueza Company, which became bankrupt nearly two years ago owing some hundreds of pounds to the British engineers in its service, has been spending considerable sums out of its funds in Court, but has refused to satisfy the claims of the men in its employ; and that the British Minister at Lisbon has recently given orders to the lawyers he engaged to proceed no further in pushing the claims of the engineers; what is the reason of this action; and whether Her Majesty's Government is able to do any-

  19
  thing to assist the men in question in recovering the wages due to them?
  SIR E. GREY: It is unfortunately true that owing to the methods pursued in the administration of bankrupt estates by the Portuguese tribunals the creditors of the Mala Real Company have as yet received nothing, and that among those creditors are a number of British engineers who were in the Company's employ. The case has throughout been watched with care by the British Minister at Lisbon; the employment of a lawyer has been discontinued, as it did not seem that for the present his services were likely to be of use, but Her Majesty's Minister will take any opportunity that may offer of pressing the men's claims. The delay which is occurring is highly discreditable, but as the matter is in the hands of the Judicial Authorities, and the legal remedies of the claimants are not exhausted, it is difficult to make out a proper case for diplomatic representations.

  THE OUTBREAK AT BRASS.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of Sir Claude Macdonald's statement, that the Brass Natives have been deprived of their means of subsistence by the action of the Niger Company, and in view of the present Military operations and total destruction of the Brass towns, ho will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the alleged practice of "sniping" or shooting British-protected Brass Natives at sight when they make use of those creeks of the delta of the Niger, through which the whole of their trade has been conducted from time immemorial, and thus reach the territories of the Niger Company; and, whether it would be possible to avoid the present difficulties on the frontier of the British protectorate, and that of the territory of the Niger Company in the delta of the Niger, Informing of them a single Customs' territory without any intervening Customs' barrier, in such manner that one duty shall be levied within them, as provided in the somewhat similar case of the Gold Coast Colony and German Togoland by the 1894 Convention?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that
  20
  question, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that the recent affray was in consequence of an attempt to introduce intoxicating drink into the country, contrary to the regulations of the Royal Niger Company?
  SIR E. GREY: The first paragraph of the question conveys a very grave accusation, which cannot be entertained without some evidence. The whole question of the outbreak—who was responsible for it, how the arms of precision were supplied to the natives, and how just grievances can be remedied, will be fully considered when details are received. In answer to the supplementary question, I am aware that the statement which the hon. Member has just made has been made by others, but that, of course, will be inquired into when the inquiry is made to which I have referred.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: May I ask whether the inquiry will be conducted in England, or oil the spot?
  SIR E. GREY: On the spot, certainly.

  BELLEVILLE BOILERS.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. Wolff): I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, how many Belleville boilers are fitted in the Sharpshooter; can he state how long ago they were fitted, and how often they have been worked; and, what is the greatest number of consecutive hours they have worked at a time?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The Sharpshooter was fitted with eight Belleville boilers twelve months ago, and these were first tried on board under steam, in February, 1894. Seventeen steam trials were made at various powers and durations up to 30 hours. The ship was commissioned in September 1894, and whilst on service with the Channel Squadron, has made two special twelve-hour trials, and the usual quarterly 24-hour trial, and the result, as regards the Belleville boilers, has in each case been most satisfactory.

  PRIVATE BILLS PROCEDURE IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. W. THORBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the

  21
  reform of Private Bill Procedure in Scotland; and, if so, if they have resolved to press it forward and pass it into law, during the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. O. TREVELYAX, Glasgow, Bridgeton): The Government have prepared a Bill for the reform of Private Procedure in Scotland, which they will introduce, and hope to pass into law.

  THE SCOTCH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Government during the present Session to take steps for the setting up of a Scottish Standing Committee, similar to that which last year so successfully dealt with the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: The Standing Committee for the consideration of Scottish business, as finally arranged by the House last Session, did such excellent service, that the Government will propose its re-appointment in the same terms as last year. This will be done as soon as a suitable Bill has reached a stage in the House appropriate to its being referred to the Standing Committee.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman proposed the Motion he should feel it his duty to oppose it, because it was unreasonable to suppose than any hon. Member could be in more than one place at the same time.
  MR. PARKER SMITHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say what Bills the Government would consider suitable for reference to the Committee?
  SIR G. O. TRKVELYANsaid he could not do so at the present moment. When a Bill arrived at a particular stage he might perhaps propose to refer it to the Committee.

  BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION.
  SIR G. BADKN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information as to the appropriation by Congress, before its rising, of the moneys necessary for the payment of the sum of 425,000 dols. agreed to by the Government of the United States under the Behring Sea Arbitration Award as compensation to British sealers?
  SIR E. GREY: A telegram has been received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, reporting that, on the 25th instant, the proposed appropriation for the payment of 425,000 dols. as compensation to British sealers had been rejected in the House of Representatives by an adverse vote of 143 to 112.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLasked, whether the hon. Gentleman had any information as to further steps being taken by the Government of the United States?
  SIR E. GREYwas not sure whether this rejection was absolutely final, but if it was final, of course the claims would have to be inquired into by the Commission in detail.
  MR. W. R. CREMER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state the total amount of liabilities incurred by this country in the Behring Sea Arbitration; whether the whole amount was paid by this country; and, if any portion of the costs were paid by the Canadian Government, will he state what that proportion was?
  SIR E. GREY: The total amount of expenses paid by this country was £36,661 15s. 4d. This, however, includes payments to be shared by the Canadian Government; but the accounts with Canada have not yet been finally adjusted. As soon as they have been settled a Return will be laid.

  PARCEL POST BASKETS.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, under existing regulations, the repairs of Parcels Post baskets in use in Ireland are now executed at the Tele graph Factory in London; and whether arrangements could be made under which the work could be dune in Dublin?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: Under existing regulations the simple repairs to Parcel Post receptacles in use in Ireland are executed at the General Post Office, Dublin, but the heavier repairs are executed at the Telegraph Factory, London. I have, however, given instructions that all repairs to these baskets which can be conveniently so executed shall, for the future, be executed in Dublin.

  LIVERPOOL PRISON—DEPUTY GOVERNOR.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is intended, in response to the urgent requests made by the Visiting Committee of Her Majesty's prison at Liverpool, in their Reports for the years 1893 and 1894, to renew the appointment left vacant in 1890, of a Deputy Governor to the prison?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am in communication with the Treasury with a view to the appointment of a Deputy Governor at Liverpool prison.

  SAVING LIFE AT SEA.
  MR. E. H. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a schooner, the Forest Oak, was wrecked off the coast of Essex on Wednesday, 16th January, and the crew rescued in an exhausted condition by the volunteer lifeboat, True to the Core, but that the lifeboat crew have received no compensation, whereas the crew of the National Institution boat, which arrived too late to be of service, have received £2 5s. each; and, whether the Board of Trade will grant a reward to the crew of the True to the Core?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): My attention has been called to the case to which my hon. Friend refers, and the Board of Trade are making inquiries with a view to deciding whether it is a proper one for reward. I am not aware whether the crew of the National Lifeboat Institution boat have received any reward. That is a matter entirely for the institution itself. They have received nothing from the Board of Trade.

  POST OFFICE CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. S. HOARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he could state the system under which sorters are promoted to clerkships in the Post Office; and, whether, in such promotions, seniority and long service are taken into consideration?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: Promotion to clerkships from the position of sorting clerk in the Post Office is regulated on the general principles which
  24
  govern promotion throughout the Department. The promotion is given to the officer who, having regard to all the circumstances of the case—among which seniority and long service are always taken into consideration—appears to be thoroughly qualified and most deserving of the vacant situation.

  THE DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether a petition from the coopers employed in the Victualling Yard at Deptford was received in November; what answer has been made to it; and whether it is intended at once to make any change for their advantage in the terms of employment of these men?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: A petition has been received from the coopers at Deptford. The decision of the Admiralty thereon, arrived at after full consideration, will be shortly communicated to the yard, when the other petitions have been settled.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to pay to their employés. especially to those employed in the victualling yard at Deptford, a minimum wage of 24s. a week; and whether, if the men desire it, such a wage would be paid on their giving up the present privileges, bonus, and allowances?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The minimum wage at present in force was settled as part of the general scheme of wages at the Government yards in 1893, and the Admiralty have no present intention of altering the same. The second part of the question being hypothetical, is not one which can be properly answered.

  THE CASE OF DR. MOFFETT.
  MR. DAVID PLUNKET: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. Moffett was in October last called upon by the Irish Government to resign his offices as President of and Professor in the Queen's College, Galway, on the ground that the Order in Council of 15th August 1890, applied to him as holder of such offices; whether Dr. Moffett declined to tender his resignation, stating that he was advised by high legal authority, including

  25
  the late Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, that the Order in Council did not apply to his case, and praying that an opportunity might be afforded to him of trying the question before a legal tribunal; whether, on the 24th of January of this year, a Queen's letter was sent to Dr. Moffett, dismissing him from his offices of President and Professor; whether before such letter takes effect (namely, on the 25th of next month), the Government will refer the question raised by Dr. Moffett to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; or, if they are not prepared to take that course, they will institute inquiry whether the case of Presidents and Professors of the Queen's Colleges is within the policy of the Order; and whether the Order in its present form ought to apply to such cases?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the Government consider the proposed or suggested reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as impracticable. The technical possibility of such a reference is open to some doubt, and, even if it were otherwise, the Government consider that in any case to authorise or to institute such a reference would be to set a very bad precedent. But as there appears to me to be some question as to the policy of the Order, as distinguished from the terms of the Order, regarding which there is no doubt, the Lord Chancellor will examine into the merits of this question, and by the decision at which he arrives the Government will abide.
  Mr. PLUNKETasked whether he was to understand that the whole question would be referred to the Lord Chancellor, with a view to ascertaining what were the real intentions of the Commission?
  Mr. J. MORLEYsaid the Order in Council, though no doubt to some extent influenced by the report of the Commission, was an order of her Majesty; and, that being so, it could be examined by the Lord Chancellor without reference to the Ridley or any other Commission.
  Mr. PLUNKET: How, then does the right hon. gentleman propose to throw light upon the intention of the Order?
  Mr. J. MORLEY: The Order stands upon its own footing. No doubt the
  26
  Ridley Commission had an influence in the framing of that Order, but the Order itself is a document not to be interpreted by any other order.
  Mr. PLUNKETasked how soon the right hon. gentleman would be able to obtain information on this subject.
  Mr. J. MORLEYsaid that no time would be lost in the matter.
  Mr. T. SEXTONasked whether there was to be a specific and definite question referred to the Lord Chancellor—namely, whether the Order applied to such an office as was held by Dr. Moffett.
  Mr. J. MORLEYsaid the whole policy of the Order, and that was a comprehensive term, would be referred to the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. R. M. DANEasked whether the Lord Chancellor had expressed the opinion that the order did not apply to offices of this description, and did not apply to Sir Thomas Brady?
  Mr. J. MORLEYdid not reply.

  THE LOSS OF THE "ELBE."
  Mr. J. C. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can inform the House what court will inquire into the loss of the steamship Elbe; whether that court will be competent to judge of the many intricate and important technical questions that may arise in the evidence accounting for this disaster; and, whether he can state the probable date and place of the inquiry.
  MR. BRYCE: An inquiry into the loss of the German steamship Elbe has already been opened at Bremerhaven. The Board of Trade have ordered a formal investigation into the circumstances of the damages sustained by the British steamship Crathie. This latter inquiry will be held before a magistrate and competent nautical assessors—a court specially constituted by the Merchant Shipping Act to deal with such cases. The inquiry will be held in London, but the date cannot be determined until after the conclusion of the coroner's inquest, which now stands adjourned.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked, whether a nautical assessor had been appointed. He had been informed that an incompetent

  27
  officer, who had never commanded ship, had been given the appointment.
  MR. BRYCE: The name of the nautical assessor has not been submitted to me; but I am certain, from what I know of the case, that the person appointed would be a proper person.
  SIR E. HARLANDasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would invite the owners of the Elbe and Crathie to put in such plans as would indicate the position of the bulkheads of those, vessels, together with the doors of the bulkheads, and the exact point at which the collision took place?
  MR. BRYCEdid not know how far they could go into that, as it was not substantially within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade.
  In answer to a question by MR. MACDONA,
  MR. BRYCEsaid that civil proceeding had already been begun by the owners of the Elbe.

  TELEPHONES.
  MR. HARRY S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Associatiation of Municipal Corporations, representing 238 corporate towns in England and Wales, passed a resolution on the 21st instant, urging the municipalities to request their representatives in Parliament to support the Motion for the Appointment of a Select Committee of this House on the subject of Telephones; and, whether he will give consideration to this memorial in coming to a decision in the matter?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: So far as I am aware, no copy has been received by me at the Post Office. I understand, however, that a resolution to the effect stated has been passed by the Council of the Association, but that it by no means represents the views of all the municipalities in England and Wales.

  POSTMEN'S HOLIDAYS.
  MR. W. H. LONG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether it is possible so to arrange the periods of annual leave for postmen as to secure for them 14 days, exclusive of Rank Holidays and Sundays?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: To do as the hon. Member suggests would, in
  28
  effect, be to increase the period of annual leave, and I am afraid that, in all the circumstances, I am not prepared to do this.

  THE IRISH LABOURERS ACTS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the case of William O'Brine, of Lurganshannagh, Mullhaney, in the electoral division of North Clonleigh, Union of Strabane, whose house was inspected under the Labourers Acts, and his application, founded on a duly signed representation, investigated by Mr. Kelly, the Local Government Board Inspector; whether he is aware that, consequent upon O'Brine's application for a cottage, his landlord gave him notice to quit his house and refused him employment, whereby he was compelled to go into the Letterkenny Union adjoining; and whether the Local Government Board will allow the Labourers Acts to be evaded in this regard by this means.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The case of the person named in the question was duly investigated by the Local Government Board's Inspector, who, however, found that the applicant did not reside at the place at which he was represented to reside, nor in the electoral division of Clonleigh North, for over twelve months past. No further action, therefore, was taken upon this representation, as it was informal. I have no information on the matter referred to in the second paragraph, but I would point out to my hon. and learned Friend that the Local Government Board cannot prevent the service of notices to quit.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that at an inquiry held under the Labourers Acts at Newcastle West, on the 21st August last, the Inspector of the Local Government Board approved of the erection of 24 cottages under the scheme; and what is the cause of the delay in not giving effect to the recommendation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The number of cottages recommended by the Inspector was 24, as stated. Objection, however, was raised by the guardians of some of the electoral divisions concerned to the

  29
  sites proposed for four of the cottages, and it is expected that this point will be arranged in a day or two. The order in respect of the scheme is drafted, and will be issued immediately on this matter being definitely settled.

  STEAM TRAWLERS IN GALAWAY BAY.
  MR. J. MAINS: On behalf of the hon. Member for Galway City (Mr. J. Pinkerton), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that steam trawlers are now fishing in Galway Bay, going inside the boundary line under cover of darkness and fishing that portion of the Bay allowed to sailing trawlers; whether it has been reported by the skippers of the sailing boats that the steam trawlers cover their official numbers, and sail without showing any lights so as to avoid detection, thereby causing a serious danger to life and property by being in the course of steamers and sailing vessels entering the port of Gal way; whether it has been reported to the Customs in Galway that, on the 22nd January 1895, one of these steam trawlers was fishing inside the boundary line, and her official number given as "Deal Castle, H 195;" whether any steps will be taken against master and owner of said trawler; whether a report has been made to the Customs that three steam trawlers were seen within the Bay on the 18th and 19th inst. and on other occasions; and if he will advise the Fishery Board to order a gunboat to visit the Bay at night and to seize any steam trawler found fishing there, and also request the coastguards at Arran Islands, Costello Bay, and Ballyvaughan to watch and report illegal trawler-fishing within the boundary line?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspectors of Fisheries inform me that the facts are as stated in the first three paragraphs. The owner of the particular trawler referred to asked that, as this was a first offence, the proceedings should be stayed, and undertook that the offence would not occur again. The Inspectors accordingly did not press the case, but warned the owner that a repetition of the offence would be differently dealt with. A report of further illegal trawling has been received by the Inspectors, who, I understand, are about to apply to the Government for the services of a cruiser.
  30
  The coastguard at the places named will report any breaches of the law that come under their observation.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted recently by the Board of Guardians of the Kenmare Union, in which they direct his immediate attention to the great poverty prevailing amongst small farmers, artisans, and labourers within the area of the, union; and whether the suggestions of the guardians in connection with the opening of relief works and other remedial measures will receive his favourable consideration?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that in some of the poor and congested districts about Sneem, in the Kenmare Union; the partial failure of the potato crop may render it necessary for some of the smaller occupiers of land to seek relief, and should this be so, the Guardians will be authorised to extend outdoor relief to these classes. The Congested Districts Board are, I believe, expending money on works in this locality, which will meet the demand for employment at present.
  MR. D. KILBRTDEasked, whether the Chief Secretary would use his influence with the Board of Works to secure a relaxation of their hard and fast rules, so that some beneficial improvements might be effected in this wet part of the country?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that question should be addressed to the Treasury, who, no doubt, knew their own rules in this matter best.

  IRISH SEED POTATOES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that no notice has been sent to the Derry Union with reference to a loan for seed potatoes; could he explain what is the reason for this omission; and whether he will direct the issue of such notice?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The circular relating to the seed potato supply was only forwarded this year to Boards of Guardians of Unions in which there was any reason to believe that a supply of seed

  31
  would be required owing to the failure of last year's crop. Londonderry was not one of these unions. From parts of this county strong remonstrances were raised against the prohibition of potatoes exported to Malta, and it was represented that the crop was generally a good one. I may also mention that this union did not apply for a loan under the Seed Act of 1890. In accordance, however, with the request of the Guardians, copies of the circular and rules have now been sent to them.

  RUSSIAN MISSION TO ABYSSINIA.
  Sir ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the object and proceedings of the Russian Mission to Abyssinia?
  Sir E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government have been informed that the expedition is not official or connected with the Russian Government, but has been sent by the St. Petersburg Geographical Society for scientific purposes. M. Leontier, a celebrated traveller, is the head of the expedition, assisted by several scientific officers, and accompanied by a Russian Archimandrite, who may very possibly be charged with some religious mission from the Russian Ecclesiastical authorities. The expedition went to Constantinople, thence to Cairo, from which place it is understood that they proceed to Oboka en route for Harrar.

  THE PIER OF WICKLOW HARBOUR.
  Mr. J. SWEETMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a serious breach has been made in the pier of Wicklow Harbour during recent gales; whether he is aware that an expenditure of several thousand pounds is absolutely necessary to save the harbour and present the total loss of some £40,000 already spent on the harbour by the locality; and whether, seeing that the locality is unable of itself to advance any more money, Her Majesty's Government will propose a grant from the public funds for this harbour, which is a harbour of refuge for coasting vessels as well as being of great benefit to the locality?
  Sir J. HIBBERT: It is true that damage was done by recent gales to the pier in Wicklow Harbour, which for some time past has shown signs of weakness. Considerable expenditure will in all probability be required to place the harbour in a satisfactory condition. The Harbour Commissioners have had plans prepared for the purpose and are in communication with the Board of Works on the subject, but the question of the provision of money for executing the needful work is not yet ripe for arrangement. I cannot, however, admit that the locality is unable to advance any more money, especially as the negotiations have proceeded on the opposite basis.

  ZULULAND AND NATAL.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Dinizulu, Tchingaan, and others have yet been released?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): No, Sir, they have not yet been released.
  COMMANDER BETHELLreminded the hon. Member that two and a-half years had elapsed since the present Government undertook to favourably consider the release.
  Mr. BUXTONreplied that arrangements were made for the return of the chiefs to the interior, but the Natal Government unfortunately objected, on the ground that Zululand should first be incorporated with Natal before the release took place. The British Government did not consider the present time opportune to attach Zululand to Natal. Unquestionably, Zululand would be attached to Natal when it ceased to be a Crown colony. Under the circumstances, the chiefs were not being allowed to return.

  POLLING-PLACES IN COUNTY DONEGAL.
  Mr. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any and What steps have been taken in compliance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Ballot Act and Section 9 of the Act 27–8 Vic., c. 22, to carry out the Order in Council confirming the establishment

  33
  of new polling-places in County Donegal, which were published about a month ago; and whether he will take steps to secure that the law is obeyed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not received sufficient information to enable me to reply to the question to-day, and will therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend to repeat it to-morrow.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN THE DERRY UNION.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) Whether he is aware that, of the two sanitary authorities within the Derry Union, the urban seeks to throw upon the rural the burden of providing for the poorer classes of persons afflicted with infectious diseases; (2) whether he is also aware that the urban sanitary authority recently erected a hospital entirely isolated, which is to be used only for better-to-do persons; (3) and whether the Local Government Board can take any steps to prevent the urban authority refusing to take the poor into their own hospital because they are poor?
  MR. J. MORLEY: (1) It is the duty of a Board of Guardians, as the guardians of the poor, to make provision for the treatment of the sick poor suffering from infectious disease within their district. They cannot transfer any share of this responsibility to the urban authority. (2) the Londonderry Urban Authority have, under section 155 of the Public Health Act, provided a hospital for the treatment of patients suffering from infectious disease within their district, but they can determine the class of persons they will admit to such hospital. (3) The Local Government Board cannot take any steps as suggested by my hon. Friend in the third paragraph, but it is open to the Guardians, as a Rural Sanitary Authority, to approach the Urban Authority and endeavour to make an arrangement with them under the section above referred to, to admit poor persons to their hospital in terms to be agreed to by both authorities.

  MANUFACTURE OF CORDITE IN INDIA.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the cordite plant sent to
  34
  India has been successful in producing reliable cordite; whether the use of cordite manufactured in India is considered satisfactory by the authorities there; and, will he lay upon the table any correspondence thereon?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. H. H. FOWLER,): (1) So far as I am aware the cordite plant has not yet been erected. (2) No cordite has been manufactured in India. (3) The question as to the manufacture of cordite in India is still under consideration, and I cannot undertake at present to lay the correspondence on the Table of the House.

  THE INDIAN ARMY.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, what is the estimated amount in rupees of the charge laid upon the Indian Exchequer during the coming financial year for the training of troops in this country, in addition to the cost of the whole of the troops in India itself, and all the charges connected with their passage to and from India; and whether it is intended to reduce this amount, which last year was nearly £600,000.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The capitation rate payable to the War Office for recruiting, depot and other charges in respect of the British Forces serving in India, was fixed by Lord Northbrook's Commission in 1892 at £7. 10s. per head. By agreement between the India Office and the Treasury that rate has been continued, and I expect will be maintained during the coming financial year, and the amount would be £548,250. The question whether the capitation rate should be increased or reduced is one of the matters to be considered in the forthcoming inquiry.
  MR. E. W. HANBURY: Has an arbitrator been appointed?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No, the Government have agreed to appoint a Royal Commission.

  COST OF STATE DEPARTMENTS.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is the fact that, while the Colonial Office costs British taxpayers about £40,000, the Foreign Office about £67,000, and the Treasury about £60,000 annually, the India Office alone, besides

  35
  the expenses of Government in India, costs about £130,000 a year to the India Exchequer; to whom are the detailed accounts of the India Office presented; and whether he will lay upon the Table an Estimate of the Annual Expenses, Salaries, &c., of the India Office, similar to those showing the cost of the other Departments of the State?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I cannot admit that there is any analogy between the expenses of the Offices to which the hon. Member refers and the expenses of the India Office, which include the Civil and Military, Financial, Political, Judicial and Public Works Departments of the whole Indian Empire. The accounts are presented to and are audited by the Auditor of Indian Home Accounts, and when audited are laid before Parliament. An Estimate of the cost of the India Office is annually laid on the Table of the House.

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the limited period during which discussion of the Education Code is possible under the Rules of the House, he will undertake not to present that Code to the House until it is ready for circulation to Members?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: At the same time that the Code is presented it will be placed in the hands of the Officers of the House for distribution. The arrangements for this cannot be made until it appears in the Votes, but not more than three or four days ought to elapse before distribution.

  COLONIAL RAILWAY SURVEYS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is in a position to inform the House at whose cost the surveys for railways at Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast, and also at Lagos, have been made; and if they are made at the expense of this country, is it with the view of those railways being constructed under an Imperial guarantee by the Colonial Government or by private enterprise?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In each case the whole cost is defrayed from Colonial funds.

  ARMENIAN INQUIRY,
  MR. F. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the despatch contained in The Daily Telegraph of the 27th inst., from the special correspondent of that journal at Mush, confirming from trustworthy evidence, in their essential features, the accounts of the outrages committed in the Sasun district; whether note has been taken of the statements that long before the delegates arrived, and when Consul Hallward was endeavouring to reach Sassoon, efforts were made by the authorities, especially by the responsible military commander, Zekki Pasha, to conceal all traces of the massacre, the very occurrence of which Zekki persistently denied; that an attempt was made to obliterate the pit dug behind the house of a village chief of Djellyegoozan, in which hundreds of mutilated bodies lay piled on each other, and that numerous witnesses have been on various pretexts imprisoned or conveyed to distant places under Turkish supervision; whether it is true that the inquiry is expected in official quarters to last at least two months yet; and whether in view of the urgent necessity for securing the safety of the Christian population, having regard especially to the threats of an impending massacre during the month of Ramazan, which begins at the end of February, and on the strength of the information already in possession of the Foreign Office on the subject of the prevailing misgovernment and oppression in Armenia, Her Majesty's Government will forthwith take steps, in concert with such of the Powers as are chiefly concerned, to bring such pressure to bear upon the Porte as will lead to the immediate introduction of reforms under European supervision, in accordance with Treaty obligations?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished, before the hon. Baronet answered, to ask whether it was a fact that the telegram in Wednesday's Daily Telegraph purporting to have been sent from Mush on February 23, via Kars, was received in England on February 26; whether Kars was 345 kilométres from Mush, and eight days' journey in good weather by rapid courier from Mush; and whether, under those circumstances, the telegram

  37
  could possibly have been received in the way stated.
  SIR E. GREY: A copy of this article has been sent to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, but I cannot express any opinion upon the statements contained in it pending the progress of the inquiry. It is not probable, considering the difficulties of travelling, that the work of the Commission can be finished before the period mentioned. Her Majesty's Government will, in the meanwhile, do all that is possible, in conjunction with other Governments, who may be ready to assist, to urge upon the Porte the adoption of proper measures whenever necessary for the protection of the Christian population. The question of the introduction of reforms is fully kept in mind, but it cannot be treated with advantage except upon complete and authentic information.

  THE SUZERAINTY OF THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have now received the words of President Kruger's speech, in which, at the German banquet on 26th January, he repudiated the suzerainty of the Queen; whether the Boer President then said that he came to England in 1884, and that the then British Government had the suzerainty altered; that previously the Boer President could not enter into any treaties with other countries without Her Majesty's consent, but that the British Government in 1884 altered the Treaty and relinquished the suzerainty; whether the Queen's suzerainty has been abrogated in any Treaty or public document; and whether Her Majesty's Government have sent a formal protest against these assertions of President Krüger?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We have received the local newspapers containing reports of President Krüger's speech of January 26th. As regards the question of suzerainty, it is a somewhat doubtful question as to what extent the suzerainty, created under the Convention of 1881, was continued by the Convention of 1884. But the matter is not one of much importance, inasmuch as the essence of the suzerainty was contained in Clause 4 of the Convention of 1884,
  38
  which deals with the external relations of the South African Republic. This clause remains in full and effective force; and, as I have stated on two occasions lately in the House, under Article 4 of the London Convention of 1884, the South African Republic, as regards its foreign relations, is, and remains, within the sphere of British influence, and can conclude no Treaty or engagement with any state or nation (with the exception of the Orange Free State) until the same has been submitted to Her Majesty the Queen for Her approval. This statement, made in the House of Commons and on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, appears to us to be a sufficient notice of President Kruger's speech made on the social occasion in question.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERasked, whether any compensation had been paid to British subjects resident in the Transvaal who were commandeered and sent to the front on the authority of the Boer Government?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he did not think this arose out of the question. If the hon. Member would give notice of the matter he would attend to it.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid the hon. Gentleman had not answered whether the Queen's suzerainty had been abrogated by any Treaty or public document.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONrepeated that it was a matter of doubt whether the Convention of 1884 had not superseded the preamble and the clauses of the Convention of 1881.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Does not the hon. Gentleman know whether there is a suzerainty or not?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have already stated the question about which there is doubt. But, as regards the practical question, really the only matter of any importance is fully confirmed by Clause 4 of the Convention of 1884, which we certainly intend to uphold.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has received a letter from the Rev. Arthur Symonds, Rector of St. James, Stockport, with reference to the

  39
  refusal of the Stockport Magistrates to commit Church of England children to industrial schools other than the Stock-port Industrial School, which has been closed by the committee to Church of England children. Whether he is aware that Colonel Turner and other Magistrates refused, on 18th September 1894, to commit a boy named Charles Edward Briscoe, who had been remanded three times in order that an industrial school might be found willing to receive him, although the Essex Industrial School was willing to receive him; and, whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure that no difference shall be made by the Stockport Magistrates on account of religion in the administration of the law.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITH: I received Mr. Symonds' letter, which I referred to the Magistrates. In reply I received an intimation from Colonel Turner that the reason for not committing Charles Briscoe was because the Magistrates did not consider it a fit case for an Industrial School, but that the Guardians of the Poor were the proper authority to take charge of him. There appear to be some differences of opinion between Mr. Symonds and Colonel Turner, but it is not necessary to go into these matters, in view of the reason assigned by Colonel Turner for the Magistrates' decision, with which I have no power to interfere.

  UNEMPLOYED AT GLOUCESTER.
  SIR T. ROBINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Gloucester Board of Guardians have decided upon opening a stoneyard in order to find temporary work for the unemployed, half the cost of which is to be paid to the men in cash, and the other half in goods; and whether this payment will disfranchise any voters receiving it; if so, whether he has any power to prevent this disfranchisement; or, if not, will he bring in a short Bill giving him the power to do so under certain exceptional circumstances?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The Local Government Board have not been informed by the Gloucester Board of Guardians of their decision to open a stoneyard with the view to a labour test for adult able-bodied persons in receipt of outdoor relief, but I have no
  40
  reason to doubt that the fact is as stated in the question. The receipt of relief from the Guardians, although accompanied by a labour test, will disqualify persons for the Parliamentary Franchise. Until the Committee on Distress from Want of Employment have made their Report, I feel unable to give an answer on the question as to disfranchisement.

  THE NEW CODE.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any addition to, or alteration in, the Building Rules of the new Code of this year affect existing schools, either Board or voluntary; and whether they will add to the expense of new schools that may be built in the future?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,): The additions and alterations in the Building Rules of the new Code only affect new buildings or enlargements, and do not apply to existing schools, whether Board or voluntary. The changes are few and of an unimportant character, and are mainly rather by way of suggestion, than compulsory. The Consulting Architect of the Department, by whose advice they were made, states that they will in no way add to the expense of new schools or enlargements. I may call attention to one change, which requires that the doors of schools shall open outwards. In view of the possibility of panics or fire, now that evening meetings in many schools are very frequent, it is desirable that this rule should be applied to all schools as far as possible.

  ENDOWMENTS IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  MR. S. T. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. R. A. Yerburgh), I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant the Return of Dissenting Endowments in Wales and Monmouthshire which stands on this day's Paper?
  MR. H. H. ASQUITH: I was asked last Session by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire if the Government would assent to a Return of Dissent Endowments in England and

  41
  Wales, and, on the ground that the information could only be obtained at an expense and trouble out of all proportion to its value, and without any adequate security as to its trustworthiness, I informed him that the Government did not see their way to his Motion. I am afraid I must give the same answer to the hon. Member who puts this question.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think that such a Return would be most valuable this Session, when the Welsh Disestablishment Kill was being pressed forward?
  MR. ASQUITH: The question is whether it would be trustworthy.

  PARCEL POST RATES.
  MR. WALTER HAZELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the rates for parcel post in some great Continental countries are much lower than in the United Kingdom, that in some cases they are not above one-third of the charges here; and whether, having regard to the public convenience, and the necessity for facilitating the traffic in small farm produce, and of the need for increased employment for a large number of persons, he will consider the advisability of decreasing the present scale of parcel post charges?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: The minimum charge for parcels in this country is much lower than the minimum rate in nearly every other country, but as the rates abroad rise by kilogrammes, whereas they rise here by pounds, heavier parcels are carried more cheaply abroad than here. In two or three instances, foreign rates may be found which, in the case of the heavier parcels, are not above one-third of the rates in this country. The late Government considered the question of introducing a lower scale of charges, chiefly with the view of facilitating the, traffic in agricultural produce, but they did not take any steps in this direction. I should myself be indisposed to establish preferential rates, and the time does not appear to me to have come for a general reduction of the tariff. The chief difficulty in the way of a reduction in this country lies in the large payments which the Post Office is compelled to make to
  42
  the Railway Companies under the Agreement made in 1884, which does not expire for several years.

  INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.
  MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any reason, to doubt the statement in Return No. 192, of 17th May 1892, from which the following result is obtained, viz., that the total amount of annual allowances (whether in the form of salary, pay, fees, emoluments, or pensions) of not less than Rx.1,000 for each person, of Europeans, whether resident or not resident in India, is about Rx. 170,000,000 (taking payments in sterling at 1s. ld. per rupee), and what is the total amount of similar annual allowances to Europeans, whether resident or not resident in India (including the personal expenditure on soldiers besides their pay) at less than Rx.1,000 for each person?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Return of 17th May 1892 comprises not only payments by the State for the civil administration of India, but similar payments for the Military and Public Works Departments, and also the payments made by the Railway Companies, whether State or Guaranteed. The further information for which my hon. Friend asks will probably be called for in the forthcoming inquiry.

  BURIAL BOARD FEES.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Burial Boards of Bishop's Stortford, Weston-super-Mare, Walton-on-Thames, and Aylsham are acting under tables of fees and charges in which, contrary to the Statute, fees are charged in the unconsecrated parts of their cemeteries equal in amount to the fees paid to the clergy in the consecrated parts; and whether steps have been taken to put an end to these illegal exactions; and, if so, with what results?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to certain irregularities in the tables of fees under which the four Burial Boards named in my hon. Friend's question have been acting. I have written to the Boards explaining

  43
  that the only burial fees of a compulsory character are the Board's fees approved by the Secretary of State, which are the same whether the burial is in consecrated or unconsecrated ground, and the ecclesiastical fees for interment in consecrated ground approved by the Bishop of the Diocese; and that all other payments, however customary, are entirely voluntary, and must be left to private arrangement. The Burial Boards for Walton-on-Thames and Weston-super-Mare have already submitted to me tables of fees revised in accordance with my suggestions, and I am expecting answers from Aylsham and Bishop's Stortford.

  THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case in the Court of Session in Scotland, at the instance of Mrs. Margaret Polland, or Brannan, residing in Larkhall, and others, against Hamilton M'Culloch and Company, coalmasters, Glasgow, wherein the jury awarded damages to the pursuers under the Employers' Liability Act as compensation for the loss of three men who were killed owing to a crab, winch, or crane used in raising arid lowering the men in the shaft not having been provided with a brake or brakes, or with an indicator; whether the Presiding Judge (the Lord President) directed the Jury that the crab, winch, or crane used, having been worked by manual and not by mechanical power, did not fall under the 30th General Rule of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, which requires an adequate brake, or brakes, and a proper indicator for every machine worked by steam, water, or mechanical power, and used for lowering or raising persons, and, consequently, that the Jury were to ignore common law, but might consider the case under the Employers' Liability Act; and, whether (assuming the law to be as stated by the Lord President) he will, in the interest of safety and with the view of preventing avoidable accidents, bring in a Bill to extend the 30th General Rule of the Coal Mines Regulation Act to all mechanical appliances used for lowering or raising persons?
  MR. ASQUITH: The facts are as
  44
  stated by the hon. Member. The accident appears to be due partly to the crane being out of order, for which the owners have had to pay damages, and partly owing to its unskilful and negligent use. I am advised that even had a brake existed the accident would probably still have happened, for no statutory requirements can be of avail if machinery is kept out of order and misused. I am also advised that, though brakes are necessary to steam-winding gear to check the speed at the end of the journey, such brakes, if fitted to hand gear, would be likely to encourage the men to trust to them and leave go of the winch handles, which would be very dangerous. I have powers under Section 42 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887 to require anything which threatens or tends to the bodily injury of any person to be remedied, and if it could be shown that hand cranes without brakes are dangerous I should be prepared to put these powers into operation.

  PROSECUTION FOR SELLING ADUL TERATED COCOA.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a report in The Times of the 19th instant of a prosecution before Mr. de Rutzen, in the Westminster Police Court, of a grocer named David Jones for selling so-called "adulterated cocoa" at 1s. per pound, which was alleged to be composed of 50 per cent. starch and sugar and 50 per cent. of cocoa, the defendant being fined 10s. and 14s. 6d. costs; and, whether, in view of the fact that the said was sold at its true value, and was of precisely similar quality to that supplied by Her Majesty's Government to the seamen of Her Majesty's Fleet as "soluble cocoa," which is so manufactured at Deptford by the Admiralty, and consists of 25 per cent. sugar, 25 per cent. sago flour, with 50 per cent. of cocoa, he will be pleased to remit the penalty imposed upon the aforesaid David Jones?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have inquired into this case, and I find that the offence for which the defendant was fined was for selling an article not of the nature and quality demanded by the purchaser. The purchaser asked for cocoa, and not

  45
  for "soluble cocoa," and in the opinion of the Magistrate, from which I see no reason to differ, he was entitled to have cocoa. I find on inquiry from the Admiralty, that they supply to the men in the Navy cocoa in two forms: one is ordinary cocoa, which forms the usual ration and is made of pure cocoa and sugar only; the other is "soluble cocoa," which is only issued as a special ration (to men oil duty at night, or under circumstances of unusual exposure), and this contains a percentage both of sugar and arrowroot.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether an offence has really been committed in this case, the article sold being identical in substance with an article manufactured by the Government, and if an offence has been committed, will he ask the Law Officers of the Crown whether the First Lord of the Admiralty ought not to be indicted for supplying goods of this class to the Navy?

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of small farmers waited on the Bantry Board of Guardians, and stated that, in consequence of the failure of the potato crop, they were in a state of destitution; and that the Bantry Board of Guardians unanimously passed a resolution requesting the Government to open reproductive works in the Bantry Union; and, what steps, if any, he purposes taking to carry out the request of the Guardians?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are as stated in the question. The Local Government Board's Inspector has been directed to again visit this Union and make a further report on the condition and prospects of the poorer classes.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the extreme distress existing among the agricultural labourers in the districts of Newcastle West and Rathkeale, he will consider favourably the resolutions passed by the Guardians with the object of providing employment, viz., the repairing of the old road from the, town of Abbey feale to John O'Donnell's house in Cahir Hayes, in the Union of Newcastle West,
  46
  this being in the centre of a very distressed district, and the draining of the River Deel, Rathkeale, so as to relieve from flooding the 3,000 acres of land which are under water during the winter months?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board's Inspector consulted with the Guardians of the Newcastle West Union on the 21st instant, as to the advisability of applying for authority to relax the restrictions on outdoor relief. The Guardians, however, considered this course undesirable and thought it better to leave to the relieving officer the duty of providing for the wants of the destitute poor. I understand that if the weather, which has shown an improvement, continues mild for a few days longer employment will be plentiful in this district. The Local Government Board, upon the information at present before them, do not consider it will be necessary to recommend the opening of relief works in the districts of Newcastle West or Rathkeale.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, on behalf of the Government, he intends to put down any Amendments to the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts Amendment Bill, down for Committee this evening; and, if so, when these Amendments may be expected to appear on the Paper?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. J. B. BALFOUR,): I think it will be desirable that some Amendments should be made on this Bill, and I am in communication with my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Rollox Division, who is in charge of the Bill, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, who has put certain Amendments on the Paper, with a view to arranging as to the Amendments which should be proposed for the consideration of the Committee.

  REGISTERS OF VOTERS IN IRELAND.
  MR. D. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Return (No. 300) showing the amounts received by the county and borough treasurers in Ireland from the clerks of the peace in

  47
  respect of the sale of copies of the registers of voters and supplemental lists, no receipts appear to have been credited for the years noted in the Return for the counties of Westmeath, Cork, and Gal-way, and the boroughs of Cork and Galway; whether it is the practice of the clerks of the peace in these constituencies to charge for copies as required by statute; and could he explain why the amounts have not been placed to the credit of the county and borough treasurers respectively; whether he can state if in any of these cases any moneys have been credited since the passing of the Act requiring the same to be done in 1850; and how it has happened that the responsible Auditors of the Local Government Board, who audit the Grand Jury accounts twice a-year, have not called attention to the matter; whether he is also aware that in the Return no sum appears anywhere audited under the heading of "Fines" for bogus claims and objections, although it is notorious that these are made in thousands annually; and, who is to blame for the neglect?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I regret to be obliged to ask my hon. Friend to again defer this question. Some inquiries are still pending, and if he will repeat the question on Monday, I hope then to be in a position to reply.

  "SOLUBLE COCOA."
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government supply the seamen of Her Majesty's Fleet with "soluble cocoa," manufactured by the Admiralty at Deptford, of a standard quality composed of 25 per cent. sugar, 25 per cent. sago flour, and only 50 per cent. cocoa, he would issue a Circular to County Councils, acquainting them with the fact, and that the Local Government Board deem it inexpedient that legal proceedings under the Adulteration of Food Act should be instituted against dealers in prepared cocoas where the analysis shows that the said cocoa mixtures are up to the aforesaid Government standard?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: From a communication which I have received from the Admiralty, it would appear that the constituent parts of the soluble
  48
  chocolate manufactured by the Admiralty are not those stated in the question. The matter is not one in which I should deem it right to issue a Circular as suggested.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS IN NORTHUMBERLAND.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that, in order to meet the pressure in Voluntary schools in the north of England, after the issue of Circular 321 by him, the School Management Committee of the Newcastle Diocesan Society formed an organisation for supervising all communications between the Department and the Voluntary schools of the county of Northumberland, and of assisting these schools to resist undue pressure or to meet the demands which might fairly be made upon them; whether he has seen the Report issued for the year 1894 by the Education Committee of the Society, in which it is stated, amongst other things, that in 21 cases in the county of Northumberland the building requirements of the Department were, upon local explanation, either modified or withdrawn at a saving of £4,240; and if he will explain how it happened that these demands, which were subsequently reduced, were originally made by the Department?
  MR. ACLAND: I have seen the Report issued for 1894 by the Education Committee of the Newcastle Diocesan Society, which appeared in The Times of the 7th of last month. In the article in which the report is quoted, and which is written by a member of the committee, I observe that it is explicitly stated that the demands of the Department were not arbitrary or capricious, and that in no one instance had it met representations by other than fairness. The fact that requirements and suggestions made by the Department had by the aid of this committee (which not only advised managers in every detail, but supplied them free of cost with the most economical plans for carrying out alterations) been modified, at a large saving to the particular schools, is cited in the article, as showing the need of some organisation on the part of school managers in order to help the Department to understand the local situation in each case. The

  49
  figures mentioned are not capable of being verified officially, but I have no wish to throw doubt on them, especially as they come from what I may fairly call such a friendly source.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, will he explain how it was that whereas, in accordance with the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector upon St. Edmund's Voluntary School, Southwold, Suffolk, for the year 1893, which suggested that the school buildings were not worth repairing, the Department urged upon the Managers to provide new premises altogether, at a cost of at least £1,500, the Department subsequently approved of plans for the alteration of the present premises at a cost of only £450; and, if he can explain why this course was not recommended by the Department in the first instance?
  MR. ACLAND: I do not think that there has been any inconsistency in the action of the Department in this case. To make the school efficient large alterations were necessary, and the Department suggested to the Managers that they should consider whether it would not be better to build a new school, the existing building being old, cramped, and ill designed. The Managers, however, preferred to carry out the required alterations, and their plans for doing so were approved last September. As to the figures mentioned, the Department has no information, but I do not wish to throw any doubt upon them.

  THE INDIAN POLICE BILL.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has sanctioned those provisions of the Indian Police Bill now before the Viceroy's Council, whereby the landlords of any district in which religious or other riots have occurred are liable, at the discretion of the resident magistrate, for the cost of extra police and for the damages caused by the riots, even in cases where the landlords are absentees, or in which the district judge has held that the landlords have been in no way to blame for the riots; whether his attention has been directed to the speech
  50
  on this subject of the Maharaja of Darbhanga, the first elective member of council, in which he declared that in Native opinion this was a slur on judicial authority; whether the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and the Commissioner of the Patna Division of Behar have both opposed the section on the ground that it may be worked so as to appear to give the victory to the Hindus or to the Muhammadans in cases of religious riots; whether the modification of the section consented to by Sir Antony Patrick MacDonnell has satisfied these dissentients; and, whether the Correspondence on the subject can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The provisions of the Indian Police Bill, as originally introduced, were communicated to me, according to the established practice, by the Government of India, but I have given no opinion upon them. I have seen the report of the discussions to which the hon. Member refers, but I am not as yet aware of the modifications (if any) which have been adopted. As soon as an authentic copy of the measure is sent home, as required by law, I shall give it my careful consideration

  CORK AND MUSKERRY LIGHT RAILWAY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been directed to the proposed extension of the Cork and Muskerry Light Railway to Nad from Donoughmore, and also to Ballinagree from Peak, both in the county of Cork; and (2) whether, if satisfactory security be received from the landed proprietors as well as the rated occupiers within the area proposed to be served, the Treasury will materially help the proposed reproductive works in a district where distress prevails.
  MR. J. MORLEY: With regard to the first part of this question, I am informed that any proceedings having in view the construction of the railway extensions referred to, and involving a security on the rates, would require to be taken in the manner prescribed by the Tram ways Acts, and the work of construction could not be commenced in the present season even if those proceedings were successful. It is to be observed that there are no moneys available for a

  51
  Treasury contribution under the Act of 1883.

  SMALL-POX ON A REFORMATORY SHIP.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to a bad outbreak of small-pox on the reformatory ship Clarence? Whether he is aware that early in November there were cases of fever among the boys; that a boy named John Carroll was certified by the surgeon of the ship to be suffering from chicken-pox, and on convalescence was allowed to go to sea in a sailing ship, which, on arrival at Rio de Janeiro, was placed in quarantine for having had small-pox on board; that many other boys were down with fever at the time and subsequently; and that the captain, the schoolmaster, and others urged strongly that something serious was the matter, but that the surgeon persisted in declaring the fever to be at worst chicken-pox; will he explain why it was that although on the 24th November the captain insisted that in the case of two boys, Thomas Sexton and Patrick Doyle, further medical advice should be obtained, it was not till the 26th that the ship's surgeon brought off the medical officer of the port of Liverpool, who, without hesitation, at once declared the cases to be small-pox, and 18 boys were forthwith transferred to the Port Sanitary Hospital; And, whether he has instituted or will institute an official inquiry into these reported facts of dangerous neglect of an infectious disease?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: My attention has been called to this case. The facts are substantially as stated in the question, though one or two points have not yet been confirmed from independent sources. I have directed the Inspector and Assistant Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools to make an official inquiry into the matter. They went to Liverpool on Monday, and will report to me as soon as possible.

  IRISH ROAD CONTRACTORS.
  MR. R. M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, having regard to the decision of Her Majesty's Judges in the High Court of
  52
  Justice in Ireland, in re Doherty's presentment, the Irish Government intend to propose legislation with reference to the payment of road contractors in Ireland in respect of maintenance contracts.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The case referred to in the question was decided against the contractor upon the construction of his contract with the Grand Jury, not upon any defect in the Grand Jury Laws. The Court of Appeal in Ireland yesterday decided on an appeal in the case that it is competent to the county surveyor to give a certificate for part of the money to which a contractor would be entitled had the contract been completed. No Legislation, I am advised, seems to be necessary.

  SEPARATION OF INDOOR PAUPERS.
  MR. B. L. COHEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the inquest on the death of Mrs. Mary Linge, at the Poplar Workhouse on the 23rd inst., when the jury returned a verdict that the deceased died from heart failure, and that the separation of the old couple accelerated her death; and whether the rules of the workhouse necessitated the separation of Mr. and Mrs. Linge, who were stated to have lived in the parish all their lives, the man earning his living and keeping the home going until the present year, when for the first time, he being in his 70th and his wife in her 68th year, they sought outdoor relief, until eventually they had no resource but the workhouse, upon entering which they were separated?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: My attention has been called to the case referred to, and I have been in communication with the Guardians with respect to it. The Guardians state that the deceased had been in receipt of outdoor relief for about eight months prior to her admission to the workhouse, and it was on the advice of the medical officer of the district, based upon the insanitary condition of her home and her increasing infirmity, that it was considered to be essential that she should enter the infirm ward of the workhouse. It is stated that when she was admitted to the workhouse on the 11th February she was feeble but did not complain of illness. The nurse

  53
  states that she required considerable attention, and would not have been a suitable case for the married couples quarter, and that she made no complaint to her during the time she was in the workhouse of being separated from her husband. At the same time, it appears that there is only accommodation at the workhouse for eight married couples living together, and the Guardians are endeavouring to provide increased accommodation of this kind. I am also informed that the Guardians resolved at their last meeting that the workhouse should not be offered to aged couples, but that adequate outdoor relief should be given in all such cases, until additional accommodation for married couples had been provided.

  THE OPIUM COMMISSION.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government have been able to reconsider the question of charging a share of the Opium Commission expenses to the Indian Revenues?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HAROOURT, Derby): I have considered this subject in all its bearings, and I have come to the conclusion, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, that, viewing all the circumstances of the case, the cost of the Commission should be borne by the English Exchequer and not by the Indian Government. The cost of the Commission will be among the Supplementary Estimates, which I hope will be laid on the Table to-night and circulated to-morrow.

  COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS AND FORESTS.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in filling up the vacant office of Commissioner of Woods and Forests, the Government will attach special weight to the person they select having practical experience and knowledge of forest management?
  SIR C. W. DILKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the reports made on the occasion of the last vacancy as to appointing someone acquainted with mines and minerals.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSONasked whether the right
  54
  hon. Gentleman would consider the expediency of reducing the numbers of this Commission by not filling up the vacancy, having regard to the question of expense.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he did not think that the latter suggestion was possible, considering that the Commission had to range over all parts of the United Kingdom, and that the work could not be undertaken by one person. He would take care to bring the question before the attention of the Prime Minister.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO BILL.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could indicate the probable date of the Introduction of the Liquor Traffic Local Veto Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No; I cannot do so now, but the date will depend a good deal upon the reception given to the Motion which I have to submit to the House.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  SIR C. DILKEasked, what course the Government intended to take with this Bill; when it was proposed to proceed with it?
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that he must reserve his reply until he proposed the Motion which stood in his name upon the Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR W. HARCOURT, Derby)*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR W. HARCOURT, Derby) rose to move: "That, until Easter, Government Business have priority on Tuesdays, that on Friday the House do meet at Two of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to Tuesday and the Morning Sitting on Friday." He said: We have now arrived at the time at which it has been usual for the Government to ask the House for additional time for the transaction of Public Business. An application of this kind was made by the late Government in 1892, on March 3; and in 1893 it was made a little earlier—that

  55
  is, on February 27—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. Therefore I am making the application at a time when it is usual to make this demand. Let us see exactly what the situation is, and what the time at the disposal of the House and the Government. There are fixed dates for certain business, dates which may be taken as unalterable, on my authority, and on that of those who have preceded me in the office which I hold. First of all, the latest date when the Royal Assent can be given to the Ways and Means Bill, which authorises the financial arrangements of the year, is March 28. It is taken before the actual close of the financial year, because there are demands in respect of the Irish Constabulary and of the Education Department, which the Treasury must be prepared to meet on April 1. March 28 is, therefore, the last day on which the Royal Assent can be given. Her Majesty will be abroad at that time, and, in order that the Royal Assent may be given on the day which I have named, the Bill must be read in the House of Lords a third time on March 26, and that again is a fixed date. We are now in the habit of doing things very rapidly, and it would be possible to condense into one day the Third Reading in this House and all the stages of the Bill in the House of Lords. This would permit of the Introduction of the Bill in this House on the 21st, and it would have to be read a second time on the 22nd. The Report of Supply, which gives rise generally to considerable discussion, and the Report of Ways and Means could be taken on Thursday, the 21st. So, if you use every possible means of compression, the very latest day for closing Committee of Supply and introducing the Bill will be the 21st, but I cannot say that it is safe, in my opinion, to fix a later day than the 18th. The House will remember the great pressure under which the Government found themselves last year in consequence of the change of Administration, and yet even in those circumstances the day on which the Ways and Means Bill was introduced was March 19. Whether you take the 18th or the 21st, those are the dates by which you must have completed your Supply in Committee and your Reports of Supply and Ways and Means. Just consider what the situation of the
  56
  Government will be if we are confined to the regular rule. The time available for the financial business of the Government will be three days or four days, according as you fix the 21st or the 18th for the Introduction of the Bill.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how there will be only three days?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am counting Government days only. I am assuming that we only have Mondays and Thursdays. What are the obligations that have to be fulfilled in those three or four days? I will state what the circumstances are as explained by an authority whom hon. Gentlemen opposite will respect—I mean the Leader of the Opposition, whose absence we all regret. As I have said, the application for further time was made to the House by that right hon. Gentleman in 1892 on March 3. It was made under circumstances which made it of much earlier application in regard to time than we are in to-day. Parliament met on the 9th of February in that Session—that is, four days later than we did this year. Then they had this advantage—that they were allowed to get the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne in a week; we have had to wait for a fortnight. That is to say, the Opposition has demanded this year twice as much time from the Government. I am not aware what all the Motions were, but I do not wish to introduce controversial matter. As a fact, there was only one week occupied that Session in the Debate on the Address; this Session there has been a fortnight occupied. Parliament met in 1892 on February 9th, and the Debate on the Address closed on the 15th; this year we met on the 5th, and the Debate on the Address closed upon the 18th. That, of course, has left less time at the disposal of the Government. We have had, besides, Motions of Adjournment, which have taken up a considerable portion of time. Therefore, we are worse off, in respect of time, than the Government was on March 1, 1892. The Motion made in 1892 was a far more comprehensive Motion than the present. That Motion was not confined to Easter, but extended to the whole Session. There was no limitation to the

  57
  Motion. It is sometimes said—in fact, it is always said—that a particular Motion brought forward has no precedent. Why, of course, it has not. The Motion itself is the precedent. It always has references to the necessities and conveniencies and particular circumstances of the time. There was absolutely no precedent for the Motion made on March 3rd, 1892. Not one of these Motions made in any year was exactly the same as the Motion made in any other year, and therefore in that sense, no doubt, each Motion is without precedent. The Motion in 1892 was in these terms—
  "That the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Two o'clock; that the principal business at such morning sittings shall be Financial Business and proceedings on the Introduction and First Reading of Bills; and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to such sittings."
  In one respect, as I have said, it is more comprehensive, because it covers the whole Session; in other respects it is more limited, because it is limited to particular objects. Now, I will confine myself for a moment to the Financial question to see how we stand. We have the whole of the Supplementary and other Estimates to get through before the end of the financial year, just as the Government of that day had. But there is another material circumstance, for I may inform the House that there is a very large Supplementary Estimate for the Navy, which, probably, will require discussion in this House. Therefore, the Supplementary Estimates that have to be dealt with are larger and heavier than those of 1892. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion said that, in addition to the Supplementary Estates—
  "there are the first Navy Vote and the first Army Vote to be got through; and we also require to take a Vote on Account."
  I believe that, though it is not absolutely necessary that all of these Votes should be taken before the Appropriation Bill is introduced, it is absolutely necessary they should all be taken before the end of the financial year, but it would be a matter to be regretted if you could not, before the Introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill, take the Preliminary Votes for the Army and the Navy. Now,
  58
  see what that means. This means not only a Vote in the Committee, but it means the discussion, with the Speaker in the Chair, before you go into Committee. Therefore, you have to dispose of the Supplementary Estimates and the Preliminary Army and Navy Votes, and you have to get the Speaker out of the Chair and these two Votes taken, if you want to do the Financial Business of the country by March 21. Is the House of Commons going to say that four days are enough for that? They could not say it in 1892, and they did not say it on February 27th, 1893. I undertake to say the House as a business assembly would not say the financial work of the House could be transacted within the time that is available. So much for Finance. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the other branches of his Motion, and I ask the attention of the House to this as coming from the Leader of the Opposition—
  "A fashion for discussing measures before they are seen appears to be growing in certain quarters of the House, and I am far on this occasion from desiring to raise any question of debate; but the fact, at all events, will be admitted, and that it is highly inconvenient, both from the point of view of hon. Members who wish to acquaint themselves with the real provisions of a Government measure, and also from the point of view of the outside public, that Bills should be suspended, that they should not he placed before the country, and that we should be deprived of the advantage of hearing the criticisms which would be passed upon them by the various parts of the country affected by them."
  Therefore, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman claimed two things. He claimed for the whole of the Session that the discussions, not on merely the Supplementary Estimates, but on the whole of the Estimates for the next year, should be in the time which was to be given to the Government by this Resolution, as also should the discussions of the First Reading of Bills on account of what he described—and I heartily agree with him—as the extremely unbusinesslike and mischievous practice of protracting Debates on the First Reading of Bills before they were laid before the House. I think that is one of the most unbusinesslike things it is possible to do and a great waste of public time. That, Sir, was an unprecedented proposal on the part of the Government. How was it met by the Leader of the Opposition of that day, the

  59
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian? Did he come down here and say it was monstrous to make such a Motion, that it was an unprecedented proposal, that such a thing had never been heard of, and that the Opposition would not consent to it? On the contrary, he said it was a wide proposal to be made on the 3rd of March, Parliament having only met on the 9th of February, and that it was a proposal to give away the whole of Tuesdays and Fridays—that was, the Morning Sittings—for the entire Session of Parliament. He said it was a wide proposal, and unquestionably it was, but he did not offer it uncompromising opposition. He made a suggestion and an Amendment that the proposal should be confined to the period before Easter, and that was carried and accepted by the House. That is exactly the proposal we have made. We have not made a proposal to cover the whole of the Session, but we have made a proposal for the time up to Easter, which is identical with the proposal which, as I have said, was on the occasion to which I refer accepted by the House on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Midlothian. I think the Government have pretty fairly followed the precedent of the previous Government, and I hope the Opposition will follow the precedent of the Opposition of that day in their manner of dealing with the matter. So much for that part of the proposal. I have said with reference to the date, March 21, that that is necessary for dealing with the subjects which must be included in the Ways and Means Bill. The Supplementary Estimates will be in it, and the Preliminary Votes for the Army and Navy ought to be included. But suppose you postpone beyond that date any one of these Votes, you will then only have two days under the present circumstances at the disposal of the Government between that date and the close of the financial year. That is the precedent of 1892 brought forward by the Government of that day, and most properly brought forward, in my opinion; and I think properly amended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, so far as his amendment confined it to Easter. What was done in 1893? In 1893, the next year, application was made on February 27—a day earlier than we are to-day
  60
  making it—upon that subject, and the following Resolution was proposed by the Prime Minister:—
  "That until Easter the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Two o'clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Morning Sittings on those days."
  And then mark this proyiso:—
  "Provided always that if the Government of Ireland Bill be appointed for any of such days the House do meet at Three o'clock, and the proceedings on that Bill do have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion."
  That was the Motion which was submitted to the House and accepted by the House; therefore, the precedent of 1893 is a much stronger precedent than anything we have asked for here. Not only were you to give up on Tuesday and Friday Morning Sittings, but the whole day whenever the principal Government Bill was put down. I do not know whether it will be said in reference to our Bills that they are certain not to pass, but certainly the Motion of 1893 applied to a Bill which, in the opinion of of hon. Gentlemen opposite, would not, and, as it turned out, did not, pass. That was the Home Rule Bill, and yet in 1893 the House, by a great majority, ordered that the Government should have Tuesdays and Fridays and the whole of the sittings for the Home Rule Bill whenever it was brought on. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he made his proposal on the 3rd March, concluded his speech by saying—
  "I hope the House will give us the very modest powers we ask for without any prolonged debate."
  Well, if those were very modest powers, ours are much more modest powers than those asked for either in 1892 or 1893, both of which were granted by the House. I would ask the House to consider what is the position of the Government with reference to public business, both with regard to Finance and with regard to Legislation. Anybody who knows anything about government, knows that it is absolutely impossible that the business, which the Government are expected to do in this House, can be done in the time allotted to them by the Standing Orders. What is that time? Two days a week,

  61
  or eight days a month. They have to pass these Estimates—the Supplementary Estimates—before Easter, and the Army and Navy Votes, and the Vote and Account for Civil Services. They have pressed upon them, as we had pressed upon us to-day and always on Government nights, 80 or 90 questions, which take up a hour and a half of the time. Then we have a new and portentous evil in the private Bills, which are generally put down upon Government nights, and all these occupy a great part of the time at the disposal of the Government. Then we have Motions of Adjournment, which take up whole days which belong to Government time; and out of the residue of the time the Government is expected to transact the business which devolves upon them. Now, I am speaking not in the interest of one Government or another, not in the interest of Gentlemen who to-day sit on this Bench, but of the Government which expects to sit on this Bench to-morrow. "Let no man consider himself happy until his death" is a good maxim, and I would advise gentlemen opposite not to lay down doctrines from which they will suffer very much themselves. They will find it just as difficult as we find it, under the existing modern condition of things, to transact the business which they will be called upon to transact; and I advise them to consider this question from that point of view. Some people say that this ought to be done by an alteration in the Standing Orders. I do not think so. I think it much better it should be done according to the necessities of the time. In some years it may be that more time is wanted than in others, and I think it would not be of advantage to dispose of this matter with a cast-iron rule which in one year might give too much time and in another year too little. It is for the House to judge according to the circumstances of the time how much relaxation or how much larger expansion of time shall be given in one year than in another. That has been the practice for many years past. I believe it is a sound practice; I believe it is a convenient practice; and I should be very sorry to see that practice altered. Now, Sir, with reference to the question of Finance, I really think there is not a word to be said. No one can pretend that by the 21st of March if you give
  62
  us every second of Government time that the financial business can be satisfactorily transacted. You cannot do it in the time, and nobody possibly could. As regards the question of the Introduction of Bills, is it not a reasonable thing that the Government who are responsible for the main Legislation of the Session should lay before the House and the country the measures upon which they ask Parliament to occupy its time? It is idle to say that the Opposition do not approve of the Bills the Government introduces. That is always the case with every Opposition, and must be so with reference to what may be called the great political measures. The majority who support the Government will always have views which are not shared by the Gentlemen who sit opposite, and therefore you must always have the Government introducing measures of which the Opposition do not approve. Those measures ought to be laid before the House and the country, unless you are going to accept the doctrine, which would be most injurious to the character of Parliament, that the proper function of an Opposition is really to prevent the Government from legislating at all. That is a game two can play at, and if once such a doctrine is accepted great injury will be done to the character and the efficiency of the House of Commons. I What is to be the situation, then? When we come back after the Easter Holidays very nearly half of the Session will have gone; and if the Government were to be confined to the days which I have mentioned, and to the four days in April which they would have, assuming the House adjourned on the Thursday before Good Friday, that would be the whole time they would have in which to do the additional Estimates and to introduce all the Bills on which they wish the opinion of Parliament. Would it represent the House before the country as a business assemply if, when three months of the time of Parliament had expired, it could be said:—
  "You have practically made it impossible for the Government to lay before the House and the country the Legislation upon which they desire the opinion of Parliament to be taken."
  In my opinion you would paralyse the action of the House of Commons by any such proceeding. Much as you disapprove of these Bills, it is, at all events,

  63
  the duty of the Government to lay them before the House and take the judgment of the House upon them. We are making a proposal which is absolutely in conformity with the principles—I do not say with all the details—of Motions that have been made and accepted by the House before. Some of these Motions were for Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, therefore the whole difference that exists between our Motion and the other Motions is that we take the whole of Tuesdays instead of only the morning. I have a strong personal opinion on the subject of Morning Sittings. I do not believe that when you take a Morning Sitting the remanet you leave to private Members is of great value. On the other hand, a Sitting in the Morning is very inconvenient to a great number of Members—to business and professional men. While I like a nice, quiet Morning Sitting myself for getting through Government business, I think that unless you get some great advantage by taking a Morning Sitting on Tuesday it is much better that the whole day should be taken. The Government is held responsible for the principal Legislation of the Session, and it is only reasonable they should have such time as will enable them to do their business. I have endeavoured to state the case as fairly and as frankly as I can. It is for the House to decide. In my opinion, it is as much to the interest of one Party as another, of one Government as another, that these facilities should be afforded; and I hope the House will, as it has done on previous occasions, give to the Government under this Resolution power to carry out the functions which are by the Constitution devolved upon it. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
  SIR M. E. HICKS-BEACHdid not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever appeared in the House to such advantage as when he was moving a Resolution of this kind. His manner was so suave, his reluctance to blame his adversaries was so unusual, his disclaimer of all Party motive was so delightful that he prejudiced them all in favour of the Motion he proposed. A Resolution of this kind proposed by the Government, as necessary for the transaction of the business of the
  64
  House, must command some sympathy from those who had been responsible for that business. It might sometimes, perhaps, be thought by hon. Members who had not had official experience that right hon. Gentlemen were too apt to look favourably on such Motions; but in one thing they would agree—that the Government was always bound to show a necessity for its demand in each particular case. The right hon. Gentleman divided his speech into two parts. Hedwelt at very considerable length upon precedents, and at one time he thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to base his case entirely upon those precedents. The right hon. Gentleman relied mainly, if not entirely, on the precedents of 1892 and 1893. He welcomed the allusion to the precedent of 1892, for the reason that they who knew something of what was passing in political circles at that time remembered that the facility with which the time of the House was granted to the Government on that occasion was largely due to the knowledge on the part of the Opposition that a Dissolution was impending. [THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: "Not in March."] Yes, in March. He hoped he might accept the precedent to its full extent. He hoped they might take the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the precedent of 1892 as an omen of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do that which the Opposition desired above everything else, and to give them an appeal to the country, But, however that might be, the precedents of 1892 and 1893 were clear. In the first place, the Minister proposing the Resolution proposed it for the transaction of some particular business, which he named to the House. [THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: "Not in 1893."] In both years. In 1892 the present Leader of the Opposition specified the supplementary Estimates and the introduction of four measures—the Local Taxation Relief (Scotland) Bill, the Fee Grant (Scotland) Bill, the Assisted Education (Ireland) Bill, and a Bill relating to Private Bill Legislation in Scotland. The first three of these measures were of small importance, and were non-controversial; and it was necessary, for financial reasons, to pass two of them before a certain date.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There was no limitation in the Resolution.
  SIR.M. E. HICKS -BEACHsaid, there was a limitation in the speech of the Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that a limitation in the speech of a Minister was as binding as the terms of a Resolution. In 1893, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian took precisely the same course. He told the House he wanted additional facilities for the transaction of financial business and the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that was not so. The morning sittings were taken without any reservation. The Government of Ireland Bill was taken at whole day sittings. With regard to morning sittings on Tuesdays, no limit was made.
  SIR M. E. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had not stated there was any limitation in the Resolution. What he said was, that the purport of the speech of the Minister was, that financial business and the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill was the business he intended to take. As a matter of fact, the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill was not proceeded with until after Easter, so that practically the effect of the Resolution of 1893 was to forward financial business only. There was another substantial difference between what was done on those two occasions compared with what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do now. In 1892 and 1893 morning sittings only were asked for. The right hon. Gentleman made light of that by saving that the evening sitting was of no use at all to private members. Then why did he not ask for Fridays as well as Tuesdays? What was the use of leaving Friday evenings, which, according to him, were of no service whatever to private Members? But what they were entitled to, according to all precedents, when the time of the House was taken before Easter for the transaction of special business, was, a statement from the Government of what that special business was to be. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, in the first place, it was to be
  66
  finance. They were to have the supplementary Estimates, and also certain votes of the ordinary Estimates. He believed that neither the supplementary nor the ordinary Estimates had yet been circulated. He hoped they would be circulated immediately and the Government would lose no time in asking the House to devote itself to the necessary work of Supply. He did not wish to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of breach of faith, but he wished to impress on the House what passed in relation to this matter last year. On April 9, 1894, the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and said that he had to make a very large claim upon their time, and moved precisely the same resolution which he had moved on the present occasion. To that resolution an amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), to the effect that Supply should be put down as the first Order for one day in every week until it was concluded. There were probably, very practical objections to that proposal, but how did the right hon. Gentleman meet it? He met it by undertaking to give full and adequate time to Supply.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me, but I desire to make the position clear. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the subsequent part of the Session, or the whole of the time referred to, was practically given up to financial business, in the way of the Committee on the Budget.
  SIR M. E. HICKS-BEACHsaid, his recollection did not quite tally with the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman. After the debates on the Budget were concluded the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon the House dealing with the Evicted Tenants Bill, the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bills, and with a private Member's Bill—the Eight Hours Bill—on which two days of their time were absolutely wasted, and it was not until the middle of August that, with the exception of two Irish votes, the slightest attempt was made by the Government to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates, nearly the whole of which were voted after that date without any real discussion. He did not wish, any more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make a party matter of

  67
  this question; but he appealed to hon. Members in every part of the House whether that was a convenient, a proper, or a right way for the House to discharge one of its most important and necessary functions. He hoped, therefore, they were justified in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to make now a definite promise that not only would he pass the supplementary Estimates before the day on which the law required them to be passed—but that he would also utilise the time before Easter in making real progress with the ordinary votes in Supply. But what else were the Government going to do? Was the right hon. Gentleman going to utilise the rest of the time for which he asked in introducing all the measures named in the Queen's Speech; or was he going to utilise any portion of it in moving the second reading of any of these Bills? They should in all fairness have a definite statement from the Government on that matter; but he was afraid they would not get it. A similar request was made to the right hon. Gentleman last year, and he absolutely declined to tell the House in any degree what he was going to do. What had been the practice of the Government in this matter ever since they had come into Office? In their first year they gave in the Queen's Speech a list of 12 Bills of great importance. Then on March 30th the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian told the House that it was absolutely necessary that the whole of the time of the House for the rest of the Session should be devoted to Government Business. The House assented to that course, after a vain protest from the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman did his best to dragoon the House into Legislation, but of those 12 Bills only four ever passed the House, though the House sat for 11 months after that proposal was carried. He should have thought that the ill success of that precedent would have discouraged any subsequent leader of the House from attempting to repeat it. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in just the same way, appealed to the House on April 9 last year, on behalf of what he described as a precious cargo. And what happened to that precious cargo? The right hon. Gentleman was told that he would have to jettison most of it, and at
  68
  the end of the Session again only four of the 12 Bills promised in the Queen's Speech had passed the House of Commons.
  Sir W. HARCOURT: And the Budget.
  SIR M. E. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he included the Budget in his list. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister, who always spoke in a way the Opposition thoroughly appreciated, made a speech at Cardiff, in which he said the Government were not going to have this year a barren Session of First Readings, and that, having learned wisdom from experience, the programme of 1895 was to be confined to measures that might be reasonably expected to become law. But was that promise kept? Let any hon. Member, no matter what his political opinions might be, look at the history of the Legislation of the past 30 years, look at the amount of work it has been given to any Parliament to do in a single Session, and then ask himself how many Bills out of the 12 Bills promised in the Queen's Speech were likely to pass this House in 1895. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that evening that he based his demand, not solely on the ground of precedent, not solely for the purpose of forwarding any particular business, but that he based it upon the ground that it was absolutely impossible that Government Business could be done in the time allowed to it by the Standing Orders of the House. That was a general ground. It practically amounted to saying that the Standing Orders were inapplicable to the present circumstances of Parliament and ought to be changed. The right hon. Gentleman added, that there was a fresh difficulty in the path of every Government at the present day, because there had arisen a new practice of lengthened discussions on private Bills. But if that were so, to whom was it due? Why, to the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters; for the Bills on which the longest discussions had taken place, were the Bills promoted, with but little hope of success, by the London County Council. The right hon. Gentleman whiie asking that greater facilities should be given to the Government on general grounds for the conduct of their business in the House—objected to deal with the question by an alteration in the Standing

  69
  Orders, and argued that their rules had better be relaxed year by according to the necessities of the time. But if any one would examine the series of precedents in this matter he would find that those precedents were growing; he would find that the Government of the day—be it a Liberal Government or a Conservative Government—never went back upon a precedent when once it was made, so that year after year more of the time of the House and more control over the House were obtained by the Government. Now what was the precedent they were asked to establish on this occasion? Within 10 days of the termination of the Debate on the Address, private Members were to be deprived of any opportunity of bringing forward Motions, except after Nine o'clock on Friday evenings, and of any chance of having discussions on Bills which they had introduced unless they had been fortunate enough to secure the first or second place on the 13 or 14 Wednesdays before Whitsuntide. That might be a necessary change in their procedure; circumstances might have arisen which rendered it right and proper to make it. But he was absolutely certain that this Resolution, or something more stringent, would again be proposed after Easter, and would practically apply to the whole of the Session; and if it were once adopted not for exceptional reasons, but on general grounds, it would be applied in all future Sessions by all successive Governments. They would have made in that way, by what might seem a succession of small steps, a great and important change in the conduct of the business of the House. It might be right and necessary to make that change, but it should only be made after full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and of the whole of the rules under which the business of the House is at present conducted. What had happened already? When hon. Members were deprived of the opportunities allotted to them by the ordinary rules of the House for bringing forward matters in which they took an interest, they persistently bubbled up on every other occasion. Adjournments were moved, and Debates were started on questions of principle in Committee of Supply, instead of Supply being confined, as used to be the case, solely
  70
  to questions of finance. Questions were thus raised in the House in a way which was not only unsatisfactory in itself, but far more inconvenient to the Ministry of the day than if they had been discussed in the old fashion. He admitted that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was only the last step in a gradual series of precedents; but such a change ought to be fully and fairly considered in a proper way before it was accepted by the House. What were the Government going to do with a considerable part of this time? They were going to devote it to the introduction of a number of Bills, hardly any of which had a chance of any subsequent consideration in the House during the Session. Would there be any greater gain to the public, or the House, by the Government obtaining the time of the House for that purpose, than by their time being devoted, for instance, to such Motions as were brought forward by hon. Members on the last two Tuesdays? Those Motions were of greater interest to a very large number of people than many of the Kills in the Government programme. Those motions might not have quite the results which were desired by the authors, but they certainly referred to subjects which deserved the attention of the House. He should be ready to give the Government any facilities which previous Governments had enjoyed with reference to the transaction of the necessary business of Finance. They might fairly claim to be enabled to place certain definite proposals before the House before a certain date. But he must frankly confess that he did not care to take away from ordinary Members of the House the time allotted to them by the Standing Orders, in order that the Government might dovote the time to the Introduction of Bills which were never intended or expected to be proceeded with, but which were merely introduced as baits to attract certain sections of their supporters into the Lobby—[cries of "Oh!"]—in support of Bills for which a majority could in no other way be obtained.
  MR. ATHERLEY JONESsaid, that the House was not likely to get much assistance in the elucidation of this question from the Front Opposition Bench; because in

  71
  previous year there had been a consensus of opinion between the two Front Benches as to the practice of infringing on the time of private Members. If the precedent of 1892 were referred to, it would be found that the Government at that time, at the instance of the present Leader of the Opposition, made a much larger demand upon the time of the House. It was for Morning Sittings on both Tuesday and Friday, and not only until Easter, but for the whole of, the Session. He altogether challenged the statement which had been made—that the time of private Members was a matter of small importance. The discussions initiated by private Members were of great value in ripening subjects for the Government to take up subsequently; and he found from the Order Paper that there were many most valuable and practical proposals, including that of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, which would be removed from the consideration of the House, if the Government were successful in their demand. The only case which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made out was this—that under the worst possible conditions there could only be three days for the discussion of the Estimates, and that under the best possible conditions there could be four days. That was a case for a large amount of time being conceded to the Government; but it was not a case for all the time for which the Government asked. He would suggest that the Government should take the whole of either Friday or Tuesday, or else, Morning Sittings on both days. In the latter event, if the Motions standing in the names of private Members proved to be of little importance, the House would undoubtedly be counted out after the Morning Sitting, and in view of the pressure put upon the House by the Government, it would not be an un welcome contingency. But if the Motions were important, then private Members, notwithstanding the strain on their time, would certainly make a House. He believed that he was expressing the opinions of a considerable number of private Members, when he suggested a compromise on these lines; and the moderate speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed a desire to meet the reasonable wishes of the Government's supporters. As the right hon.
  72
  Gentleman the Member for West Bristol said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had followed the advice of the illustrious. Member for Midlothian, who in 1892 said that he would be prepared to assent to the Government's Motion for taking the time of the House if it were not to be applied to the whole Session. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given no assurance that he would not after Easter appropriate a still larger share of the time of the House; and if that were his intention, it was one which could not be blamed.
  MR. J. REDMONDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had made out an absolutely conclusive case for asking for some time for the Government; and the case which the right hon. Gentleman had made out was not merely for this Government, but for all Governments. It was nothing short of an absurdity that there should be under the ordinary Standing Orders only two days a week reserved for Government business, which included not only financial business, but the programme of public Legislation. He was not one of those who sympathised very much with the grievance of private Members. He agreed that many great public questions had ripened into useful Legislation by being discussed in the House, time after time, on private Members' Motions. But neither this nor any Government proposed to deprive private Members of facilities of that kind. Under the present proposal private Members would have Wednesdays for their Bills, and Friday evenings for the discussion of matters of importance. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, many of these Evening Sittings resulted in the House being counted out, which meant that the subjects were not of enough importance to keep 40 Members. Holding these views, he could apply himself to the consideration of the motion without any danger of his judgment being upset by the piteous appeal of private Members. The House was aware of the fact that it was his view that Parliament should be dissolved. They were aware that his view was that the continued life of this Parliament could not result in any benefit to any part of the United Kingdom, and that since the Session commenced he had done his

  73
  best to give effect to his views. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might congratulate themselves on the fact that he failed in his action. He was not quite sure that when a Dissolution came they would still be of opinion that it would have been unwise to dissolve now. The first fact in the present situation was, that Parliament was not going to be dissolved, and that this Session was going to be continued; the second was, that it was going to be a barren Session. The Leader of the House supposed that some of them would say that the Bills to be proposed by the Government would not pass. They were not saying so. The persons who had said so were the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. But if these Bills would not pass, neither would the Bills or Resolutions of private Members. The House of Commons was to be turned into a great debating society. As a member of that debating society, his desire would be that the subjects for discussion should be as interesting and exciting as possible, and if he had to choose between such topics as he might fairly describe as the fads of individual private Members, on the one side, and great topics of public interest, such as Welsh Disestablishment, Irish Land, and Local Veto, on the other, naturally he would decide in favour of taking topics which would be exciting and interesting. For these reasons he would be inclined, if nothing else intervened, to support the Motion of the Leader of the House. But, before going the whole length of supporting that Motion, he would like to ask the Government respectfully whether they would give a little information about the course of business. There was a great Irish Land Bill on the stocks. It was probable that that Bill had not a chance of passing, but the "odds," the Chief Secretary for Ireland told them, had been "shortened." Still, the odds were heavily against it. But if there was to be a discussion on the Irish Land question at all, it would be interesting for the Irish Members to know at what period of the Session that discussion would take place.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: At once.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND,resuming, said they had been told that the Bill would be introduced as the Welsh Bill had been; and that, after the Welsh Bill had been disposed of, the Irish Land
  74
  Bill would be read a second time. But when would that be? They had heard from the Leader of the House an account of the remaining time that the Government would have at its disposal, and it was perfectly evident to anybody who listened to his speech that the Second Reading of the Welsh Church Bill could not possibly be taken before April 1. For his own part, he did not see how, according to the time at the disposal of the Government, and the business to be done described by the Leader of the House, it was possible for the Welsh Church Bill and the Irish Bill to be read a second time before Easter. The time after that was what he, himself, was anxious about. He had tried to gather opinions as to the length of time the Welsh Bill would take in Committee, and it seemed to be the general view that it would take two months. This opinion was not confined to Members of the Opposition. He had heard it expressed by enthusiastic supporters of the Government and its Bill. If this was so, and the Committee stage of the Irish Land Bill was to be deferred until the Welsh Bill had been disposed of in Committee, the Irish Land Bill would not be taken until the middle of the dog days; and if the Government desired to afford the House of Lords an excuse which, in itself, would be considered sufficient for them to reject the Irish Land Bill, it would be by sending it to them, as it did the Evicted Tenants Bill—at the fag-end of the Session. Would the Leader of the the House get up and state that he would push on the Committee on the Irish Land Bill concurrently with the Committee on the Welsh Bill? In other words, he would have four days a week at his disposal under the rule which, of course, would be extended to the rest of the Session—everybody knew—for Government business. Would he give two of those days every week to the Welsh Bill and two to the Irish Bill, or was it his intention to leave the Irish Bill to be taken up after two months in Committee on the Welsh Bill? He wished to make another suggestion. Last year a Scotch Grand Committee was appointed to deal with a Scotch Bill. This Irish Land Bill was a purely Irish question. Those in favour of the principle of Home Rule—and there was no more doughty exponent of the principle than the present

  75
  Leader of the House—ought to be in favour of the details of this great Irish Land Bill being settled in a Committee entirely composed of Irish Members. If the Leader of the House would not give two days a week in Committee to the Irish Land Bill and two days to the Welsh Bill, would he refer the Irish Bill, after it had been read a second time, to an Irish Grand Committee? If he would do either of those things, his benevolent attitude towards the Resolution might carry him to the unwonted length of going into the Lobby with him, but, in the absence of such a declaration, while he did not intend to vote against the time of the House being taken by the Government, he could not see his way to support it.
  MR. H. W. PAULsaid the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had told the House that this would be a barren Session, and that the Irish Land Bill would not pass into law. How did he know that?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Because the Prime Minister has said so.
  MR. PAUL: But was that the opinion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was as well acquainted with the Irish land question as the hon. and learned Member; was it the opinion of many Irish Members opposite? Would they do their best to prevent the Bill from passing into law? The hon. and learned Member knew perfectly well they would do nothing of the kind. The hon. Member had referred to the speeches of the Prime Minister during the Recess. He himself had studied those speeches carefully and respectfully. He was prepared to defend the arguments used in them, but he was not prepared to defend arguments imputed to the Prime Minister which he had never used. Lord Rosebery did not argue that it was useless to bring Bills into that House this Session because they would be thrown out by the House of Lords. What he said was that it was no use for Liberal Governments to introduce Liberal measures into that or any other House after the next or any other General Election, backed by a majority small or large, so long as a permanent Tory majority existed in another place to throw out every Bill a Liberal Government introduced. The right hon. Member for West Bristol did
  76
  not say the House of Lords would throw out the Bills of the Government, but that this House would be unable to pass them, which was an entire change in the argument of the Opposition before and since the Session began. He did not altogether agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the importance of evening sittings; he had had some experience of Friday evenings, and had beaten the Government of one of them. There was one point upon which he desired to express his cordial concurrence with the right hon. Baronet, and that was the importance of bringing forward Supply at as early a period of the Session as possible. This motion would facilitate that object. The right hon. Baronet had taunted the Government with their failures in Legislation, but in that respect he was not in agreement with his political friend and ally the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He should give his hearty support to the Motion, in order that the right hon. Baronet and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford might have an opportunity of obtaining that early Dissolution of Parliament which they desired.
  MR. H. LABOUCHEREsaid, that events would prove whether this Session would be a barren one or not; he himself thought that "ploughing the sands of the sea shore" was not exactly the way to get a plentiful crop of anything. Like his hon. Friend who had just sat down, he had read the speeches of the Prime Minister carefully and respectfully, but he did not derive the same conclusions from them which his hon. Friend did. But when his hon. Friend went on to explain what these speeches were, so far as he could understand, his hon. Friend and himself were entirely of the same mind. His hon. Friend had pointed to the fact that Lord Rosebery had said that Liberal measures cannot be passed in this or any other Parliament until some alteration had been made in the Legislative powers of the House of Lords; but what was predicated of the whole was predicated of every part of it, and if Liberal measures could not be passed in this or any other Parliament, surely the idea was involved that Liberal measures could not be passed in this Parliament until the obstruction in the way of their becoming

  77
  law was removed. He thought, therefore, that there was a good deal of agreement between his hon. Friend and himself upon the matter. He was able further to say that there was a good deal of agreement between his hon. Friend, the Prime Minister and himself upon this matter. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend in saying that they must not expect much from the front Opposition Bench. The difficulty of the Front Opposition Bench in this matter always was that they had done much the same thing themselves, and they contemplated, when they managed to get themselves on to the Treasury Bench, doing the same thing again. He had not the slightest confidence in either of those two Benches in regard to matters relating to the rights of private Members. Sometimes they confederated together; sometimes, whoever was the Leader of the Opposition got up and said that he would oppose this particular proposal, because the circumstances of the particular moment rendered it necessary for him to do so; but when he got on to the Treasury Bench he proposed either the same thing, or something very like it. He professed he had not much confidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give back to private Members their time after Easter. It was very much like a lion offering to make two mouthfuls of him instead of one; they knew that appetite came from eating, in these matters. He had looked back to see how he had voted In regard to the motion of 1892, and found that then he voted for the proposal of the present Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Manchester, but the proposal then was that private Members should be left Tuesdays and Friday evenings, and if such a proposal were now made he would vote for it with the greatest pleasure. When first he came into the House private Members were looked upon as human beings; they then banded themselves together, and therefore they maintained their rights. Then they could, on going into Committee on Supply, move any Motion they liked, and then the Estimates were brought on at an early period of the year; occasionally, at the end of the Session, such a proposal as the present was made, but no one dreamt that private Members' nights should be swamped entirely, as it was now proposed. They were told that on
  78
  private Members' nights the House was counted out. He had been very much struck by what was said by the hon. Member for Waterford, who pointed out thot every reform that had ever been carried in that House had been first aired by private Members. Private members put down Motions in favour of a reform, the majority in favour of it gradually increased, and then the Government took it up. Moreover, if they did away with the rights of private Members, they would deprive the Ministry of the day of all control except when the Opposition moved a vote of no confidence in the Government, and he thought that control over a Government by its followers was just as necessary as by the Opposition. That the Government should thus became absolutely independent of control or criticism, especially in regard to colonial and foreign matters, was, he thought, most undesirable, and he was unable to vote for the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEEShad placed on the Paper an Amendment to this Motion, but believed he would not be in order in moving that Amendment. The question raised, however, by the Amendment, seemed to him very much the same as that raised in the last two speeches, whether it was desirable that a Government, the members of which had announced in the recess that they could not carry out any useful public business during the Session, should take also the time which might be utilised by private Members to carry out measures of public utility. There was no urgent reason put forward why this should be done. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would promise that after Easter, when the financial requirements of the country had been dealt with, he would give back to private Members the time he was now taking, he would support the Motion; but no such assurance was given. If this Motion was carried, very little time would be secured by private Members during the rest of the Session. Many of the Bills and Motions put down on the Order Book by private Members were quite as important to the people of the country as the measures announced in the Queen's Speech. They affected all classes, for among the questions to be dealt with were Old Age Pensions, Agricultural Holdings, the Condition of

  79
  Factories and Workshops, the Housing of the Working Classes, the Eight Hours Day for Miners, Trade Disputes, and the Payment of Members. There were also Motions down to call attention to the Armenian Atrocities and to the question of a Referendum, a matter which it was most important that the House should discuss as a preliminary canter to the great Resolution against the House of Lords which the Government had declared their intention to move. Now, some of those matters were in the hands of private Members opposite, and he was curious to know how they really regarded the proposal of the Government. He could understand a Government with an important policy and a serious determination to carry it out, bringing forward such a Motion, but the present Government had no such policy, and they all knew that it was not intended that the measures foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech should pass into law. They were only intended to be the means to an end. There was a proverb which declared that he who wished the end wished the means also. That might be true, but surely they had a right to demand from the Government that they should state, before this Motion was granted, what the end on their part was. Hitherto all information of the kind had been concealed from them, even concerning the great Resolution against the House of Lords by means of which the Government intended to frame a new Constitution. But, surely the Government could not suppose that any Resolution on so important and vital a question as this could be adequately and satisfactorily discussed at the fag end of a Session. It was only just and respectful to the House of Commons, therefore, that Ministers should explain how they meant to use the additional time if it was granted to them. Many hon. Members opposite had boasted to their constituents of the importance and advantages of the private Bills they had introduced and were going to place on the Statute Book. The absorption of the time of private Members, however, would prevent them from bringing those measures forward, and he should like to know, if they voted for this Motion, how they would explain their failure to their constituents, especially in the absence of any declaration from the Government
  80
  how they were going to utilise the additional opportunities they had obtained. At any rate, believing that the Motion was not calculated, under the circumstances in which it was proposed, to exalt the character of the House, he should vote against it.
  MR. S. T. EVANSwho had an Amendment on the Paper exempting to-morrow's Sitting from the terms of the Motion, said he did not intend to move it. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had stated that he was very anxious for a Dissolution on the ground that the present Session was going to be a barren one. He could not agree with the hon. Member. When the Home Rule Bill was before Parliament in 1893, the hon. Member and his Friends did not think that Session would be a barren one if only that House passed it, notwithstanding that it was well known the House of Lords would reject it. The Welsh Members held much the same opinion in respect to the present Session and the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. If they could obtain the imprimatur of the House of Commons for that measure, they would by no means regard the Session as a barren one, although the House of Lords might afterwards throw it out. The effect of the Amendment that stood on the Paper in his name was only to postpone the request of the Government for one day; otherwise he thought the Motion did not go far enough, for after Easter they would have to waste another day on a similar Motion, The object of his Amendment was to give the House a chance on the following day of discussing the question of Self Government for Wales. It was true that the Motion relating to the question was third on the Paper; still, there might have been a chance of reaching it, and the House of Commons would then have had an opportunity of asserting the opinion that when the time came for a devolution of powers all round, Wales would be no less entitled to Home Rule than Scotland or Ireland. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, that private Members had practically no grievance. The time had come when the Government might do what they proposed by Standing Order and not by periodical Motions like the present. The oppor-

  81
  tunities now given to private Members were really opportunities for wasting time. In the Sessions of 1891, 1892, and 1893, a Bill introduced by himself as a private Member was passed by huge majorities, and on one occasion it passed through the Standing Committee. But the whole time spent upon it was wasted, because its further progress was blocked in the House. He wanted the Government, if they took the whole of the time, to use that time. Let them make up their mind that work was to be done. It was of no use taking the time if there was to be no end of talk. And the Government might themselves set an example in this direction. He did not know why the First Reading of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill was not taken on Monday night, but it was probably by arrangement with the Front Bench. They had had quite enough of these arrangements between the two Front Benches, and he hoped that, in future, two or three Sittings would not be spent on the question of asking leave to introduce a Bill. In the case of the First Heading of the Irish Disestablishment Bill, the only speech made was by Mr. Disraeli, and it only occupied a quarter of an hour. It was quite touching to see the mutual admiration of the occupants of the two Front Benches; but Members in other parts of the House felt strongly that some other method might be found and adopted for the expression of this mutual admiration than by dishing up at great length old speeches, made in years gone by, by those who occupied the Treasury and Front Benches, in which those who had to listen to them did not take such an interest as the authors themselves. Much as he desired to get the opinion of the House on the question of Self Government for Wales, yet he was not unmindful of the fact that the Government had taken up as their first legislative business a measure in which he took the extremest interest, and in the circumstances he did not intend to move the Amendment.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKhoped the House would not assent to this proposal. The division of time between the Government and private Members had been very carefully considered, and ought not to be lightly disturbed. It was very important that private Members should
  82
  have the opportunity of bringing forward questions in which the country was interested. The Government of the country did not consist merely in Legislation, but in Administration, and if the Tuesdays and Fridays were taken, the House lost the opportunity of making suggestions and criticisms. It was, of course, true that on private Members' nights the House was sometimes counted out. But that was not altogether a disadvantage. A rest now and then was a great relief, not only to hon. Members, and especially to Government, but above all to the Officials of the House. It would be easy to show that a great deal of useful Legislation was the wish of private Members. He might mention the Public Libraries Act, the Open Spaces Act, that regulating Cheques and Bills, and many more. Besides which, many which were eventually carried by Government, had been rendered possible by the previous labour of the private Members. Indeed, there were many Bills which were more easily carried by private Members, because if they were supported on both sides of the House, as happily was often the case, they were divested of any party character. There had been two Tuesdays since the closing of the Debate on the Queen's Speech; no one could say they were wasted. There had been two important Debates, and the House had passed the second reading of the Early Closing Bill, which shopkeepers and shop assistants all over the country were watching with intense interest. Moreover, if Government carried their motion they would but out several subjects of great interest. Next Tuesday, there is a motion respecting the Taxation of Ground Rents. Probably it might require amendment, but a Committee of this House, presided over by the right, hon. Gentleman, the Member for St. George's, had reported in favour of modifying the present system, and the London County Council had passed an unanimous resolution in support of it. Would hon. Members representing Radical constituencies, assist in shutting out the consideration of this question? If so it would be felt that they had no real anxiety for the change. He passed over several important motions, and would only refer to one other, which also affected London interests.

  83
  The London Members believed that London received from the Imperial Exchequer some £300,000 less than her fair share. He had brought the question before the House more than once at the suggestion of his colleagues on the London County Council. He proposed to ask for a Committee, which be thought was a reasonable request, and had put it down for Tuesday 12th. If the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adopted, what possible chance would there be of bringing the question forward this Session. He hoped his hon. Friends in the London County Council would not throw him over. If they did, London would lose this large sum of money, amounting to a rate of more than 2d., and they must answer for it to the people of London. He appealed then to all London Members not to vote for a motion which would shut out the consideration of a question so important to London Ratepayers.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 236: Noes, 221.—(Division List, No. 17.)

  FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill to make Provision for Public Inquiry in Regard to Fatal Accidents occurring in Industrial Employments or Occupations in Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time: to be read a second time on Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 143.]

  WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on the Motion for leave to bring in the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, that the Home Secretary had promised to go into the principles underlying the Bill on the occasion of its Second Reading. There were one or two points to which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would devote his attention when that time came, and explain how it was that the Bill would affect the spiritualities as well as the temporalities of the Church. The Church of England was an indivisible whole, but this Bill practically proposed cutting off a limb. What would be the position of the Welsh Church in the future in regard to her Parliament—Convocation; and what would be the position of her Members in regard to that body? They
  84
  would sit only as guests, and not with the legal rights they now enjoyed. Supposing they sat in Convocation in those circumstances, and a Motion of some kind or another were carried by their aid, would the carrying of such Motion be legal or otherwise? That was one point upon which he hoped the Home Secretary would give the House some information. According to the present law any question involving the ritual of the Church went through a series of courts, ending finally in the Privy Council; but under this Bill a change would be made in so far as the Church in Wales was concerned, by which the final court would be, not the Privy Council, but the House of Lords. Now if some case wore to arise, say, analogous to the celebrated Lambeth Judgment, which was upheld by the Privy Council, and taken to the House of Lords, there might be brought about an absolutely conflicting judgment with regard to a great question of rites which would lead to grave complications; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not overlook the necessity of making some statement upon that view of the matter also. He remembered the eloquent way in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill last year, and the indignant terms in which he asked his opponents to believe that he and his Party were not actuated by any feelings of malice towards the Church. Were they not entitled to take the pronouncements of the Prime Minister as the basis on which the Government were proposing to act?
  "—that the State could deal with the Endowments of the Church now because the State had taken them from the Old Church mid given them to the Reformed Church at the Reformation."
  If they took up that attitude, surely what was now proposed was spoliation—the taking away from the Church all benefactions which had been given to the Church prior to 1703, which included the benefactions from the Reformation to 1703—say 150 years—all given, on Lord Rosebery's own showing, to the same Church as now possessed them. They were told that the funds which were to be taken away were still to be devoted "to religious purposes." He thought that was a paltry attitude to assume, and not worthy of his right hon. Friend. The

  85
  purposes were good purposes, no one would deny that, but it was playing with words to pretend that they were religious purposes. When they spoke of religious purposes, they meant something containing the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but the funds were to be devoted to purposes which would commend themselves equally to Christians and Atheists. They had had several speeches from the Welsh Members, and he must say that he did not think the Church had any reason to complain of the tone of those speeches. They were characterised by a fairness which had not always characterised speeches which they had heard even in that House. Differing as he did from those hon. Members, he paid that tribute to them. But what had been their general tone? The Welsh Members had spoken of the triumph of the Voluntary principle. One hon. Member boasted that while the Church contributed voluntarily only £250,000, the Nonconformists contributed voluntarily £400,000. Was his hon. Friend then prepared to admit that the Church contained 5–13ths of the population? ["No."] What then became of his argument? If it did not contain 5–13ths of the population, the Church contributed voluntarily more than the Nonconformists. It was no extrication from the dilemma to say that Churchpeople were so much richer. No doubt that was an important consideration, but the fact remained that, richer or poorer, the Church did give more per head than the Nonconformist bodies. His hon. Friend, the Member for Carmarthen, paid a generous tribute to the life of the Church in Swansea and Cardiff, and he asked how it was that it was so vigorous, and he replied: "Because there are no Endowments." He had heard that before. In Cardiff the Endowments of tithes were £370 only, and in Swansea, £204 only, but that did not exhaust the Endowments affected by that Bill. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners contributed £470 to Cardiff, and £999 to Swansea, so that the amount which would be affected by the Bill would be respectively £840 and £1,183. He maintained that, noble as Voluntaryism was, as a sign of life and energy in a Church, it was incapable itself of doing the necessary spiritual work properly. Nonconformists
  86
  all through the country were endeavouring to supplement their voluntary contributions by permanent Endowments The number of schemes submitted during the last ten years, 760 in all, to the Charity Commissioners, showed that the Nonconformists were feeling the want of Endowments, and were trying gradually to build them up. But it was not only a question of Church or Nonconformity. Take the case of hospitals. Had they not proof positive that the conviction that Endowments are necessary in regard to hospitals had made progress? In fact, the principle had made such progress, that the London County Council had proposed to give them one of the most stable of all Endowments—the rates of London. The hospital fund collected in London for 1894, amounted to £35,400. The amount obtained by collections in churches of the Church of England was £28,500; and the collections of other religious bodies outside the Church amounted to £7,000. Next to the Church stood the Congregationalists, whose collections amounted to £1,500. He did not suppose for a moment that £1,500 was the measure of the generosity of the Congregational body, certainly not; he would be the last person to suppose that it represented the full measure of the sympathy of that body. It was the duty of the Congregationalists, as of all other bodies, to think of their own denomination first; and it was because the Church had the privilege and the advantage of large Endowments from deceased Churchmen and Churchwomen that she was able to spare for great national purposes a part of the funds which, in the event of Disendowment, she would be obliged to devote to purely Church purposes. An attempt had been made to explain why the Voluntary system did not succeed in planting a resident Nonconformist minister in every parish in Wales; it was said that many of them were so small in area and population that there was no necessity for a resident minister. In this respect Wales did not differ so very much from England; but in Wales, out of a total of 1,081 parishes, there were 485 in which there was no resident minister except the clergyman. In the face of these figures it was impossible to say that Voluntarism had covered the ground and provided all

  87
  that was needed. An to the number of hearers in the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist body, the alleged total of 292,000 included 25,000 resident in Manchester and Liverpool, so that the smaller total of 268,000 was the more correct. Objection had been taken to the citation of election statistics because it was said Unionist candidates supported Disestablishment; but it was overlooked that the three seats for Anglesey, Carmarthen, and Cardigan wore contested in 1892 by avowed supporters of Disestablishment, and Disendowment in 1885 and 1886 by avowed supporters of the Church; and, whereas the aggregate poll for the Disestablishment candidates in 1892 was 7,203, the total poll of avowed supporters of the Church at the previous elections was 9,186. Thus there was a loss of votes to the disestablishing Unionists; Churchmen could not vote for them, and personally he did not wonder. In commencing the struggle he would ask opponents, once for all, to realise the position of Churchmen. They held that the Church in England and in Wales was one and indivisible, that it had existed since Christianity was introduced into these islands—the English branch from St. Augustine and the Welsh from the earlier missionaries; and the Endowments of the Church, without exception, had been voluntary gifts to the Church; and that there was no difference in principle between a sixpence put into the offertory next Sunday and tithe granted by pious Churchmen or Church-women 800 or 1,000 years ago. That was their position; and opponents would spare themselves trouble and avoid wounding the feelings of Churchmen unnecessarily if they said nothing more about adopting a timely compromise. The right hon. Member for Denbighshire said that this was the best offer the Church was likely to get; and he talked about the Sybilline Books, which was a strange reference to make in arguing the question ostensibly on religious principles, as if it were to be determined, not on its intrinsic merits, but by political expediency. To talk in this way was a waste of breath, and, if it were repeated, it would be an insult to those who held the Church to be one and indivisible. To ask them to compromise, was to ask them to lie faithless o their trust. It was said that the flower of the clergy at Bangor proposed
  88
  that Churchmen should accept Disestablishment without Disendowment; but they did not represent any but themselves. They would not obtain the support of any diocesan conference. And was there, he asked, a single Welsh Member who would accept that compromise? There was no response to that question; then, what was the use of making hypocritical speeches in praise of a scheme which the Welsh Members themselves would not accept? The Bill not only ran athwart the beliefs of Churchmen as to the nature of the Church and as to its future mission, but it wounded them in their reason and in their deepest sentiments. Did the Home Secretary realise the imagination and the sentiment that in the minds of Churchmen hung around cathedrals and churchyards? No other outward and visible signs appealed so deeply to their feelings. For centuries their forefathers had worshipped in these cathedrals, and had been buried in these churchyards, and to hand them over to National Commissioners and Parish Councils would wound Churchmen deeply. It was said the Church in Wales was doomed, but, with the profoundest respect for the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, he did not believe for a moment that she was doomed; but, just as 20 years ago there was no majority against her, so 20 or 30 years hence there might be no such majority; and two generations was but a short time in the life of a Church which had existed thirteen centuries, Believing that the Bill was intrinsically unjust, and that there lay before the Church in Wales centuries of useful work and acceptance at the hands of the people, he would offer to the Bill all the opposition that he could.
  SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, that it was with some reluctance that he rose to take part in the Debate at this stage of the discussion, after having had the privilege of hearing the speech of the noble Lord who had spoken with so much knowledge of the subject, and with so much elevating fervour. He regretted that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for East Denbighshire, was not present on that occasion. On the first night of the Debate, the right hon. Baronet complained of the Church Defence, Institution, on the, ground that that society had insulted the, people of

  89
  Wales. It had been his privilege to take part in the Councils of that Society for some years, and he denied the charge of the right hon. Gentleman. He trusted that, before the Debate concluded, so grave an accusation would be withdrawn or substantiated. They had, on many occasions, submitted their views to audiences in Wales, and they had uniformly received courtesy and consideration. He was sure, therefore, that no insult could have been offered to the Welsh people by the Church Defence Institution. He had asked the Home Secretary, in the course of his exposition of the Bill, what the scheme of the Government was respecting Cathedrals. He could not believe that the right hon Gentleman, with his forensic skill and ability, could have excepted Cathedrals except by express purpose and design. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Midlothian, in his first scheme dealing with the Irish Church, entrusted a certain number of Churches—he believed there were 12—to the supervision of commissioners, but before the scheme became law these 12 great Churches were placed in the same category as the rest. As that proposal failed in the Irish Church Bill, so he believed that a similar proposal would fail now. It had been well said, that sentiment clustered round Cathedrals; and probably no buildings were surrounded with more hallowed associations than the Welsh Cathedrals. They were founded in the sixth or seventh century, and portions of the ancient structures could still be recognised by antiquaries. Now, after more than 1,000 years, it was proposed by a Government, calling itself Liberal and desiring to be thought enlightened, to hand over these edifices to the County Councils and purely secular authorities. These Churches had been, maintained and restored by the voluntary efforts of succeeding generations, and during the present age £117,000 had been expended on these buildings. Llandaff Cathedral had been raised from a state of ruin to a condition of great beauty and magnificence, and the Church of St. David, once almost desolate, had now been, as regards the more important part of the structure beautifully restored under the careful superintendence of the Dean and the loving guidance of Sir Gilbert Scott. The
  90
  Government were not only proposing to desecrate sanctuaries, but were violating their own principle that modern Endowments ought not to be interfered with. It was suggested that the Church in Wales was alien because it was opposed, and always had been opposed, to the national movement. Of all Welshmen in Wales who were true Welshmen there were none more true than members of the Church. Those who had the privilege of the acquaintance of the Welsh Bishops must know that each and all of those prelates were thoroughly national in all their sentiments, and as entirely Welsh as any Welshman who could represent Wales in the House of Commons. He regretted very much there was not in Wales a religious census. There was such a census in Ireland, in Australia, in Canada, and in the United States. When he looked to the facts in Wales he greatly doubted whether the census of the ballot-box, as had been contended, truly represented Wales in this matter. He had a growing conviction that the pious and devout Nonconformists of Wales were beginning to look askance at this Bill. They did not believe that this controversy was being conducted in a spirit which would favour the growth of Christianity among them. They believed that in these days' when so many attacks were being made upon Christianity, it was necessary to strengthen every agency for good. They did not believe that the best comfort and hope could be found in removing from their midst those who uttered the words of solace and consolation. The right hon. Gentleman said that the new purposes to which the funds were to be devoted were as much religious as the Church itself. In making that remark he was mistaking the fruit for the tree. Cottage hospitals, trained nurses, convalescent homes, labourers' dwellings, and the rest were the fruits and the results and the consequences of Christianity; and if they were to weaken the forces of Christianity, then they would not have the same sympathy for the poor, the same disposition to heal their sorrows, or to soothe them in their grief. Could anyone say that the cause of religion would be as much promoted by libraries, or museums, or academies of art, as by the preaching of the Gospel and the ministrations from house to house, of a pious priest? It was a mockery

  91
  to lay before the House an argument of that sort. There was a great contrast between the scheme for the disestablishment of the Irish Church and the plan of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Midlothian, in dealing with the Irish Church, said: "he had a desire that no unnecessary hardship should be inflicted." He went on to say—
  "Every motive that can appeal to the feelings of men of honour and gentlemen must lead us to feel it a duty so to proceed with this measure that it shall carry with it no unnecessary penalty or pain."
  And then again—
  "All are equally anxious that the Irish Church, at a period when all its Members and Ministers will be called upon to exert themselves to the utmost, should not be subjected to the disadvantages of a cripple ecclesiastical organization."
  and further—
  "This transition should be attended not with the maximum but with the minimum of change."
  and then he added that these principles led the Government to adopt—
  "the principle of commutation, so that the clergy might pass from one condition to the other with least possible friction."
  In this case the Church would be called upon to undergo a process, he would not say of bleeding to death, but of bloodletting which will seriously imperil its vitality. They were told that in the colonies great advantage was gained by the absence of an Established Church. The views of the Bishop of Manchester were not in that sense, and the Bishop of Bath and Wells had borne emphatic testimony that the antagonism, and the disadvantages which arose from sectarian differences, were far more keen in Adelaide than in England. Then they came to the United States. Had the absence of a national church promoted unity? The citizens of that great republic had not shrunk from a religious census. He had in his hand an official report of that census. One of the first questions which might be asked was, What had been the result of the absence of an Established Church upon religious unity? The reporter described the position of an American citizen. He said:—
  "An American citizen may be a member of any one of 143 denominations, or of all in succession. If none of those suit him, he still has a choice of 150 separate and independent congregations,
  92
  which have no denominational name, creed or connection. In no quarter of the globe have the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, or the Baptists, the Friends, or the Memnonites, separated into so many branches as here in this land of perfect civil and religious liberty."
  Then came the effect of all these organisations upon the religion of America, and he found these words:—
  "One out of every twelve persons is either, an active or passive opponent of religion; two out of every three members are not members of any Church."
  He thought he might fairly say that in the judgment of the Americans themselves, as shown in their documents, the condition of affairs in America had not by any means proved that great advantages arose from the absence of a national church. He was tempted to ask, what would be the loss to the people of Wales from Disestablishment? He believed, himself, that a nation derived advantages from the national recognition of Christtianity. He believed it was to the advantage of a people that everyone should have the right to religious ministrations; and why should they take away that right from the people of Wales? He believed the existence of a national church was really a bond of union which drew together all classes in a parish, and the church belonged to the poor man every whit as much as to the rich man. He asked what would be the effect on education in Wales from Disestablishment? The tale of the board schools was a truly melancholy story. Of 300 board schools in Wales (excluding Monmouthshire) there were 123 schools where there was no bible read at all, and 119 where it was read without comment, whilst in 290 cases out of the 300 there was no examination whatever in religious knowledge. Anyone acquainted with the work of schools would agree with him when he said that education to be perfect and sound must be brought, in some form or other, to the test by means of examination. If the Welsh people desired to have Christianity taught to their children in the six days of the week, they must send them to the voluntary schools. He found that in the Church Voluntary Schools, in the diocese of St. Asaph, there were 18,571 children, in the Board Schools 10,766, in the British Schools 3,319. That was to say

  93
  that the 10,000 children who attended the Board Schools must be transferred to other schools in order to obtain that knowledge in religion which he believed to be absolutely necessary to develop the religious life of a young child. They had not only to deal with elementary education, but also with Welsh intermediate education. What were they told was the desire of the Welsh in this respect? They had had schemes proposed, and only abrogated by the action of the House of Lords, preventing any child of a Churchman receiving instruction in any of the formularies of the Church of England in any boarding-master's house. Amongst the formularies of the Church of England so forbidden, were some of the collects read every day in the House of Commons at the commencement of their proceedings. He thought it was an act of persecution that children of Church people in Wales should not be allowed to learn—not at the schools, but at the boarding houses—the very collects which hon. Members were accustomed to hear read day after day in that House. They came, then, to the effect of endowments on religion. What was the opinion of every Christian body throughout the world which had no Endowments? Were they content to go up and down the world exposed to all the chances and changes of uncertainty? No, in every case they were building up Endowments. This applied to the members of the Free Church of Scotland, to the Roman Catholics, and to the various Nonconformist bodies, and were all these Endowments to be protected by the law, whilst those of the Church were to be pillaged by the law? He wanted to know the reason why there should be this inequality of treatment? With regard to the question of figures, he did not believe the numbers of the members of the Church in Wales could be put at less than 700,000, whilst those of all the other denominations did not exceed 800,000. He was glad to see the President of the Board of Trade present, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would pardon his calling attention to some words which fell from him in 1892. The right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to explain away the force of the numbers of the Welsh Church-goers
  94
  by condemning their religion, and he said:—
  "It seems to me that those in Wales in whom the spirit, life and conviction of religion is doing work, attach themselves to the Nonconformisits, and only a small proportion to the Church of England."
  What right and title had the right hon. Gentleman to bring an accusation like that against Churchmen in Wales? He believed the accusation was totally unjust and wholly unfounded in fact. Could people who were liable to such an imputation have spent the magnificent sums which had been expended during the late few years in Wales? They had of late years spent £117,000 on cathedrals, between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 on churches, and upwards of £2,000,000 on schools. Then they were told that all this money had been spent in vain, that their religion was a mere brick and mortar religion, and that they had erected edifices and could find no congregations to till them. His answer to the accusation was plain and simple. He did not believe the Welsh people were such fools. He could not think they attached so little importance to £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 of money that they could squander it without any result. On the contrary, he found that the number of those attending their churches and Sunday schools was steadily and rapidly increasing. The old Church was the Church of the forefathers of the present generation. True enough, there was once coldness, dulness, apathy, and a want of religion, but even in those days pious men hoped for better things, and said that ere long the lamp of religion would burn again with purity and with brightness in the Welsh Church. He thought that Churchmen and Nonconformists alike should continue in possession of their endowments, both of which were the result of voluntary gift. Let both Churchmen and Nonconformists, if not together, at least side by side, continue their holy work of spreading the influences of Christianity throughout the land, bringing comfort to every household, solace to the sick, strength to the feeble, and to the powerful and strong lessons of mercy, charity, and loving-kindness to their weak, lowly, and afflicted neighbours.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYhad no hesitation in rising to

  95
  take part in the discussion, because he considered it the duty of anybody who regarded himself as a staunch member of the Church to oppose a political move, as this undoubtedly was. He did not look upon this as simply a Bill for Disestablishing and Disendowing the Church in Wales, but as a Suspensory Bill for Disestablishing and Disendowing the Church in England and Wales. The supporters of the measure themselves supplied evidence as to what was really meant. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire speaking a good many years ago, in reference to a Motion of this sort, said, that whilst he was strongly in favour of Disestablishment, he did not like the long agony of piecemeal Disestablishment, which was like putting a man to death by tearing him limb by limb. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman now objected to being bound to any views he might have held so long ago as 25 years. Only nine years ago, however, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the question of the Church in Wales could not really be separated from the question of the Church in England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, speaking on the occasion of the Introduction of the Redistribution of Seats Bill, said—
  "I wish to point out that Wales never has been dealt with separately, and on any separate principle, in any Reform Bill. The distinction between England and Wales, except in the recital of an Act of Parliament, for the purpose of indicating their unity, is totally unknown to our Constitution."
  If that were the case, surely he and his hon. Friends were justified in treating the question of Welsh Disestablishment as part of the general question of Disestablishment. And they ought to be able to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal Benches, to apply now the same argument which they used two years ago in the discussion on the Home Rule Bill. At that time a small portion, but a very strong and influential portion of the Irish people, appealed to the House, that they might be treated differently to the rest of Ireland, in being allowed to remain united to England. The majority opposite, however, said, "No, you must be bound by the prevalent opinion of Ireland." The Church in England and the
  96
  Church in Wales was one and indivisible, and he maintained that the same argument adduced two years ago in the case of Home Rule, should be applied in the case of the Church, under which the main body in the Church should rule. In the discussion on the Irish Disestablishment Bill, one of the Ministers of the Crown said—
  "In this question, we have offended a clique, to conciliate a nation."
  He suggested that they should take care that in this case, in conciliating a clique, they did not offend a larger nation than was concerned in the case of Irish Disestablishment. Hon. Members were referred to the case of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, notwithstanding all the protests of leading men at the time that that could never be taken as a precedent in the case of Wales. The Irish case was cited as a precedent in the Debate last year. It was then stated by the President of the Local Government Board that the Church in Ireland had prospered enormously since her Disestablishment, that greater peace was prevalent among the Sects, and that the Church had enlarged her borders. Such, however, was not the opinion of the Bishop of Deny, or of the late Archbishop Magee. He (Mr. Hardy) did riot think the experience in the Irish case justified Parliament in applying to any portion of the United Kingdom the same drastic remedy which was attempted to be applied to Ireland 25 years ago. If the Church were to be Disestablished and Disendowed, was it not only fair that she should be treated on the analogy of the charitable trusts which were alluded to by Lord Rosebery at Cardiff. The Prime Minister mentioned charitable trusts as rather justifying the application of money to other purposes than it had hitherto been applied to. In dealing with a charitable trust, two things were always considered—namely, whether the trust had failed in its object, and whether the means were too large to fulfil the original object of the Trust. Could it be said that the endowments in Wales were too large? In introducing this Bill last year, the Government confessed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were giving £40,000 a year more to Wales than they took out of it. As

  97
  to whether there was still an object to pursue, every sort of statistic could be pointed to, to prove that the Church was still endeavouring to do her duty, and that if she could only be relieved from the necessity of turning her attention to these political matters, she could do more than she was doing at the present moment. Churchmen were most annoyed by the manner in which it was proposed to deal with the possessions of the Church. They felt deeply the Home Secretary's allusion to what he called the religions purposes set forth in the Schedule of the Bill. It was robbery under the excuse of alms-giving. What a mockery it was to take the money of the Church to establish academies of Art; which attained its highest and noblest achievements when it was the handmaiden of Religion. As to whether the Church was dying out in Wales or not, there was plenty of evidence that she was in a healthy and flourishing condition from the mouths, not of her own members, but of witnesses outside her ranks. At the Baptist Union recently, the Rev. Mr. Shakespeare said there was only one word that described the position of that Sect in many of the great centres of population—namely, the word "failure," and he added "the Church of England, at least in the towns, is rapidly becoming the Church of the people." Again, the defeated Liberal Candidate in Worcestershire declared, as his firm opinion, that the reason why the Liberal Party were losing seats in the counties was, that rural Dissent was ceasing to exist. These statements showed that the Church was doing its duty both in town and country. It was said by the opponents of the Church, that the Bill was an attack upon vested interests. But there was one vested interest to which he had heard no allusion in the course of the Debate—namely, the vested interest the poor had to claim admittance to the services of the Church of England at all times. It was only last year that one of the large Nonconformist Sects in Wales sent out a circular to its ministers, saying that they must not cut off people from their membership because they had not paid their contributions, as church people might say that Dissent was not ministering to the poor. At any rate, that could never be alleged against the Church of England. There were places
  98
  always in her churches for the poor, and her ministers were always ready and willing to help them in time of need. Another great injustice done by the Bill was, that it took from them the burial-grounds surrounding their churches, up to the very doors of the churches. Churchmen in Wales would no longer be able to enlarge their churches when the need for enlargement arose, because the grounds would belong to the County Council. Their tenderest emotions were associated with these burial-grounds, they had possessed them for hundreds of years; and it was hard that they should not have at least the same justice which was done to Dissenting bodies by an Act passed in 1844, which declared that if a burial-ground was attached to any meeting-house for 25 years, it was to be considered as belonging to the congregation of such meeting-house. It might be said that those were matters of detail, but when the Bill got into Committee, they would be fought hard against to the very last.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid that anyone who had listened to the Debate last year, must be struck by the change of tone in the advocates of Disestablishment when referring to the Church. They now had the Welsh Members, with perfect honesty, admitting that the Church was growing and prospering in Wales, and saying they wished her to grow and prosper. He was glad that hon. Members from Wales took that line. It was a much more charitable and amiable line than the line they took last year. But let them consider where this new line landed them. The acts of persecution and proselytism alleged against the Church last year, were untrue. If those acts had been true, they would have afforded considerable justification for disestablishing and disendowing the Church in Wales. But if the Church was prospering in Wales and benefiting the people of Wales, where was the moral justification of the Bill? Hero was a great aggregate Corporation, which, it could not be historically disputed, was the owner of the funds, much of which had nothing to do with the State whatever, and yet the State proposed to deprive that aggregate Corporation of its funds without any justification, for no one now dared to allege that the Church had misused her

  99
  funds. It might be the hon. Members opposite would say—
  "We do not base our argument on that at all; we do not concern ourselves with whether or not the Church in Wales had misused her funds, but we say we could make better use of these funds."
  But if that argument were a sufficient justification, why did the Home Secretary stop at the year 1703? If the principle of endowment were bad, why did not the right hon. Gentleman choose the day the Bill became law? It might be said, too, by hon. Members opposite,—"We are friends of religious equality." A pretty religious equality they were going to introduce into Wales. They were going to allow the Dissenting Chapels to retain their endowments and take away the endowments of the Church of England, so that the position in Wales would be, the Church without endowments against Dissent with endowments. But it was not difficult to guess why the year 1703 had been chosen. Because all the endowments of the Church were anterior to that date, and all the endowments of Nonconformity posterior to that date. Hon. Members from Wales also said that they would not have a privileged Church in Wales. But no supporters of the Bill had said what these privileges were, simply because they were non-existent. What were the privileges of a poor parson in Wales, struggling on what would be considered a miserable pittance in any other profession, to do his duty to the people? It was said that the squire often asked him to dinner. Did they suppose they would stop the squire asking the parson to dinner by disestablishing the Church? The only privilege the Church enjoyed was that her bishops were represented in another place. He believed it was an advantage that a religion which was professed by the enormous majority of the people of the United Kingdom should be represented directly in the Legislature. That might be a very silly idea; and if it were, it would be a justification for voting in favour of Disestablishment; but surely it was no argument for Disendowment. He was astonished that the Welsh Members, whose ability could not be disputed for one moment, should be so short-sighted as not to see that by their action in this matter they were
  100
  playing the game of their bitterest enemy. They plumed themselves on their strong religious convictions; and yet they were fighting against the Church of England which was engaged with them in the battle against Secularism in this country. The religious community that would benefit most by the Bill, if carried, was the Roman Church. It was true the members of that Church in the House were going to vote with the Government, but they would do so in accordance with a pure political bargain, connected with matters of an entirely different character; and without the sanction, or encouragement of the authorities of their Church. It was said in the course of the debate that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bristol, had confused the question of Disestablishment with religion. Their position was that the cause of religion would suffer, not irreparably, but a cruel wrong if the Bill were passed. The Church of England must act through human instruments, and it was the most monstrous cant to talk of spiritualising the Church and removing her from the worldly influence of riches by taking away her property. Although they might be a stupid party, they were not so stupid as not to see very plainly that, if the money now spent in giving religious privileges to the Welsh people were taken away, the cause of sectarianism would be advanced, and the cause of religion would retrograde. The Home Secretary asked whether there was no refining influence about art galleries. Was there no degrading influence about offering a bribe to people to sacrifice the money spent on their spiritual welfare for the sake of their material benefit? Was there no refining influence in the religion of which they would be deprived? But the strongest position of the supporters of the measure was that they included 31 out of 34 Welsh Members. Everyone would admit that that was a Home Rule argument. But this was not a Welsh Church that was to be Disestablished as distinguished from an English Church. It was an integral part of the English Church which was being attacked in its weakest part. None of the advocates of the Bill had been dishonest enough to suggest that this was not an attack on the English Church. Everyone knew

  101
  that this was intended to be the beginning of the end; and that if the Church of England in Wales were Disestablished, the position of the Church in other parts of England would be immensely weakened, as practically the principle of Establishment would be gone. But if this were to be done on Home Rule lines, why not have Home Rule in Wales first? On what grounds was Wales to be treated differently from Ireland? One of the most striking features of the Irish Home Rule Bill, was a clause prohibiting any dealing with the question of an Establishment; and yet Wales, for which Home Rule was not proposed, was to have the power of dealing with the Established Church. The Welsh were to be allowed to inflict an injury on the Church, which by far the largest number of the people of England believed to be the best, while the Irish were not allowed to assist the religion which they believed to be best. How had the National feeling in Wales been produced? Were there not a great many partially educated people in Wales who had been led to believe that the effect of this measure would be to relieve them from what they erroneously imagined to be a burden on the land? [Several hon. MEMBERS: "No."] The reading of hon. Members' speeches delivered in the country was not calculated to contradict the impression. There had been a great deal of indirect bribery. The Welsh people had been told that their material interests would be benefited by disendowment; and that bribery had been increased by the allocation of the funds which the Home Secretary proposed. But the true ground of the attack was stated by an hon. Member last year. He said—
  "The cause was obvious. The Welsh people were Radicals and the Church was Tory."
  Here was the reason in its most contemptible form. A great political party drove a Church into hostility, and then, because it was hostile, took away its property. Lord Rosebery had given the same reasons for attacking the Scotch Church. As to the question of the census, he knew that hon. Members for Wales did not like public censuses. The
  102
  right hon. Baronet the Member for Denbigh (Sir G. O. Morgan) had said—
  "What would a census show? It would only prove the number of the members of the Church of England and not their opinions."
  True, but what objection was that to a census? Why did hon. Members shrink from the results of that census being revealed? If it was immaterial to the issue, why were they afraid of it? (Several hon. MEMBERS: "We are not.") Then what had become of the private census, taken by the Welsh Dissenters at their own time and by their own people? From that day to this they had been, afraid to reveal what the results of that census were.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is quite incorrect. Those figures have been published. I have them with me.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: The whole of them?
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
  MR. V. GIBBSsaid, that the whole of those figures had never been revealed to the public, though they might have been to the hon. Member. No doubt the hon. Member had good reason for keeping them to himself. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Denbigh gave as one of the reasons why Churchmen should accept the measure, that it was the best that they would ever get, and that nothing could avert the doom which was to fall. The Church party might be stupid, but they were not so cowardly as to be influenced by threats of that kind. He would say to the right hon. Baronet, "There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats." The hon. right Baronet the Member for Denbighshire said the Welsh Church was an alien Church, his evidence for it being a statement by Professor Goldwin Smith.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANinterposing, said he quoted the statements of a number of distinguished Welsh Clergy that the Welsh Church was not a national Church.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid that, to refresh his memory, he had carefully read the report of the hon. Baronet's speech in the Times. The hon. Baronet quoted as his evidence a remark of Professor Goldwin Smith that the Welsh peasant would never be a fervid Anglican. The hon. Baronet carried loose

  103
  thinking to the extremest verge consistent with the exercise of the reasoning faculty; but even he would not pretend that a casual remark by Professor Goldwin Smith constituted sufficient evidence. The hon. Baronet referred to "the little rift within the lute" among his opponents. The only evidence of any such rift that he seemed to rely on was that possibly the right hon. Member for West Birmingham would not vote with them on this matter. The manifesto signed by Welsh clergymen to which the hon. Baronet referred was only signed by four. Had there ever been a party or community which had not contained a few men ready to betray the fortress they were maintained to defend?
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Does the new Bishop of Hereford betray it?
  MR. VICABY GIBBS: By the grace of Lord Rosebery we now have a Disestablishment Bishop, but does he represent the voice of the Church and her clergy?
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: The evidence I adduced was entirely from Wales. [Opposition Cries of "Oh!"] I adduced the statements of five leading Welsh clergymen. As to the evidence of English clergymen or English laymen, who know nothing of Wales, I do not value it in the least.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid he was not concerned with the value which the hon. Baronet attached to the opinions of the English clergy. All he wished to show was that he had only quoted the opinions of four clergymen from Wales. With regard to the allocation scheme proposed by the Bill, the Conservative Members of the House were unanimously against it. His hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge had been accused of having misrepresented the numbers of the Calvinistic Methodists. Quoting from the Calvinistic Methodist Year Book for 1892–3, he gave them as 268,000. But they were said to be 292,000. Those figures were, however, arrived at by adding all the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists who resided in England. The President of the Board of Trade had said that the Church of England was a new Church at the time of Henry VIII., which had become possessed of property of the Roman Catholic Church. If it
  104
  was a new Church, it must have had its title by the approval of Parliament and the Crown, but no such thing had taken place. For the sake of argument he would admit that the President of the Board of Trade's proposition, that the Church of England in Wales was a new Church, was correct. What, then, became of the statements that the origin of tithes was buried in the mists of ages? If it was a new Church it must have had its title by the approval of Parliament and the Crown. No such thing, however, had taken place. The hon. Member for Radnor had argued that if the Church were disestablished no harm would be done, and the people of Wales would suffer no loss of their privileges. He had also said, that in one village there were 13 chapels. There was no doubt about the chapels; the chapels had been overbuilt on the assumption that the Church was going to remain in a lethargic condition, but that condition had disappeared. Then there was the question of the resident ministers. Was the qualification for a resident minister merely that he should preach a sermon on Sunday? He ventured to think that was not enough, and that resident ministers should minister both to the bodies and minds of the people. The dissenting ministers in these villages only ministered to the dissenters. There were many places which would be likely to lose their ministers if by this Bill the Church were Disestablished. It had been said, that the people of Wales would get very material advantages from the Bill; he ventured to think they would get very material disadvantages. It had been shown that the Church of England in Wales subscribed the greater proportion of the subscriptions and donations to the Voluntary Schools and Hospitals in the Principality. That was because their purses were released from the primary expenses of their churches. If, however, these endowments were spent on all the fanciful schemes which had been proposed, the churches would be obliged to devote their money to their own maintenance. He did not pretend to any special knowledge of Wales, but he was perfectly justified, as a member of the Church of England, in putting forward his views. Welsh Members knew perfectly well that in the main the clergymen of the Church of England in Wales were an influence

  105
  for good, but that influence would, in his opinion, be lost in many of the poorer parts of Wales if this Bill became law. The hon. Member for Radnor had said that the English Church in Wales raised £250,000, while the Welsh dissenters raised £400,000. He should have liked to know how much of that £400,000 was spent merely on the interest of the debts on the dissenting chapels. But apart from that, hon. Members could not have it both ways. These figures showed that either the church was in a miserable minority, but was doing its duty munificently and splendidly, or else the supporters of the Church of England in Wales formed a very material part of the community. This was a sample of the arguments advanced by the supporters of the Bill, who did not, he thought, show a proper spirit of fairness in approaching this question. He was grateful to hon. Members for the courtesy with which they had listened to his views, which he had felt bound to express, because he did not think the Church of England in Wales had been justly treated.
  SIR R. E. WEBSTERsaid, he rose to take part in the Debate with a feeling of considerable regret. He thought hon. and right hon. Members on that side of the House had serious cause of complaint with regard to the way in which the Debate had been conducted on behalf of the Government. There had been, at any rate since last Monday night, a conspiracy of silence on this question, undoubtedly by direction of the Government. It was unworthy of them. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, having honestly and fully put forward their views and arguments on the question, reasonably felt that they were entitled to some reply from the Front Bench. [The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: "It is the First Reading."] He would deal with that point in a moment. One of the ablest speeches ever heard in that House had been delivered on the question by the right hon. Member for Bristol, and it was scant courtesy to one in his position that absolutely no answer had been made from the Treasury Bench to that speech, though it was delivered early on Monday evening. As to the
  106
  interlocutory observation just now of the Solicitor General, he must say that he felt it his duty to protest against the way in which the Home Secretary endeavoured to discount everything that was said on the matter by hon. Members on the Opposition side, in debating the First Reading of the Bill, by telling them beforehand, with scarcely veiled contempt in his tone, that what they were going to do was to be regarded as another instance of the growing abuse of making a First Reading the occasion for a Second Reading Debate. Before the right hon. Gentleman thought fit by anticipation to rebuke his opponents in this way, he might have been, a little more careful to ascertain what was the Parliamentary practice on such occasions. From his own experience of that practice, which was at least as long as that of the right hon. Gentleman, and from careful reading, he could assert that on no single occasion had any Bill of a similar kind, and of equal importance, ever been introduced without the policy of the Government who brought in the Bill being explained to justify their action. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to assume, in his peculiar manner, that the course taken by hon. Members of the Opposition was to be regarded as, to a certain extent, obstructing the course of events, because they insisted on examining the policy of the Government. On not one of the three occasions that the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales had been brought before the House had the policy of the Government been explained, not even in the most casual manner. Was that in accordance with Parliamentary precedent? He challenged anyone of experience sitting on the Treasury Bench to justify that position. Was there anyone who had more respected or regarded the traditions of that House than the right hon. gentleman the Member for Midlothian? What was his utterance? And to this he would claim the attention of the Home Secretary, when lie thought fit to suggest that there was no necessity for him to discuss the policy of the Government in connaction with this proposed enormous constitutional change.

  107
  The right hon Member for Midlothian said in 1869:—
  "I cannot but be aware that under ordinary circumstances anyone who undertakes to introduce into the House of Commons a subject of grave constitutional change ought to commence by laying his ground strongly and broadly in historical and political reasons."
  The Home Secretary would observe also that, notwithstanding the extent to which the question had previously been debated, the right hon. Member for Midlothian occupied a considerable portion of his three-hour speech on introducing the fundamental change with regard to the Disestablishment of the Irish Church in laying before the House the reasons which prompted the then Government in the action they took. The same course had been pursued on every occasion when a similar change to that now proposed had been brought forward. The Home Secretary no doubt remembered the Introduction of the Land Bill in 1870, when again three quarters of an hour, or an hour, was occupied by the right hon. Member for Midlothian in expounding the grounds for that change of policy. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman, too, of what his own Leader said, when dealing with the introduction of the Crimes Bill in 1882—a Bill which had not infrequently been discussed in that House. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I shall best discharge the duty I have to perform if I endeavour to lay before the House the nature of the evils with which we have to deal, and the remedies which the Government are prepared to recommend for those evils."
  Was this not an occasion, then, to inquire into the motives which have prompted the Government to introduce a measure disestablishing and disendowing the oldest institution in the country? The Church was older than the Monarchy, and was more closely interwoven with their rights and privileges, moral and social, than any other institution that existed. He would endeavour to show presently why the Home Secretary had not been able to discuss the policy, and it would be remarkable, unless some Member of the Government rose and spoke after him, that that Debate would have opened and closed without the slightest exposition of the policy of the Government in bringing this question forward being placed before the country.
  108
  Ay or no—Was this an important occasion? Were right hon. Gentlemen entitled to treat the Church in Wales as though it were an isolated Church which had nothing to do with the Church as established in England? There was no statesman who had considered the question during the last 40 years who had not seen that in talking of the Church in Wales they were also talking of the Church in England, and that the question of the Church in England was vitally involved in all considerations affecting the Church in Wales. Geographically, historically, and spiritually the Church in Wales could not be distinguished from the other parts of the Province of Canterbury. It had no independent existence, it had no organic unity, apart from the Church of England; and those who dealt with the matter must be prepared to recognise that fact on the floor of the House, not on platforms of the country, where vapouring speeches could be made without the slightest probability of a reply. Was he justified in stating that the Church of England was involved in this question? It was not pleasure to quote from the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but in this matter it was important to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had changed his opinion that the Church in England and the Church in Wales were practically the same organisation. As recently as 1886 the right hon. Gentleman, on a Motion for Disestablishment brought forward by the late Mr. Dillwyn, said:—
  "The Church of England in Wales is so much an intregal part of the Established Church of England that it is not merely difficult, but I will say impossible, to raise the question as a separate one, and that you cannot deal with the one question—I do not mean by Resolution, but practically in Legislation without involving the other. I think it is a proposition which will commend itself to every man's mind that if you raise the question of the Church in Wales you raise the whole question."
  They had a ridiculous protest from the Home Secretary against what he called the abuse of turning the discussion into a Second Reading Debate. Where was his justification on the ground of policy, assuming the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be even to a small extent correct? Had they heard from the Government Bench a single word in favour of Disestablish-

  109
  ment of the Church in England as distinguished from the Church in Wales? No, they were in this position—that the Government were driven by the force of circumstances to admit that the attack was not one levelled solely against the Church in Wales, but levelled also against the Church in England. They knew that the battle whenever it came would be used as a strong argument in favour of or against the Disestablishment of the Church in England, but, they had not been able to bring forward a single argument in favour of the great scheme they had undertake. He meant on behalf of his friends and himself to put his protest on record and to make it clear that the Home Secretary could not possibly argue the question of policy in that House. If he did so he would have to deal with the question of an alien Church, and if he lent himself to the absurd suggestion that the Church in Wales was forced on an unwilling country by a conquering England he would have to get rid of the historic fact that the four dioceses of Wales had existed for centuries before Wales was conquered by England. Should the right hon. Gentleman attempt to put any other construction upon the word "alien" he asserted that, except from the point of view that there were a certain number of representatives from Wales asking for Disestablishment, no reasonable man would call the Church in Wales an alien Church. ["Oh!"] He would like to hear the arguments of those who shouted "Oh!" The right hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire when he referred the House to the testimony of a large number of ecclesiastics, should have told the House that he was referring to some number, less than ten, of Welsh clergymen, who were supposed to have declared against a National Church. But the Home Secretary was in another difficulty. Every lawyer and historian who had examined the question, had come independently to the conclusion that there was not the slightest ground for suggesting that the property of the Church did not belong to the Church, in the same way as the property of every private institution belonged to that institution. And the right hon. Gentleman would have had to make up his mind what case he should present to the House with regard to the property which
  110
  was to be taken from the Church. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would redeem his promise, and argue these questions in the House, though they were questions that arose on the introduction of the Bill, and not on the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman was hampered by the promises of the Prime Minister; but the Prime Minister had used expressions for which it was difficult to find justification. The Prime Minister made a speech on March 12 last year, in which he stated that there was a unanimous feeling in favour of the removal of this branch of the Church of England, which was alien to the country, and doing more harm than good to the cause of religion. Who was the slanderer who suggested to him that the Church in Wales was doing harm? Was there a man who valued his word, who would there and then get up and say that the Church had been doing harm to religion? Because, such statements, made on the floor of that House, must be justified by facts. For the last two years he had studied this question closely, and was prepared to assert that anyone acquainted with the facts could not say that injury had been done to the cause of religion by the existence, the growing activity, and the increasing earnestness, of the Welsh Church. The right hon. Gentleman had exercised a wise discretion in declining to justify the policy of Her Majesty's Government, for he would have been involved in difficulties which even his own Party would have made it almost impossible for him to overcome. But there was one argument, and one argument only, which ran through the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman whenever he ventured to approach the question, and the only vestige of an argument which pointed to the question of policy was, that every objection that could be urged against the Welsh Bill had been used before against the Irish Bill, and had then been settled by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Was there any justification for such a statement? Would the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who was such an accurate historian, attempt to justify such a statement, for no doubt he had studied the speeches of 1869? The distinction between the Churches of Ireland and Wales was over and over again pointed

  111
  out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian; and the reason which was given for Disestablishing the Irish Church was because she did not fulfil those functions which the Church of England did towards the persons whose interest she had at heart. He thought that some powerful arguments in support of the Welsh Church could be found in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, and however much they might have differed with that right hon. Gentleman, they were satisfied that the utterances he made with respect to the Welsh Church were utterances of conviction and founded upon his personal knowledge of the history of the Church. He said of the Irish Church that it was doing, and only hoping to do, the work of the few; he said of the Welsh Church that it was doing much, with the hope and prospect of doing more. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Irish Church was severed from the affections of the people; that the Welsh Church was a broad and loving way to the hearts of the people; and, again, the language of the right hon. Member, speaking of the Irish Church, was that 4–5ths of the people supported Roman Catholicism over Protestantism, while in Wales there was constant interchange between the Established Church and the Nonconformist bodies; and that the Established Church was the Mother Church, out of which had sprung the whole of the religious life in that part of the country. He should not have quoted the language of the right hon. Gentleman if he had not satisfied himself that his inferences and conclusions were accurate, and he wished to know whether hon. Members from Wales would be pleased to dispute such statements, founded as they were upon the deliberate opinion of one whose long experience entitled him to their respect. There was one other general argument which had not been referred to in the course of the Debate. Some hon. Members had spoken of the Church as though it had been opposed to the national sentiment, but had the Welsh language done much or little to keep up the spirit of nationality in Wales? It had done a great deal, but he wondered how many of the representatives of Wales were able to speak their own language. If his statement were not correct there would be an opportunity of
  112
  correcting it between this and the Second Reading of the Bill; but he thought he was safe in saying that only 18 out of the 33 representatives of Wales were able to carry on a conversation in the Welsh tongue. Could hon. Members from Wales deny that the preservation of the Welsh language had been due in a considerable degree to the Church? The Church, in fact, had preserved the Welsh language, and there was no one who looked into the subject who could contradict that. The Church for centuries preserved the Welsh language. They knew as well as he did the names of Davis and Morgan, two Welsh Bishops. Then had the Church done nothing for the national education of the Welsh people? Did the Welsh Members refer to these facts? Not at all. They preferred to observe a judicious silence on these questions. He advised hon. Members to consult the reports of the Charity Commissioners from 1843 to 1881. It was through the Welsh Endowed Schools that the Welsh language was taught. Was that a work directed towards the preservation of the national life of Wales, or was it not? He was quoting simply from his own reading, and he asserted that these facts pointed to the irresistible conclusion that the Church had not only done a great deal to preserve the Welsh language in its purest form, but had, by private education, brought to the front many eminent Welshmen. Not only that, the Church had brought back those eisteddfods for which Wales was well known. So far, therefore, from the Church being an enemy of the national life of Wales it was by that Church that the national aspirations had been fostered. Yes; that was so. Their complaint was that they had not discussed the subject and could not discuss it. They were asked to accept the Bill at the dictation of the Government because, forsooth, the Parliamentary representation of Wales was in favour of it. How far was that question of Parliamentary representation to be carried? They had London, with 4,000,000, against Wales, with 1,500,000. [An hon. MEMBER: "750,000."] 1,750,000 by all means. It was the first time that the hon. Members opposite had been able to correct him in a statement of fact. He asked what was the

  113
  population of London? Would the representation of London be any justification, any argument, for the Disestablishment of the Church in London? Establishments were not to be blown down or put up again by the dictates of Members of Parliament. No. Let Ministers justify their policy on the ground of morality, but do not let them come forward and say that it was necessary to obey the behests of a certain number of Members, and that if they did not obey those behests they could not remain in power. This question had assumed a position which he never expected it would assume from the extraordinary utterances of the Prime Minister, who, going down to Cardiff, felt it to be necessary to speak on the question of Disestablishment. The language of the Prime Minister was the most extraordinary that could have come from one in his position. He said:—
  "If it is really the national wish to recognise religion in the shape of an establishment, there is nothing absolutely immoral in the carrying out of that wish."
  Had the discussion fallen so low as this, that a Church which had existed upwards of a thousand years, which had unquestionably done a great work in the past in the building up and fostering of the religious life of the nation, that had been the handmaid of all good work, was to be spoken of as something not absolutely immoral if you allowed it to remain established? It was extraordinary, in the face of these allegations respecting the policy of Her Majesty's Government, they should have had nothing from the Government as to the standpoint which the Prime Minister had taken up with regard to the duty of the Government. He had dealt as clearly as could be with this question of policy, because he was convinced no greater question was ever brought before the House of Commons. Whether the Opposition was right or wrong, whether the question was to be regarded as one which ought to be decided with reference to the Church in Wales or with reference to the Church in England, he was satisfied that it was, and is, incumbent on the House of Commons to have from her Majesty's Ministers a clear exposition of the policy which led them to propose
  114
  this change; they ought, not to allow their action to be dictated by hon. Members below the gangway, or her Majesty's Ministers to shelter themselves behind the opinions of Members from Wales, who had forced this question upon them. The Home Secretary had indicated that he was abusing the practice of the House by discussing the question of the policy of the measure on the First Reading; but he respectfully differed from the right hon. Gentleman, and believed, from precedent and experience, that his own was the truer Parliamentary position. No doubt he should transgress if he were, to discuss details; but there were certain broad questions that demanded consideration at this stage. First, he entered a protest against the monstrous proposal as to the distribution of these Church funds. On what ground did the right hon. Gentleman abandon the idea of accumulating money or sav-ing it as a central fund out of which national purposes might be met? The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) disposed of the argument that the Irish Church Fund had heen swamped, and he showed that, so far from its being so, a large part of the capital still existed, although it had been applied to objects of public importance and utility. The course now proposed was to hand over local property as a bribe to local authorities. The question raised with reference to Tithes was disposed of in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the occasion of the introduction, of the Bill last year; and he was surprised that the Home Secretary did not think it his duty to make some answer to the objections which the Leader of the Opposition had advanced. Was he aware that exactly the same objections applied to the manner of dealing with the glebes? It was proposed that the emoluments of the Church derived from glebe should be handed over for the benefit of the parish or district. He had not examined the question as fully as it required to be examined, but he had obtained some facts which were worthy of consideration. In North Wales there were 350 parishes; in 1887 there was a population of 200,645 without any glebe at all; in 20 others there was a population of 9,790 with 2,048 acres of glebe. Could anything be more ridiculous than that

  115
  the parishes with 200,000 people should get no glebe at all and nothing representing the value of it? The House would surely pause before it allowed such a monstrous disposition of glebe to be passed. The non-creation of a central fund could not be justified on any ground of economy or proper application of the money, and it was essential that there should be a strong protest against this distribution of the money. Then were they not entitled to enter a protest against the way in which curates were to be treated? It was all very well to say, in the language of a lawyer, that they had looked for a freehold estate or office, did not find any such tenure, and could recognise no other. Was that the way in which men who had devoted their lives to religious work ought to be dealt with? If the Government justified their action on the ground that the same course was taken in respect of the Irish Church, why did they not also adopt the same course as was taken with the Irish curates? Were the Welsh curates less deserving? Had they not done their work as well? Was it not perfectly well known that hundreds of them had qualified for their duties by proficiency in the Welsh language, and that for many years Bishops had insisted in many districts in Wales that the curates should be competent to speak the Welsh language; yet, notwithstanding all this, these men were to be dismissed with absolutely no notice and no compensation. He also protested against the cathedrals being handed over to a body, no member of which need be a member of the Church of England. Did the Home Secretary know that the Cathedrals of St. David's, Bangor, and Landaff were also parish churches? What justification was there for these churches being handed over to a Commission when all other parish churches were left in the custody of the Ministers? Probably the justification for the scheme of the Government was to be found in the fact that these parish churches had been enriched by upwards of £100,000, the money of Churchmen, in the last 50 years—a circumstance which gave an indication of the way in which this question had been approached. He maintained that these cathedrals should be taken from the Church and treated as belonging to the
  116
  nation in a sense different from that in which the other parish churches were treated. He refrained from dealing at that stage with the question of the burial grounds, but he failed to understand why the churchyards and burial grounds were to be severed from the church. If it was said that this action was due to the fact that the Welsh people desired to bury their dead with Nonconformist rites, he asserted that every statistic was against them. He thought it was a lamentable fact that the Bill of the right hon. Member for East Denbighshire had been a complete failure.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he explained when he moved the Bill that it would be of very slight operation in Wales, because all the Dissenting chapels in Wales had their own burial grounds.
  SIR R. E. WEBSTER,in that case, asked what was the reason for handing over the churchyards under this Bill. In this circumstance, as revealed by the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman, the House had an indication of the spirit in which the question of the Welsh Church was being approached. Dealing next with the purposes provided in the Schedule of the Bill, he said that the Home Secretary stated that the purposes to which the Church funds were to be applied were as religious in their nature as those to which they had previously been applied. But whether this was the money of the Church or not, it was to be appropriated to purposes that were certainly secular as compared with those for which it was given. Labourers' dwellings and allotments! That was one of the purposes. Was it not perfectly obvious that a bribe was there? Labourers' cottages and allotments, which would have the direct effect of cheapening rents and lowering rates or relieving the poor landowner of the duty of providing proper cottages for the labourers. It was transparent, it was perfectly obvious, that this was an attempt, first to conciliate the Welsh Members and then to conciliate the constituencies behind them. He did not know what might be the feeling of the House with regard to the course to be taken on the First Reading of this Bill. For himself he thought that, having entered a firm and emphatic protest

  117
  against the action of the Government, they would not be justified in forcing the Government to a Division, because it was admitted that it was the duty of the Government to lay before the House of Commons the measures indicated in the Queen's Speech. But it must not be suggested that the Opposition were reconciled in the slightest degree, either to the principles or provisions of this Bill. The Home Secretary had said that some day or other, at the time, he was pleased to say, was the proper time, he was going to argue the question of policy and give the House the reasons why Her Majesty's Government had introduced this measure. The House would then have an opportunity of answering the right hon. Gentleman, a better opportunity than they had at present, because they would then know the details of the measure of which they were now ignorant. He declined to take any part or lot in discussing the details of the measure, except subject to the protest which he now solemnly entered against the scheme for disestablishing this part of the Church. He declined to join in enfeebling an institution which had for centuries been the guiding light of religious education; he declined to appropriate to selfish and secular purposes property which had for centuries been devoted to religious work, he might say to God; he declined to take part in that which he believed to be a purely political agitation, without any foundation of justice or equity to support it, and would to a large extent destroy those springs of morality, religion, and truth which had, through the Church, existed for centuries.
  MR. ABEL THOMASwished, with the leave of the House, to make a personal explanation. His hon. and learned Friend earlier in the evening had called his attention to something he had said in correction of the hon. Member for Tunbridge. He found that the hon. Gentleman was right and he was himself wrong. The hon. Member had said that the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists in Wales numbered 267,000, and he had corrected him and said that they numbered 292,000. His mistake was that
  118
  he had taken the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists in England as well as in Wales. The hon. Member for Tunbridge was right and he was wrong, and therefore he thought he ought to mention the matter to the House.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCK, (Aberdeen S.)said, he would be very sorry if it were supposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, or any one who opposed the Bill, that the silence observed on the Treasury Bench since his right hon. Friend had introduced the measure, had been due to any want of respect for the arguments addressed to the House, to many, indeed to all, of which they had listened with attention. The reason of the Government was that having, as they conceived, sufficiently stated the general ground of the policy on which they introduced the Bill, and also stated the details of the scheme, they thought it better that their fuller arguments of policy should be reserved for the usual stage of Second Reading, and that the justification of the particular measure should be reserved partly for that stage and partly for the Committee stage. He must enter his protest against the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary treated this matter or the feelings of those opposed to the Bill with indifference in making a comparatively short statement as to the scope and ground of the Bill. What were the facts? This was no new matter. The hon. and learned Member referred to previous occasions in the last Parliament when this matter was before the House. Everyone would remember the speech if the right hon. Member for Midlothian in which he explained with great force the reasons which had convinced him that the views which he had formerly held with regard to the Established Church in Wales could no longer be maintained. Even in the present Parliament the subject was now being debated for the third time. In 1893 the Home Secretary introduced the Suspensory Bill in a long speech, and last year, in introducing the measure then brought

  119
  forward, he delivered a speech that occupied nearly two hours. In these circumstances the Government was perfectly justified in adopting the views that the House knew quite well what were the grounds of their policy. Hon. Members also knew that this discussion was merely the precursor of a larger Debate on the Second Reading, when the selfsame arguments would be adduced, and when the Government would be able to meet them with a greater fulness than was possible now. The hon. and learned Member who had just sat down said that the Church of England was vitally involved in this measure. That, in fact, had been the chorus note of the Front Opposition Bench. No right hon. or hon. Member, however, had pointed out any particular respect in which any clergyman or layman of the Church of England in any diocese in England would suffer. [Several Opposition MEMBEES— "Monmouth."] Monmouth, as hon. Members must know, was virtually part of Wales, and had been treated as part of Wales under statute: for example, Monmouth was included in Wales under the Intermediate Education Act. He was entitled to say, until the contrary should be proved, that the Church in England in her spiritualities and temporalities, in her ecclesiastical and spiritual life, remained untouched and unharmed by this Bill. Nor could it be alleged that the Bill was levelled against the Church of England. On the contrary, every argument which the Government had used in support of the measure had been an argument which was confined in its application to the case of Wales. What was the principal ground upon which the Home Secretary founded his Suspensory Bill of 1893? He founded it upon the demand of the Welsh people; upon the fact that there came from Wales a demand which was not made in England, and which was based upon grounds that did not exist in England. The hon. and learned Member might have quoted that significant passage in the speech of the right hon. Member for Midlothian in the Debate of 1891—the passage in which he declared that this
  120
  question in Wales had attained the proportions of a national demand. No one who had watched the way in which the Welsh majorities in support of this policy had gone on increasing, and who realised how this one question covered the whole sky of Welsh politics, could doubt that the Welsh Members, in making this demand, were speaking the voice of the whole Welsh people. The hon. and learned Member compared the case of Wales with the case of London, and asked whether the opinions of the people of London or of Yorkshire were also to be taken as conclusive in matters of this kind. The hon. and learned Member said that if London or Yorkshire, through its representatives, were to make such a demand as this it would certainly be refused. But did not that point to the great difference between the position of Whales and that of any other part of the United Kingdom? The Welsh people were the remains of of the most ancient inhabitants of these islands. They were excluded from the rest of what was now England by the incoming of a foreign and heathen people. They were driven into the fastnesses of their western mountains, and there they preserved their national habits and customs, their language, poetry, and literature, and a character which was in many respects fundamentally different from that of the English people. It was not surprising that a people so circumstanced, by the misfortunes and oppressions to which they were at one time subjected, by the very poverty and hardships of their lot, cherished their own literature and national recollections; it was not unnatural that they should have followed the teachings of ministers who preached to them in a way which suited their character, their feelings, and their temper better than the ninisters of the Established Church; that they should have formed themselves into different religious communities, and should have been drawn away from that which he admitted was their original National Church. But they had been drawn away. He defied anyone who had studied their history, lived among them, and understood their character, genius, and

  121
  temper, to ignore the fact that they were now for many purposes so entirely different from the population of any circumscription of England that they were entitled to be called a nation, and that no argument drawn from any equivalent circumscription of England was of any effect in reply to their national demand. Of course the facts of the Irish Church were in many respects different from those of Wales, but he would call attention to one remarkable point on which the two cases did agree, and that was in prophesyings and arguments. The prophecies of evils and the arguments used to show that Disestablishment in Ireland would be a wicked thing, spoliation and robbery, were exactly the same arguments as the House heard now. Then, as now, they were told it was sacrilege to lay hands on the property of the Church. But the House of Commons of that day did not yield to those arguments, nor even the House of Lords. The House of Lords, under the wiser guidance which it had in those days, yielded to the express will of the nation, and that Act, in spite of all the cries of plunder and spoliation, took its place upon the Statute Book, and everybody who knew the country would admit that Ireland had been better for that Act. ["Oh!" and cheers.] It was said then that the Disestablishment of the Church of Ire-was the first nail in the coffin of the Church of England. Twenty-five years had passed since then, and would any hon. Member say that at this moment the Church of England was any weaker or any nearer to being disestablished, had any less stronghold on the affections of the people, than she had in 1869? The fact was, Disestablishment in each country must be judged, and ought to be judged, upon the circumstances of the country only, and the ground upon which Her Majesty's Government put this case was that there was in regard to Wales a national demand. They had not said a word about England, because they did not say there was a national demand in the case of England. Those hon. Members who appealed to the case of Ireland must feel that not one of the doleful prophecies
  122
  foretold in 1869 had been fulfilled. It was said then that religion would not support itself, that Ireland would become a lawless country, and that it was only with State recognition that a nation retained the right to consider itself a God-fearing nation. Would anyone say that in Ireland religion had suffered since 1869? They knew, on the contrary, that the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland was in no respects weaker, but was in many respects stronger than she was in 1869. They knew that the ecclesiastical and spiritual life which freedom had stimulated among her members had been of the greatest possible service to her; and he would go further and say he thought there was no evidence whatever that the contributions which her members had made to various philanthrophic objects since her Disestablishment in 1869 had been, considering the impoverishment of the country, land depression, and other difficulties, at all less than before Disestablishment. On the contrary, that which was to be expected had happened, and the stimulus which was given by Disestablishment and by throwing the Church upon the liberality of the believers who attended its ministrations had done good to the Church, and instead of weakening had strengthened it. He passed over several points in the speech of the hon. and learned Member as not calling for serious reply, and he came to one or two points in which criticism had been made upon particular parts of the Bill. It was said that they did not propose to deal with the case of curates in the same way as they were dealt with in Ireland. There were some examples to follow and some to avoid, and if ever there was an example to avoid it was the example of that provision for Irish curates under which such an extravagant amount of compensation was paid to persons, many of whom entered the ministry for the express purpose of getting compensation. He hoped they should not follow any such example. He was sincerely anxious that no curate should suffer, and he would venture to point out there was no reason to think there would be

  123
  any substantially less demand for curates in the future than there had been in the past. His own belief was, that it would be found in 20 years that the parish churches in Wales would be quite as well endowed, and the ministers quite as well paid, as at this moment; and the very fact that the process they proposed to start was to be a gradual process, under which incumbents would retain their cures as long as they chose to do so, would prevent any sudden cessation of employment of curates. He did not see any reason to apprehend that the position of a curate would be substantially worse after this Bill passed than it was now. He was reminded that their plan for the Disestablishing Fund, was not the same as was followed in the case of Ireland, but he thought that the Irish plan was again an example to avoid. In the Irish case all the money was collected in one large central fund, which became a sort of mark at which everyone aimed an arrow; and, although a certain part of the fund had been still reserved in capital form for public purposes, a great deal had gone for purposes which could scarcely have been originally contemplated. He thought it would be a great pity if the fund in the case of the Welsh Church should be exposed to the constant attacks which were made on the Irish Church Fund. He would put it to the House whether it was not better that these emoluments, arising from tithes which had a purely local origin, should prima facie be spent and applied to the benefit of the place whence they came? That, he thought, was a principle which commended itself as having some reasonable and historical justification. It would be open to the House at any future time to capitalise the fund. The Government thought it better that, in starting, the money should be spent where it arose, and subject to proper provisions for enabling money in some cases to be spent over the area of a county instead of in one place, where it might not be so largely needed. It was alleged that the purposes contemplates were secular purposes. The Irish Church money was spent on equally secular
  124
  purposes, and he claimed the Irish Church case as a Parliamentary precedent. What Parliament did in 1869 it might do in 1895; and that which Parliament thought was no robbery or plunder 26 years ago was no robbery or plunder now. As to the cathedrals, some hon. Members seemed to suppose that the cathedrals were going to be withdrawn in some way from what he might call the Unestablished Church of the future. Nothing of the kind was proposed. The Bill proposed to vest the cathedrals in the Welsh Commissioners, and the obligation and duty was laid on those Commissioners of allowing the cathedrals to be used, as heretofore, for the public worship of what would be the Protestant Episcopalian Church of Wales. He could not see what there was to complain of in that. In addition a fund would be placed at the disposal of the Commissioners out of which they would keep the fabrics in repair, the duty being imposed upon them of keeping the fabrics in proper repair. He could not refrain from referring to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol made upon what he called this piecemeal method of Disendowment. Objection might be taken to any method adopted in a large and difficult enterprise of this kind, but the Government hoped to be able to convince the House that, on the whole, the advantages of what the right hon. Gentleman called a piecemeal method—that was to say, of letting the incumbent retain a vested interest for his life and discharge his duties—were greater than those of the course followed in the case of the Irish Church. As to discipline, it would be found that the Bill made ample provision for the maintenance of the discipline of the Disestablished Church. He could not conclude without making a few observations upon the reference which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol made to some remarks of his upon the Reformation in England. Nobody who had followed even in outline the history of the 16th century would say there was a pulling down of one Church and the setting up of another, and he had never

  125
  thought of conveying any such view. [An hon. MEMBER "Lord Rosebery did."] Nor did Lord Rosebery. He had the pleasure of listening to Lord Rosebery at Cardiff, and he asserted with confidence that no such interpretation could be put on the word of the Prime Minister. Everyone knew that the legal and historical continuity of what was called the Roman Catholic Church and of the Protestant Church was complete. The argument was that the changes which were made at the epoch before the Reformation were so great, consisting in a complete change of doctrine, in the ejection of a great many ministers and bishops, in compelling the supremacy of the Sovereign instead of the Pope to be accepted, of the passing of statutes which they all regarded as intolerable and harsh and which completely revolutionized the religious condition of England, that the dealing with endowments was a matter of far greater importance than anything that was being attempted now. He was much surprised to find that so many hon. Members had spoken as if in this matter the Government were dealing with the life of the Church in Wales. The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, for instance, spoke throughout as if he thought the life and being of the Welsh Church was at stake; he spoke of them putting an end to an institution which had 1,300 years of life in hand. They were going to change a Church that had hitherto been Established, into a Disestablished Church. That was to say, they were going to put that Church into the same position in which many of the most prosperous Christian Churches of the world were at this moment. How could it be suggested that that was putting an end to the Church? How could it be suggested that the life of a Church which had lasted 300 years was threatened by a change of that kind? Did any one say that the Protestant Episcopalian Church of Ireland had suffered by being Disestablished in 1869; or that the Protestant Episcopalian Church of America, which was a growing and nourishing Church, had suffered by being disestablished more than 100 years ago? Did
  126
  any one say that the spiritual life of the Protestant Episcopalian Church of the Colonies came to an end when that Church was disestablished? He could not express the astonishment he felt that hon. Members like the noble Lord, who were so devoted to the Church, who had such faith in the power of the Church and in her spiritual claim and title, should be able to regard for a moment with alarm and despondency the change contemplated by the Bill. It was with no such feelings that the Government introduced the Bill, They should not have brought forward the Bill; and he could not be a party to it, if he did not believe that 20 years hence every member of the Protestant Church in Wales would thank the Government for the Bill; and that the Church in Wales would have a career far brighter, far purer, and far more useful than she had at this moment.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid, the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh never said, and never intended to say, that the spiritual life of the Church could be done away with by any Act of Parliament.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Asquith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Bryce, and Mr. Solicitor General.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Bill to terminate the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof.
  Presented accordingly and read 1°. To be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]
  SIR M. E. HICKS-BEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to the period which must necessarily be allowed to elapse before the Bill is placed on the Paper with a view to taking the Second Reading?
  MR. ASQUITH: Certainly not for a fortnight.

  GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHasked what business the Government proposed to take on Friday and Monday?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. J. MORLEY,: To-morrow we propose to take two or three non-contentious but useful Bills—the Factory Bill, the Truck Bill, the Conciliation in Trades Disputes Bill, and the Scotch County Government Bill; and on Monday I hope to introduce the Irish Land Bill.

  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee;
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3:—
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress—
  Resolved,—That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
  Bill further considered in Committee—
  Question again proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  The House went into Committee on the above Bill.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID in the Chair.
  Clause 6.
  MR. T. SEXTONsaid the Chief Secretary had promised to consider the question of the time to be allowed to the Guardians, and to the occupiers to whom advances would be made by the Guardians, for the repayment of the advances. The loan was to be repaid by two equal instalments—the first to be paid on August 1 of next
  128
  year, and the second on August 1, 1897; so that, so far as the Guardians were concerned, there was a period of two years allowed. Clause 6 provided for the repayment by the occupier to the Boards of Guardians, in two instalments, and payable when the first ordinary rate was struck after 1st July in the present year and the following year. That rate was usually struck in August or September.
  It being now Twelve of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair, and the House resumed.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne) moved, "That the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Seed Potatoes Supply (Ireland) Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  MR. T. SEXTONresuming, said, that the repayment would become due before the occupiers had realised the value of the property. Any occupier would be liable to be pressed for the payment of his first instalment by the Boards of Guardians in the August of this year; and for his second instalment in August of next year, so that his assured period of repayment was only 1½ not 2 years. Owing to the prevalent high prices, the payment of the instalments would consume half the crop in each year, and this would be a great hardship and oppression to the small occupiers. He had recently been among the people of Kerry, and they had urged him to beg for some extension of the Bill in this respect. He proposed to alter "2" to "3," so as to make the loans repayable in three equal instalments. He knew that a subsequent clause allowed the Lord Lieutenant to give a term of grace to any particular Board or occupier. But that proposal would be very cumbersome, and it might not meet cases of great need. This was only a small matter as far as the Government were concerned.
  Mr. J. MORLEYexplained that he did not think the hardship anticipated would arise, and, having consulted those who had had experience on former occa-

  129
  sions, he regretted that he must adhere to the provision in the Bill.
  SIR M. E. HICKS-BEACHconcurred in the decision of the Chief Secretary, but hoped that, after the facilities that had been given for Government business, the consideration of the matter would be postponed if there was to be any further discussion on it.
  MR. T. SEXTONrose to express his regret at the decision of the Chief Secretary, but cries of "Progress" were raised on the Conservative benches.
  Progress then reported.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  MR. J. W. CROMBIE*MR. J. W. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire) moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her Assent to Ordinance No. 57 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, until it be revised, by leaving out Section (xii.) of the Ordinance."
  He apologised to the House for detaining them at that late hour, but his object was to remove from the perpetuation of an Act of Parliament matters which he thought were small enough to be safely entrusted to Local Authorities like the Universities themselves. The Ordinance to which he took exception applied to all the four Universities of Scotland, but it applied to the Aberdeen University in an extraordinary degree. This Ordinance dealt with the subject of Bursaries. A Bursary was a Scholarship, which was gained on entering a University and held by students during their University career; and in the University of Aberdeen, it would be no great exaggeration to say, that there were almost as many Bursaries as students. So nearly, at all events, was this the case that every student who went up to the University had a reasonable hope of winning a Bursary. A consequence of the Bursary system was, that the subjects which paid at the Bursary Examination were exclusively those taught at all the training schools that fed the Universities. The Bursary Examination not only reflected its shadow backwards on all the schools, but forwards on the University curriculum. By Ordinance No. 11 no student
  130
  could take any language for his degree which he had not passed in at his Entrance Examination, and in Aberdeen the Entrance Examination was synonymous with the Bursary Examinations. Whatever subjects were laid down for the Bursary competition would be the subjects that would regulate the secondary education of the district, and would influence the University curriculum itself. The part of the Ordinance to which he took exception indicated what those subjects were to be. The Commissioners had laid down that no student should select more than five of those subjects, which were placed under two categories—compulsory and optional. The compulsory subjects were English, Latin, and Mathematics; and the optional were Greek, French, German, Italian, and Dynamics. It was strange that science should be represented in the list by one subject only, and that subject Dynamics. For the compulsory subjects double marks (400) were given, and for all the optional subjects, except one, 200 marks—the exception being Greek, and for that subject 400 marks were given. How would this work out? Take two students, a boy and a girl, going into the competition; the boy taking Greek, and the girl Modern Languages as special subjects. Each of them would get 1,200 marks for the compulsory subjects. The girl would get 400 more for French and German, making 1,600 marks altogether, the total she was allowed to get. The boy took Greek, and with an extra subject, say Dynamics, which he was allowed to take, could thus bring his marks up to 1,800. Now, for one student to compete with the possibility of making 1,600 marks only, while another student had the possibility of making 1,800, meant the difference between a Bursary and no Bursary at all. The effect of the Ordinance would be to prohibit students in some cases from entering the Universities. Moreover, the consequence of the system would be that, while Greek and Latin would be favoured by students for the Bursary competition, French and German would be neglected in the schools and in the University curriculum. That was a state of matters of which the

  131
  people of Aberdeen made serious complaint. He wondered how the Commissioners proposed to justify it. He believed the principle on which they based their action was, that Greek was twice as difficult to learn as French or German, and therefore double marks were given for it. But was the Greek paper at the Bursary competition twice as difficult as the French or German paper? He might show by statistics that such was not the fact, but his case was strong enough without doing so. Even granting that Greek was twice as difficult to learn as French or German, the fact would not touch his argument. If there is anything in the argument at all about Greek being double as difficult as French or German, it would cut the other way. If it is true that it took a man double the time to learn Greek that he would spend in acquiring French, why did they allow him to take up, in addition to this difficult subject, an extra subject and bring the marks up to 1,800. Now, another argument was this: They said that they were defending the poor against the rich. They said that the rich man's son could go to France and Germany and learn those languages there. Well, he was pleased to say that it was a well known tradition in the University of Aberdeen, that when a rich man got a Bursary he passed it by and handed it down to his poor neighbour. But was it a fact that going to France or Germany to learn those languages was an advantage? Why, they were answered over and over again that the reverse was the case, and it stood to common sense. He knew that from his own experience, a man might, by that means, obtain greater colloquial capacity, but if he had to pass an examination as to grammar, syntax, and literature, it would be altogether different. As to those things, a man would do better to stop at home. It was also contended that this ordinance took a great step forward, and that it was a great improvement. He contended that that was not the case. He did not ask them to accept his humble authority, but he quoted Professor Ramsay in favour of the view he took.
  132
  Hon. Members might imagine, and he had been told that he was there to champion modern languages. But that was not so. He was there for the purpose of championing the cause of his University against a measure which would be seriously deleterious to it. Public opinion was gradually setting against the compulsory enforcement of Latin and Greek in our University courses, and the shrinking in the number of Art Students in the Scottish Universities could only be attributed to the fact that they went to other places where the study of the dead languages was not forced upon them. He regretted the position which the Commissioners had taken up in regard to this matter, but who was going to support them in the House on that occasion? Two of those Commissioners sat in the House; and it seemed to him that the only support they would receive would be from quarters which were not exactly progressive in their views. He had been blamed for bringing the matter before the House of Commons, but the University for which he was speaking had done everything within their power before taking this final step. They had petitioned in the sense of his Amendment, but the Commissioners had taken no notice whatever. True, other Universities had not moved in the matter, but then it did not affect them to the same extent. A University which had few or no competitive Bursaries could afford to sit easily under the ordinance. Cantabit vacuus coram latrone viator. An appeal to the Privy Council had been suggested, but they had had enough of appealing to the Privy Council, and preferred coming to the House of Commons, a step which was deemed necessary in the interests of an institution which would be seriously endangered by the enforcement of the ordinance of which he had to complain.
  MR. D. CRAWFORDsaid, the hon. Member had done ample justice, both in the matter of argument and of rhetoric, to the cause which he advocated. He rose to answer him because he happened to be a Member of the Bursary Committee of the Commission. He regretted the absence of his

  133
  two colleagues, the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow and Aberdeen, and the hon. Member for Ipswich. He was authorised by them to state in the strongest language their concurrence with the Ordinance which had been passed unanimously by the Commission, and their opposition to the present Motion. That Motion was a little unusual in form, for it asked that the Commission should revise the Ordinance. They had no power under the Act to revise the Ordinance; all that could be done was to move Her Majesty to withhold her Assent to it. The question, however, had been raised clearly enough by the speech of the hon Member. It had been represented by him that the action of the Commission had been to give an undue preference to the study of Greek over Modern Languages, and to do so contrary to the customs and requirements of Aberdeen University. When the Commissioners undertook the duties laid upon them they found Greek an indispensable requisite to obtaining the degree of Master of Arts. The Commissioners found that Modern Languages had no place whatever in the obtaining of a degree; and they placed Greek as an optional subject and Modern Languages as optional too. They found the Bursaries in precisely the same situation, that is, that Greek was a necessary and compulsory subject to obtain a Bursary at all; indeed it was still a compulsory subject; and it was by the free action of the Commission that Greek would no longer be a compulsory subject in University competitions and for graduation. It was true that, in introducing Modern Languages as voluntary subjects, they had thought it necessary to secure that Greek and Modern Languages should be taken at their proper relative values, and it was their action in that respect that was called in question. The hon. Member seemed to think that if you included Modern Languages you must make them take as good a position as any other subject; but that was an untenable and an extravagant proposition. It had never been done in any similar case,
  134
  such for instance as the Indian Civil Service Examination, in which there was great variation in the numbers of marks for different subjects. A still nearer illustration was afforded by two munificent bequests which had done much to foster education in Aberdeen and the adjacent counties; and under these bequests £2 per student was given for the teaching of Greek and Latin and £1 for German and French. Yet the Commissioners were told they were interfering with the needs and arrangements of Aberdeen University. It was one of the most important and difficult parts of their work to regulate the relations between the Schools and the University. It was their duty to see that, while they admitted what an American witness called "soft" subjects into the curriculum of the University, the "soft" subjects did not drive out the hard subjects, and that due value should be assigned to one and to the other so as to make them effectively and substantially equal. More than that they had not done. He need not assure the House that, in seeing this equal justice done, they had no prejudice against the modern side of education, which was well represented in the Commission. They had the President of the Royal Society, and the hon. Member for South Manchester (Sir H. Roscoe), a distinguished man of science. To a certain extent, also, the Commissioners had the guidance of a Commission of Inquiry of 1878, also consisting of eminent men, who had recommended that the door should be opened to every form of intellectual culture. The Commissioners had adopted that principle, and all they had done in the matter of Bursaries was to guard it by the condition which he had mentioned. The hon. Member said that a lad could not proceed to graduation unless he had passed a preliminary examination in one of the subjects, but it should not be forgotten that the lad might take the preliminary examination at any time. It was further said that the Commissioners ought to have left this matter to the discretion of the Senatus. But the Commissioners felt it to be their duty when they opened these avenues

  135
  to those easier subjects, also to take precautions that that liberty should not result in the entire extinction of studies in the higher literature in the Scottish Universities. Reference had been made to the Universities Committee of the Privy Council; and he could not help asking, why did not the hon. Member and his friends avail themselves of the appeal to the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, which was conferred by the Act. His hon. Friend was not accurate in saying that the University authorities in Aberdeen petitioned. They only exercised the statutory right to lodge objections to this statute before it was passed by the Commissioners as an Ordinance. The Aberdeen authorities only lodged one objection; they claimed for themselves the liberty to deal with this matter at their own discretion. If they had stated any of the detailed objections mentioned that evening, those objections would have received the most respectful consideration; but they were not made. In their Ordinance the Commissioners had been much indebted to the suggestions of the different University bodies. No such objections as his hon. Friend had taken were laid before the Commissioners. The only thing the hon. Member and his friends did was to claim the right to regulate this thing for themselves and to that the Commissioners found themselves unable to agree. In conclusion, he wished to say that it was not possible to argue this case as it ought to be argued at that hour of the night. Moreover, the House of Commons was not the proper tribunal before which to bring the case. The Act of Parliament gave an Appellate Court which sat at midday and not at midnight, and which would, if required, go calmly and deliberately into the case. The hon. Gentleman and his friends had declined to avail themselves of that court, and had brought the matter before the House at a time when it could not be discussed. This was not a case in which the House of Commons could wisely or properly interfere with the discretion they had committed to the Commissioners. If the Commissioners
  136
  had not opened the door as they had done to every kind of intellectual culture, it would have been very proper for the House of Commons to pronounce an opinion; but when they had done that, then the House had no right to interfere with them in a matter which, though to his hon. Friend it was a matter of detail, from the point of view of the Commissioners was vital. He begged the House to remember the constitution of this Commission. It was a Parliamentary Commission appointed by the House of Commons. It was not merely a Commission appointed by a Minister. Its composition was canvassed and even altered by the House, and accordingly the Commissioners were the servants of the House whom the House had charged with a particular duty which it could not undertake itself. They asked as public servants to receive the support they ought to receive, and he doubted not that they would receive that support. If objection had been taken in a question of large policy it might have been a different thing; but the Commissioners in the course of five years had woven a web for the reform of University Education in Scotland, and he asked the House not, suddenly in a quarter of an hour, to make a hole in it, and ask them to tear it up. He left the case in the hands of the House with the greatest confidence.
  MR. R. C. JEBBsupported the Ordinance of the Commissioners. In the Bursaries concerned, those for students in the Faculty of Arts, the subjects of competition had hitherto been English, Latin, Greek, and Mathematics. The Commissioners had now made Greek optional, the alternatives being French, German, Italian, and Dynamics. This was a concession, but to it they attached the condition that Greek should carry twice as many marks as any of the other subjects. The reason for this condition was, that, as experience showed, the average student required a much longer time to reach that degree of proficiency which the Bursary examination tested in Greek and Latin, than to attain the corresponding

  137
  point of proficiency in French and German. This was proved by statistics furnished to the Commission from secondary schools. A definite gauge was afforded by the Higher and Lower Leaving Certificates given by the Scotch Education Department. A boy on the classical side of a secondary school would not infrequently obtain a Higher Grade Certificate in French, when he could obtain only a Lower Grade Certificate in Latin, though he had been devoting far the larger part of his time to the ancient language. The right principle was that intellectual tests of equal difficulty should carry equal value. If unequal tests were to be given equal values, the result would not be a real equality, but only the delusive semblance of it. The Indian Civil Service Examination afforded a precedent for the action of the Commissioners. In that examination 2,300 marks could be obtained by classics (including Greek and Roman history), but only 1,000 marks by French and German. The reason against leaving the assignment of marks to be settled by the authorities of Scotch Universities themselves, was that the result would be perpetual uncertainty. A vote of the Senatus might at any time change the relative value of Bursary subjects. The whole system of secondary teaching would be deranged, because schoolmasters could feel no security as to the weight which would be given to different subjects from year to year. The adjustment of marks between the different subjects was not in this case a mere detail, but involved a principle, which ought to be fixed by Ordinance. Many things—as, for instance, the courses of study for the degree—were fixed by Ordinance in the case of the Scotch Universities, which in the case of Oxford and Cambridge were left to be settled by the Universities themselves. There was in this respect no real analogy between the Universities of Scotland and those of England. The Ordinance now impugned had received the unanimous sanction of the Commission. It was accepted by three out of the four Scotch Universities. If it was rejected, the work of the Commission
  138
  as a whole would be injured in a vital part. The consequences would be far-reaching. Not only would Greek be soon killed out of Scotch education, but a fatal blow would be dealt to classical scholarship in Scotland generally, and to all the interests of that higher learning in which Scotland had been so long and so honourably distinguished.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. O. TREVELYAN,)said, that everyone in that House recognised the great services of the Commissioners. They had given their time and labour, and sacrificed their own convenience to an extraordinary extent. The House was very grateful to them, and had proved its gratitude by passing without any controversy a very large number of the Ordinances which they had presented. He thought the House was bound to do that in the case of any Ordinance which was constructed and organic, and that the House had done. But he did not think the House was deprived of touching a question like this, which he certainly maintained lay on the surface, and was not organic, constructed as part of the main system of Scottish Universities. If the House was to cut out the words stating that in determining the marks to be assigned, the several subjects for bursary competition, Greek, Latin and Mathematics should be assigned to them double the marks assigned to other subjects, the Ordinance and the whole arrangement of the bursaries would yet remain perfectly operative, the machinery would be quite perfect and it would be left to the authorities of the different Universities to say what proportion of marks should be given to each subject. That was permitted to every and the smallest college in Oxford and Cambridge, and he was bound to say that the great Scottish Universities were perfectly competent to carry out the same duty. If the Commissioners had been deputed by Parliament to fix the marks for the bursaries examinations, then he quite agreed with the Member for Mid-Lanark they were bound to support them unless they had done something very extreme

  139
  indeed. But if they were not so commissioned under the Act, they were justified in doing it by the Act, but were not bound to do it by the Act, and they in that House might form their own opinion about the matter. But to come to the question itself. What was the reason which his hon. Friend opposite gave—and he thought every one would allow he was a perfectly adequate exponent of the theory—for giving double marks to Greek and Latin that they did for French and German? The hon. Gentleman said that it took twice the time to attain a certain proficiency in Greek that it did for French and German, and that therefore it ought to have higher marks. But what was their answer to that? Their answer was that they should give the same marks to French and German as to Greek, but that in order to obtain the highest marks for French and German students should be obliged to attain a much higher efficiency than was required for Greek. That was the way to encourage French and German, but the method which had been adopted by the Commissioners did not so much encourage Greek as discourage French and German, because he observed that this was what was the case: that a student who really applied himself to French and German with energy and interest, who made himself an excellent French and German scholar and really enjoyed French and German literature, when he had come to that degree of perfection could only, after all, obtain a pitiful 200 marks. He wished hon. Members would recollect what they themselves were at the age these lads went in for the Bursaries. How was it possible for the great run of lads to get the only thing worth getting—a real intellectual education—out of one or two subjects, out of Greek and Latin? All the tendency of modern education had been to multiply the channels through which people could attain intellectual interest, and he ventured to say there was not in a great school of 500 or 600 boys more than five or six, or a dozen at most, who got a really genuine intellectual interest out of Greek.
  140
  He did not think there were more than five or six or seven boys in a great school who really knew Greek, as he believed a great many hon. Members of the House knew French literature. If they multiplied the number of subjects, if they took natural science, a certain number of other boys got an intellectual education, and if they took modern history, and French and German, more boys still got intellectual education. But the necessary condition of getting that intellectual education, was that they should encourage excellence, and they could not encourage excellence by the system of giving half marks for subjects—the only result of that would be to discourage them. The Commissioners had done two very good things. They had done away with Greek as a compulsory subject in the ordinary degree examination, but they had greatly undone that by making Greek practically a compulsory subject in the bursary examination. And, again, the Commissioners had done themseves very great credit by admitting girls and women to compete for the Bursaries. But after all, what was the use of admitting girls to the bursaries if, at the same time, they put the girls under an immense disadvantage, because in the girls' schools of Scotland French and German were largely taught, but Greek was taught only, as it were, by a certain amount of special coaching. If a person took up Greek, he could get 1,800 marks, but if he did not take up Greek, he could only get 1,600 marks. The variation between the two figures made all the difference. Often the first-rate man would be beaten by the second-rate man. That certainly was the case in every final degree examination, the figures of which he had known. ("No no.") Yes; 200 marks would cover the difference between half a dozen men in the tripos; certainly it did in his tripos, and in that of many around him.
  MR. JEBBremarked that the right hon. gentleman was supposing an examination for a degree which followed a course of study at the University; whereas the competition for Bursaries at entrance could only test teaching at school.
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he was speaking of a bursary examination. and every one knew what an important thing a bursary examination was. It was a serious thing to put in a position of incapacity and disadvantage two languages like French and German, the elements of which were quickly mastered, and from which intellectual enjoyment was soon derived. In this controversy then he felt that, as a Member of Parliament, he was bound to say, that he agreed with his hon. Friend behind him. But it was not a Party question, or a Government question, and every hon. Member would, no doubt, vote exactly according to the view he took of the matter.
  MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,),said, the question was whether education in Scotland was to be determined by a vote of the House after three-quarters of an hour's debate, or by a Commission which had carefully examined into the matter, and by the authorities of the Scottish Universities themselves. On one side they had the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland and two hon. Members behind him, and against that they had the declared opinion of the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St. Andrews. Aberdeen was alone in the matter. But he had had a letter from the Principal of Aberdeen University protesting against the course which had been taken by the Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the advantages of French and German. No one could deny them. But the great vaunt which Scotland had over England in educational matters in the past was that the Scotch were better grounded in the Classics than the English. In Scotland a knowledge of Latin had gone far deeper into the population than in England; and it was at that system of education they proposed to strike a blow by this Motion. The crofter's son had been introduced. He believed the crofter's son would in many cases have better opportunities of learning Latin and Greek in Scotland than French and German; for German and French had not established themselves in Scotland as Greek and Latin
  142
  had done. He appealed to the House not to disturb the deliberate judgment of those appointed to consider the matter, or to run counter to the wishes expressed by the heads of the Scottish Universities.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,)said, that he was bound to say one word on this question as the Representative of Aberdeen City, because his colleague was absent. The case of Aberdeen University was very different from that of the other three Scottish Universities. The bursaries at Aberdeen had a greater importance than elsewhere. He put it to the House that the mistake which the Commissioners had made was in legislating on the same lines for Aberdeen and the other three Universities. He wished to dissociate himself from any disparagement of Greek; and he did not altogether agree with his right hon. Friend (Sir G. O. Trevelyan) in the remarks he had made on that subject. He found himself more in agreement with the right hon. Member for Cambridge University as to the relative importance of Greek and Latin. The difficulty in relation to the many bursaries at Aberdeen was that the Commissioners should have laid down one stereotyped rule for them all, and not trusted the University authorities to make varying rules. He could not understand why the Commissioners, for whom he had the highest respect, should have thought it necessary to include Aberdeen in the same Ordinances as the other Universities, and to apply the same rule to all the bursaries. There was a very-strong feeling in Aberdeen on this subject, and he believed that the general wish of the city and the neighbourhood was that which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Kincardineshire.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEsaid, that as the only other Member of the Commission present he wished to express his strong feeling in favour of the Ordinance. No one would think that he had any distinct preference for Greek over the modern languages. On the contrary. But justice must be done. The Commissioners had endeavoured to

  143
  put these subjects on an equality with respect to the entrance examination. The difficulty of the situation was this—that if an adverse vote of the House were given, the whole of the Ordinance must be put back for at least one year. The other Universities were prepared to send in their pupils on the footing arranged by the Commissioners, and they were satisfied with it. If, in the course of time, Aberdeen found that the proposed scheme worked adversely, the remedy was in the University's own hands in the way of a reference to the Privy Council, and therefore it was not proper to interfere with the result which the Commission had unanimously arrived at. On behalf of Lord Kelvin and himself, he wished to say that the subject of dynamics was introduced at their distinct request, because that subject could be taught with mathematical accuracy. That was not the case with biology or geology, and the other "ologies." For school-work a subject was needed which could be treated with mathematical precision. He entreated the House to support the Ordinance.
  MR. R. WALLACEsaid, he wished, as a representative—which he was entitled to be in different ways—of three Scotch Universities, if not of every University in Scotland except Aberdeen, to say that he entirely dissented from the style of remarks indulged in by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and also by one of the Members for Glasgow. With respect to the Secretary for Scotland, he was disappointed with his remarks. They were very unnatural from him. He knew the right hon. Gentleman was a good Greek scholar, and could read Greek with intelligence, and occasionally with pleasure, and he was extremely sorry that he should have discouraged the enjoyment of that pleasure on the part of any portion of his (Mr. Wallace's) fellow-countrymen, and his own constituents beyond the Tweed. It was unworthy of him. As to the President of the Board of Trade, he always heard his opinions on any subject with a large amount of deliberation. He had studied his books, and more particularly that great work on "The American
  144
  Commonwealth." He had even read again the last edition of it. He had listened to his arguments against the power and usefulness of Greek in Aberdeen, but at that time in the morning he did not want to go far into the subject. He simply wished to say that, having been connected all his life with Scotch Universities and Scotch Education, he deplored, and would continue to deplore if necessary, the idea of diminishing the power of Greek literature in Scotch education. They had far too little Greek in their academic curriculum and their University studies. He would not go back to the days of Dr. Johnson, and quote what he said about the relative connection between Scotland and England. He thought it was too just. Since that time they had been endeavouring to make up their leeway, and knew by experience the power and usefulness of Greek studies, though they recognised that of Latin studies. He thought that every effort to excite an interest and enthusiasm, if possible, in the study of the Greek originals was an effort to elevate the thoughts of humanity and to inspire the populations with not merely what was useful in the modern conception, but inspiring in regard to every idea that helped towards a higher ideal of humanity. He did not desire to argue the question at that late hour, but as a Representative of various Scotch Universities he desired simply to urge as strongly as possible that no discouragement should be given in the Division to Greek studies.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 45; Noes, 101.—(Division List No. 18.)

  SHOP HOURS ACT AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Shop Hours Acts,—ordered to be brought in by Mr. Provand, Colonel Bridgeman, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. Seton-Karr, Mr. Charming, and Mr. Runkin.
  Bill presented accordingly, and read first time. To be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
  And, it being after one of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Two o'clock.