Commons Sitting of 11 February 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CITY OF LONDON SEWERS BILL.
  On the Motion "That this Bill be now read a Second time,"
  *MR. CHAULES HARRISONrose to move
  "to leave out the word 'now' and at the en I of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"
  He asked whether the subject of the Bill was such that it ought to be dealt with in a private Bill. The Bill was not promoted by any body constituted under the public Acts, but by the Corporation of the City of London, a body not subject to any municipal corporation Act or to the general Acts relating to boroughs or urban sanitary districts, and under it the Corporation sought to have transferred to it the powers vested in the City Commissioners of Sewers under a, certain Act of Parliament. The Corporation of the City of London had no governing statutes or Acts of Parliament settling its constitution or regulating its election of officers or the constituent members of the body and it now proposed to deal with an area having a rateable value of live millions sterling and extending over 112 parishes. It sought the repeal of no less than 23

  141
  public Acts of Parliament, amongst which was the Valuation of the Metropolis Act, 1869. The administration of that Act was entrusted to the Commissioner," of Sewers and not to the Corporation, but the Corporation proposed to transfer the powers and duties of that Act to themselves. They also proposed to transfer from the Commissioners to themselves the rights and powers under the Local Loans Act, which referred to the borrowing and repayment of money. The Corporation was not now subject to the Local Loans Act, but could borrow as much money as it pleased on its own corporate property, unrestricted by the provisions that applied in this respect to every municipal borough under the Municipal Corporations Act. In addition to this a Public Health Bill was passed specially for London in 1891, and Parliament, by public statute, conferred the administration of those powers as regarded the City area upon the City Commissioners of Sewers. Those powers likewise it was proposed to transfer to the Corporation. Having regard to the enormous area affected, and to the fact that legislation dealing with this great area, had hitherto been undertaken by public, or by Government, Bills, he asked whether it was right or reasonable that the House should assent in this case to the large changes proposed being effected by means of a private Bill. He submitted that such huge changes should only be brought forward in a public Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The practical effect of the Bill would be to remove by private Bill legislation the whole question of the Local Government of London, as regarded the City area, from public discussion and treatment in that House, and he urged that that was not a wise or desirable thing to do. ["Hear, hear!"] Under the Act of 1848, when the City Commissioners of Sewers for London was created, that body was constituted the sole authority for executing certain municipal powers within the City area, and it was stipulated that the members should be nominees of the Corporation, though the Corporation, as he understood, were not bound under any Act to confine their nominations to members of their own body. Under that Act the Commissioners could only be deprived of their powers through the appointment of a new Commission. That being so, the
  142
  Commissioners of Sewers was not, in fact, a statutory body of the Corporation, but a separate and independent body. This had been proved by the fact that in many public Acts certain powers and duties had been entrusted distinctively to the Commissioners of Sewers. Attempts had been made to alter the constitution of the Corporation of London, and it was curious that the Corporation had no rating powers beyond those connected with the City Police. But all these efforts had been made by way of public legislation. In 1888 the City of London and area was settled by a public Bill. Its position was then defined, and the late President of the Local Government Board, in discussing the Bill, stated that it was the intention of the Government to deal with that area according to their own proposals, showing that it was contemplated that any legislation affecting the City area of London should be undertaken by public or by a Government Bill, and certainly not by a private Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He submitted that a. Bill dealing with such important changes as those proposed, and affecting such a large area, should be a public and not a private Measure, and accordingly, he moved that the present Bill be read a Second time that day six months.
  MR. T. LOUGH,in seconding the Amendment, said he thought that the House was in rather an extraordinary position in regard to the question. No explanation had been given of the reasons why this far-reaching proposal had been brought forward in such a sudden and unexpected manner. ["Hear, hear!"] The object of the Bill, as had been staled, was to transfer to the Corporation the powers now exercised by the Commissioners of Sewers. He had searched through the papers that had been issued on the matter, and he could not find in them any reason at all why the change should not be made. No allegation of improper discharge of duty, no reflection whatever in this regard was made against the Commissioners. ["Hear, hear!"] The Commissioners were nominated by the Corporation, and it appeared to him that the Corporation had made the great mistake of supposing that because they nominated the Commissioners of Sewers—who, it must not, be forgotten, were charged with certain duties under Act of Parliament—

  143
  they could abolish that body and take their duties upon themselves. Moreover, no assurance was given that, if the proposed transfer of powers and duties was made, the Corporation would carry out the duties now discharged by the Commissioners, and he doubted whether the inhabitants of London would have the power to enforce them to do so. Let the House look at these duties, as they were specified in Clauses 6, 7, and 8, and which were to be repealed. In one clause the Commissioners were required to meet at certain times and to hold weekly meetings. In another clause their powers were restricted, they were compelled to keep books, and there were restrictions about contracts, they being obliged to give notice of contracts above a certain amount, and they were obliged to obtain estimates before undertaking work; and in other clauses very important duties were imposed on this body nominated by the Corporation. Now all these were to be repealed, and no one could enforce against the Corporation the duty of attending to these necessities of the inhabitants of the City. So much for the body to be suppressed, and then he invited attention to the Bill. It was a very short Bill, with a long preamble; but within that preamble there would not be found a single statement of any reason why this step should be taken. There was no allegation that the existing authority had failed to discharge their duty. The preamble simply stated: "Whereas it is expedient that the Commission of Sewers should be dissolved." There was no reason or argument in support of that, and it was just this expediency that he called in question. The object of the Bill was to abolish a statutory body by Parliament, and to put in its stead an old body exercising powers under an old charter that no one understood. ["Oh, oh!"] Certainly no one understood the charter, no one understood the rights, powers, and duties of the Corporation of the City of London. He viewed that Corporation himself with the greatest interest. [Laughter.] It was the noblest relic of bygone days we possessed; but nobody knew what duties it owed to the people, no one could point to any Act of Parliament under which it exercised its powers, and the House was asked to lay violent hands on a body which had a statutory position, and to
  144
  transfer its powers to an old Corporation the duties and liabilities of which no one understood. Clauses from 11 to 16 dealt with offices to be abolished and compensation to be given to those persons holding such offices, and the pensions those deprived of employment were to enjoy. But why deprive them of employment? No charge of failure to discharge their duties had been made against them. Why lay on the inhabitants of London the expenses of these compensations? It was not necessary at all, and there had been melancholy experience of the abolition of offices. If there was one strong reproach which even the friends of the Corporation would admit, it was that of extravagance. The high salaries paid by the Corporation rivalled in some cases the excessive salaries enjoyed by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. He believed something like £50,000 a year were paid to officers of the Corporation, and now the House was asked to sanction a proposal to provide a large sum for compensation for the taxation of the City. This important Bill should be introduced as a public Bill, and ample time should be given by the House to its discussion. In every Act dealing with municipalities up to the present time, the House had been reforming these Corporations, constituting them statutory bodies with defined duties; but to-day the House was asked to do something else, to destroy a reformed Corporation, and to substitute for it one that had no definite shape or defined duties. There was no precedent for the step they were asked to take, and he invited hon. Members who were responsible for the Bill to reconsider their position, to withdraw the Bill, and introduce it in another Session as a public Measure.
  SIR FRANK LOCKWOODtook the opportunity to enter his protest against a Bill of this far-reaching and extended nature being dealt with as private Bill legislation. This very question of legislation dealing with the metropolis had been matter of consideration in the House on more than one occasion in recent years. It was incidentally mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade in 1888, when he introduced the Local Government Bill of that year, that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the question of London reform by—presumably—a public

  145
  Bill recognising, as the House would recognise, that, in dealing with so important a constituency as the City of London, the duty should devolve upon a responsible Government rather than upon private Members. That was in 1888; but in 1895 this very question was brought before the House by his hon. and learned Friend now Lord James of Hereford, who, upon the Second Reading of a Bill promoted by the London County Council, objected to the introduction of such a Bill as a private Bill, and appealed for the Speaker's ruling. The reasons he gave for his objection were as follows. He said:—
  "I desire to ask your judgment, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order affecting this Bill, whether this Bill is a fit subject to be introduced into this House as a private Bill? I do not now ask yon to fix any definite rule as to what constitutes a private Bill—it is difficult to form an exact rule—but I respectfully suggest to you that this Bill clearly goes beyond the line which divides private from public Bills. In the first place, although without doubt it only refers to London, it affects 5,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects. It is moreover stated in the preamble that it is introduced for the purpose of forming a common basis of Imperial and local taxation; it also proceeds to change entirely the law as to the mode of assessment for rating and taxation, and it abolishes the jurisdiction of a Court which has hitherto administered the law, and creates a new tribunal of an entirely different character."
  Upon this point of order the Speaker gave a ruling at length, in which he said that a Bill affecting the metropolis should as a rule be introduced as a public rather than as a private Bill, and finally said:—
  "I have no doubt upon the matter. I am of opinion that the Bill ought to be introduced as a public Bill."
  The opinion expressed by the Speaker on that occasion was summed up on page 634 of the tenth edition of Sir Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," in the following words:—
  "Bills concerning the metropolis have been dealt with as public Bills, as the large area, the number of parishes, the vast population, and the variety of interests concerned, constitute them Measures of public policy rather than of local interest."
  Surely, if that test be applied to this Bill—the importance and scope of which had been indicated—it must be apparent that it was a matter for public and not for
  146
  private Bill legislation. Some hon. Members took exception to the remark of the seconder of the Amendment when he said that the charter of the City of London could not be understood; but they would probably accept the Report of a Royal Commission, when it said that the Corporation had no governing charter and no Acts of Parliament defining its constitution. Therefore his hon. Friend was perfectly right. They were not animated by any hostility to the Corporation in taking the course they were doing. It was rather because they had such a high appreciation of the importance of the City of London—[ironical Ministerial laughter]—that they said this should be a matter of public rather than of private legislation. The mover of the Amendment pointed out how it was proposed by this private Bill to repeal public statutes. Some of them realty appeared to him to be very salutary Acts, which it would be very well to preserve. There was, for instance, the one referred to in the Second Schedule as "Estimates to be obtained for commencement of works to the amount of £100." There was a public Act directed against jobbery, and here, by a private Bill, they were going to repeal it. Then there was "Previous notice to be given of contracts for the amount of £200 and upwards." ["Hear, hear!"] There was, again, a public Act directed against jobbery, and they were going to repeal that by a private Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)was understood to say that both those sections were in private and not in public Acts.
  SIR FLANK LOCRWOODasked whether it was right, even so, that those important sections, dealing with such important subjects as the manner in which large sums of public money ought to be spent, should be got rid of by private Bill legislation. This Amendment was moved in no spirit of hostility to the promoters of the Bill. It was regarded as being a Measure which the House should keep before it in all its stages. There was no question here of any intricate examination into plans or documents such as could only be conveniently dealt with by the machinery provided for private Bill legislation. There was here a simple question of policy as to whether or no the

  147
  City of London was to have transferred to it powers, duties, and responsibilities which it had never yet exercised, and whether or no a wide-reaching reform of that kind was to be undertaken by private Members when they had the clearest intimation from the Government of 1885 that it was in contemplation to deal with this matter by a public Bill.
  MR. W. O. CLOUGHpointed out that the Bill which constituted the Commissioners of Sewers in 1848 was a private Bill. As he understood, all the present Bill sought was to give the Corporation of the City of London power to deal with the particular acts and duties which at present were discharged by the Commissioners of Sewers. For all practical purposes, the Commissioners of Sewers was a Grand Committee of the Corporation of the City of London. ["Hear, hear!" and "No!"] For all practical purposes it was, and they had this anomaly that they had the Commissioners of Sowers exercising authority in the City of London, and the only power which the Corporation had to veto any of the decisions come to by the Commissioners of Sewers was by creating a fresh Commission. This Bill, as he understood, was to prevent that necessity. It was to provide that the Commissioners of Sewers should be in deed and in, fact one of the Grand Committees of London. They had heard a great deal about the Corporation of London being an unreformed corporation. Well, he was a member of it, and he was a member of it because he believed it was one of the most democratic corporations that could be found in the United Kingdom. He supported the Bill because he thought it was simply a. Measure intended to give to the Corporation power to deal with its own household. It was not intended to create new duties. The hon. Member for Islington said that they proposed to deprive the officers of the Commissioners of Sewers of their duties and to lay upon the citizens of London a heavy expense for such pensions as might be voted to them. If the Bill passed, several of the officers, such as the engineer and certain inspectors who had experience in the duties which devolved upon the Commissioners, would, automatically, go over to the Corporation, and clauses were, or would be, inserted in the Bill for that purpose. The hon. Member for Plymouth
  148
  in the statement which had been circulated, said "The Corporation is unrestricted in its powers of borrowing or redeeming its debt." The Corporation was just in the same position as any other borrower. Its stock stood well in the market, and it looked well to see that there was always a safe margin in connection with any of its loans or in dealing with Corporation money. It was further set out in the statement, that
  "the only power of rating that the Corporation exercised is in connection with the City police. All other duties relating to the provisions of municipal government and functions now classed under the comprehensive title are carried on by the said Commission of Sewers under public statutes."
  He ventured to traverse that statement. As a matter of fact, there was a rate levied called the Militia rate. The rates which were necessary to be imposed in connection with, the requirements of the City were also levied and, therefore, the statement was quite misleading. He hoped that if the Speaker's ruling was asked he would rule that, as a private Bill constituted the Commission of Sewers, by a private Bill the Corporation might resume its exercise of those duties, and have control over its own committee.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBSsaid this Bill dealt with a purely domestic matter concerning the arrangements of the Corporation of London. The Corporation thought, that as in these days so many duties were cast upon local authorities it would be better that these particular duties should be discharged by themselves, instead of as they were now by a body not elected by them, and whose nomination was revocable at will, so that they might be more directly responsible. The hon. Member for Islington said that certain duties were imposed upon these Commissioners by statute, and that if this Bill passed the Corporation would have no duties. If he would turn to Section 6 he would see that in every Act of Parliament giving any power or authority to either impose any duty or liability to the Commissioners it was provided that the Acts should be read and have effect as if the words "Common Council" were substituted for the words "Commissioners." He asked the House to pass this Bill, and then it could be examined by a Committee upstairs.
  *SIR WILLIAM HAKCOURTsaid he had always abstained from taking part in discussing private Bills in this House except when they had seemed to him to be matters really of public importance. There was, he thought, nothing more important to that House than to discriminate between the subjects of private Bill and public Bill legislation. He did not wish to regard the particular character of the Corporation of London except so far as it was necessary in considering the transfer of these powers. What was it this Bill proposed to do? Here was a body, the Corporation of London, which was under no statutory regulation. For the security of the ratepayers all other municipal bodies were regulated by Acts of Parliament, but the Corporation of London was not so regulated. It was now proposed to confer upon this body a number of powers it did not at present exercise, therefore those powers were not under the regulations which they would be under if they were given to the ordinary Corporation. That was all he wished to say upon the distinctive character of the Corporation of London. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to one of the most important of the regulations, that was to say, with reference to the making of contracts. They knew that of all things in the world that which was most liable to abuse by bodies of this character was the dealing with contracts. The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees said that the Commission of Sewers was created by a private Act. How did that affect the question? When the Commissioners of Sewers were constituted by a private Act they were placed under express restrictions for obvious public reasons. But they were now going to hand over this power to the Corporation of London without the restrictions which would be placed on any public body if it was under a statutory enactment. Could they conceive a more unfair, injudicious, and impolitic proceeding as regarded the public? They were going, in point of fact, to take away from the ratepayers, in a district of which the rateable value was £5,000,000, a security which existed in the body which now exercised those powers, restricted by the condition in question. They were about to give a premium upon these very trans-
  150
  actions which had proved a scandal to bodies of this kind, by granting powers without the restrictions which were imposed upon every other municipal corporation. The fact that they were given by a private Act did not affect the question at all. If they were going to give these new powers to the Corporation of London, they should give them under the same public securities that were provided in the case of every municipal corporation. What they were about to do now was to convert the Corporation of London into a municipal corporation with all its powers but with none of its restrictions. The effect would be, by a side wind, in a private Bill—to give to a body dealing with this important area, all the powers of a municipal corporation, while absolving it from all the restrictions. This was a very serious matter, and it would not stop there. It was not a question of dealing with Corporations alone; it was dealing with a most fundamental principle of local government, and this would be a precedent to open the door to loose dealing with matters of this description. He would take it, if they liked, that the Commissioners of Sewers were a private body regulated by a private Act. That was perfectly true, but if they were going to take over these powers, which were regulated when in the hands of the Commissioners of Sewers, and hand them over to a body which would not be governed by a public Act, he did not know how far the regulation with reference to loans would go. The Corporation of London was not restrained at all by the rules which applied to other corporations with regard to the spending of public money. They were not under the Borough Funds clause, which required the consent of the ratepayers and so forth. The Commissioners of Sewers were acting under the Public Loans Act, under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, under the Sanitary Acts, and the various Metropolitan Acts for local government, and they were going to transfer the powers of the Commissioner's of Sewers to the Corporation without any of the securities which would be given in the case of every municipal corporation. It was said that, after all, the Commissioners of Sewers were merely a deputation from the Corporation, and that was thought to be a valid argument. But was not the Watch Committee of a municipal corporation

  151
  much more distinctly a deputation, because they could not appoint anybody on the Watch Committee who was not a, member of the Corporation, whilst here they might have the whole Commissioners of Sewers non-members of the Corporation. He thought it was an extremely improper thing to give the power asked for by a private Bill, and he did not sea why the Corporation of London should have any reason to fear the action of this House dealing with the matter by a public Bill. He submitted that it would be much better that in matters of this kind the Corporation should proceed by a public rather than a private Bill.
  *COLONEL HUGHESsaid the argument of the hon. and learned Member for York, that this Bill should be a public Bill, was not illustrated by the case quoted, for the private Bill introduced some years since by the London County Council to amend the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, was held to be wrong, because the Act of 18G9 was a public Act, whereas the Act now sought to be amended was a private Act. If the Commissioners of Sewers were agreeable to the transfer, as they were, and the Corporation of London preferred to take the responsibility, the amalgamation should be allowed. Every vestry transacted such business through a committee, and the Corporation should be allowed to do so, instead of as now leaving control of its business to a delegate authority. If any particular clause were objected to, that would be for the Committee of the House. The proposal was perfectly reasonable, and, although some Members, from hostility to the City, might raise objections, he trusted the Bill would be read a Second time, and the City thus be given the opportunity of proving the expediency of the change stated in the preamble.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 95.—[Division List, No. 23.]

DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
MR. W. JOHNSTONmoved—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Dublin Corporation Bill that, either by
152
definition or enactment, they make provision for conferring on women the municipal franchise within the City of Dublin."
MR. TIMOTHY HARRINGTONsubmitted that the Instruction of the hon. Gentleman was out of order. In the Bill which had now received the Second Reading there was no extension of the franchise, there was merely a provision for the registration of those already in possession of the franchise. He submitted that the Instruction of the hon. Member would be the repealing of a public statute by means of a private Bill.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the Bill altered the register by enabling persons to get on the register on different terms to those on which they could previously be on it. Therefore, he thought that the Instruction was in order as an Instruction, although he thought an Instruction was required.
MR. JOHNSTONin moving the Instruction said it spoke for itself. They only proposed by it to give to the women of Dublin what the women of Belfast already possessed.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid he hoped the House would not treat the citizens of Dublin and the Corporation of Dublin so unfairly as to give its assent to this Instruction. It would be in the recollection of the House—
*MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is opposing the Instruction it must go on to another day.
MR. HARRINGTON: I am opposing the Instruction. But I do not oppose a Division upon it this evening.
*MR. SPEAKER: That is not the question.
Debate adjourned; to be resumed upon Wednesday next.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
DR. FARQUHARSONmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
*MR. J. G. WEIRopposed the Bill on various grounds, among others that under the Bill it would be competent for jerry-builders (of whom there were far too many in and around London) to lease lands and put up structures which were attractive outside but

153
insanitary and unhealthy, in consequence of there being no provision by the County Council to prevent damp by carrying off surface drainage. The London County Council were always coming to that House asking for additional powers, but he thought they should use the powers they had first before they sought to obtain more. He thought they would agree that it was not for London Vestries to take the initiative in this matter, but that the County Council should do so. [The hon. Member, who was heard with difficulty, owing to the conversation in the House, was understood to comment on the concrete used by jerry builders, which frequently consisted of crushed coke cinders, a little lime, and a sprinkling of Portland cement, and said that the, County Council ought to see that builders and district surveyors carried out their duties.] He hoped that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would give some assurance that the surface drainage of houses on lands tinder the supervision of the County Council would be seen to.
MR. B. L. COHENpointed out that the County Council had not powers at present to compel the local authorities to discharge their duties, assuming that they did not do so in regard to surface drainage. By their General Powers Act of 1893, they had powers as regarded low, Hat, level lands to insist that the drainage should he properly looked after, and they had powers to appeal to a tribunal constituted by that Act. He did not think it would be opportune to attempt to introduce into this private Bill provisions for powers which had hitherto been confined to local authorities. He hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with this explanation, and with the statement that the subject in which he took an interest was not and would not be lost sight of.
Bill read a Second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES GRANT.
  *MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how much of the annual grant of £12,000 to
  154
  Scottish Universities is distributed to each University, and who determines how the money should be allocated to each University?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The grant of £42,000 is distributed to the Scottish Universities by ordinances of the Commissioners which have all been laid on the Table of this House and are therefore open to the hon. Member to refer to. The proportions of the grant are: St. Andrews (including the University College of Dundee), £6,300; Glasgow, £12,180; Aberdeen, £8,400; Edinburgh, £15,120; making a total of £42,000.

  MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  *MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has yet considered the advisability of making provision in the Military Works (Money) Bill for the constructions of works for the protection of the northwest coast of Scotland?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THIS WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): When the whole question of the defence of the United Kingdom was considered by the Joint Naval and Military Committee no proposal was made for the construction of works on the north-west coast of Scotland.

  LEE-METFORD RIFLE (ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE).
  *MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Lee-Metford rifle has been issued to the Royal Naval Reserve; and, if so, to what stations?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The Lee-Motford rifle has only been issued to Her Majesty's drill ships Medea and Medusa, on board which Officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve drill. This rifle will probably be issued to the remaining seven drill ships and all the Royal Naval Reserve batteries between June and December 1897.

  WEST INDIAN SUGAR COMMISSION.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the West Indian Sugar Commission contains among its members or commands the services of any person competent, by knowledge of modern improvements in manufacture, to advise upon the extent to which the machinery and the processes of manufacture prevailing in the British West Indian Islands are out of date?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,),in the absence of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commission has no such actual specialist in machinery attached to it, but the question is one upon which the Commissioners will have no difficulty in obtaining expert evidence.

  EXCHANGE COMPENSATION (DEPUTY POSTMASTER, BOMBAY).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will inquire from the Government of India why no reply has been sent to a memorial, dated 29th November 1895, from Mr. E. R. Jardine, Deputy Postmaster of Bombay, regarding his claim to exchange compensation; and whether he is aware that Mr. Jardine, on the ground of his English domicile, drew compensation up to 30th November 1894; that the compensation was then stopped without any reason being assigned; that Mr. Jardine's father possessed an English domicile, as holding Her Majesty's commission; and that his brother Mr. A. J. A. Jardine, District Police Superintendent in Burma, and Mr. W. E. Jardine, Assistant Collector of Salt in Bombay, whoso status is exactly the same as his, are allowed, without objection, to draw their compensation allowance?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The subject of the grant of exchange compensation is, as stated by me on the 26th January, now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council. Until the Government of India receive his decision, which I hope, will be communicated very soon, on the many points that have been raised, they are not in a position to reply to individual memorials

  PEISHWA'S ESTATE (BOMBAY PRESIDENCY).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the additional evidence adduced in the appeal of the Desai of Jalihal, in the Bombay Presidency, including as it does the original title deeds and accounts of the Peishwa, has induced the Government to alter their original decision of resuming the estate; and whether he will Jay all the Papers upon the Table of the House;
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Government of Bombay, having considered the evidence to which the hon. Member refers, reported to me that they saw no reason why the previous decisions should be reversed. In this opinion, after considering the memorial which they forwarded, I concurred. If the hon. Member wishes to move for the Papers, I shall not oppose the Motion.

  AGRICULTURAL BANK (INDIA).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the year 1884 the Viceroy in Council submitted to the India Office a proposal for the establishment of an agricultural bank near Poona, as an effective means of relieving the heavily indebted ryots, which proposal received the hearty sup-part of both ryots and money-lenders; that the Bombay Government was willing to conduct the experiment; that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce memorialised the Secretary of State in its favour; but that the Secretary of State, after long delay, ultimately withheld his sanction; and whether he will state for what reasons and upon what expertadvice he refused to permit an experiment, unanimously recommended by the Government of India, as being advocated on purely disinterested grounds, and as likely to be of incalculable benefit to the whole country?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am aware of the discussions to which the Question draws attention. The reasons which induced the then Secretary of State to withhold sanction from the scheme to which the hon. Member refers are stated at length at pages 55–58 of the Papers presented to Parliament on the subject in 1887. When the Poona scheme was negatived

  157
  the Government of India were invited to bring forward a revised scheme that would not be open to the same objection. A valuable report on agricultural banks in different parts of the world, with suggestions for action in India, has recently been prepared by an officer of the Madras Government. I am in hopes that a practical scheme for making a beginning with such banks may before long be brought forward. The question how best to mitigate and prevent the indebtedness of the Indian peasantry is one of the most, important that the Governments in India could, in ordinary times, possibly consider.

  RABIES (MR. M'GOVERN'S TREATMENT).
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. PATRICK M'HUGH), I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Banbridge and Rathdrum Boards of Guardians have passed Resolutions calling on the Local Government Board of Ireland to institute an inquiry into the merits of the treatment of rabies by Mr. M'Govern, of Cavan; and, will he, as official head of the Local Government Board, and in view of the importance attached to this matter in Ireland, advise the Board to grant the inquiry asked for?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Copies of the Resolution referred to have been received. In the year 1888 the Local Government Board were pressed to grant an inquiry similar to the one now asked for, and the Board stated that if Mr. M'Govern was willing to submit to the Medical Inspectors of Board the particulars of his alleged cure, together with a recipe of the medicine or preparation given to his patients the Board would direct such inquiry to be held. In reply, the Board were informed that the M'Governs could not disclose their remedy, which they declared they were bound to hold from father to son in their family. The Board then pointed out that no advantage could, under the circumstances, be obtained by holding such inquiry. It is obviously impossible for the Local Government Board for Ireland in any way to recognise the pre-
  158
  tensions of persons who have no professional knowledge, but lay claim to the exclusive possession of medical secrets, and are unwilling to submit their methods of treatment to the examination of competent judges.

  IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. FLYNN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick's (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in a letter from the secretary of the Irish Lights Commissioners addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into the Mercantile Marine Fund, it is stated that, their Board has had the advice of three retired Naval Officers and of their Inspector, who is a master mariner of long standing, on all nautical points; whether he can furnish the names of the retired naval officers referred to, stating their rank when on the active list of the Royal Navy; and, whether he can state what grade is the certificate of competency held by their inspector, and what date he was examined for such certificate?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the names of the retired naval officers mentioned in the letter referred to in the Question are as follows: Captain the Hon. F. G. Crofton, R.N., Commander Riall, R.N., Mr. Maurice Knight, R.N. Captain Crofton held the rank of Commander, and the other two the rank of Lieutenant when on the active list of the Royal Navy. The Commissioners state that, their Inspector holds a certificate of competency as first mate granted in 1867.

  MAIL CONTRACT (INDIA, CHINA, AND AUSTRALIA).
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the contract for the conveyance of the mails to India, China, and Australia has now been arranged; and, if so, what rates of speed have been fixed, and what saving in time will be effected to Bombay, Hong Kong, and Melbourne?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The tenders which have been accepted contemplate a speed of 14½ knots on the line to and from India, 131 knots on the line to and from China, and 1¼ knots on the line to and from Australia. The time-table has not yet been settled, but it is anticipated that under the now con-tract, as compared with the old, the following will be the approximate saving in the time of transit of the mails from London: to Bombay, nearly two days; to Hong Kong, four days; to Melbourne, four days.

  LAND COMMISSION (COUNTY KILDARE APPLICATIONS).
  *MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Land Commission are going to hold a Court in the County of Kildare to hear applications for the fixing of fair rents?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A list of cases arising in the County Kildare will, it is expected, be, issued in the course of a week, but the date on which the hearing of those cases will be commenced has not yet been definitely fixed.

  ROYAL BARRACKS (DUBLIN).
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will agree to the Return as to the sums spent on Royal Barracks (Dublin), which stands on this day's Paper?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid that a Return could be given showing the sums spent on the Royal Barracks, but that he could not pledge himself as to the details to be included in it.

  IRISH MAILS.
  MR. J. L. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. VESEY KNOX), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any proposal was placed before the London and North Western Railway Company by the Post Office for a night mail from Euston to Dublin, leaving at 8.20 and arriving in Dublin 25 minutes
  160
  sooner than now proposed; whether he is aware that the usefulness of the largely increased expenditure on the service, so far as the Irish provincial towns are concerned, will be greatly lessened by the fact that the mail will leave London 25 minutes later than hitherto, a change for which there has been no public demand; and, whether, if the main obstacle in the way of the dispatch of the mails at 8.20 is the want of adequate sorting facilities at the Post Office, such facilities will be provided?
  MR. HANBURY: No such proposal as that suggested by the hon. Member was placed before the Railway Company. Though the Irish Mail nominally leaves Euston at 8.20 p.m., it is necessarily detained at Crewe till after the arrival of the Special Post Office Train which carries the letters which it is impossible to dispatch from Euston at 8.20. Though, therefore, the Irish Mail Train leaves Euston at 8.20, a large part of the Irish Mail is not even now dispatched till 8.30 p.m. As the Special Post Office Train leaves Euston at 8.30 p.m., it is impossible to start the Irish Mail until after a sufficient interval for safety, and the London and North Western Railway Company consider that the interval should not be less than 15 minutes. Unless the hours of posting in London are modified, the latest dispatch with extra fee is 7.45 p.m. for the Eastern Central District and about 7.0 p.m. for the rest of London. No addition to the Sorting Force would admit of an earlier dispatch than 8.30.
  MR. PATBICK O' BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, under the contract made in 1860 for the conveyance of the Irish day mails between London and Holyhead, the Government took power to limit the use of those trains to the conveyance of mails and first and second class passengers to and from Ireland; is he aware that the London and North Western Railway Company use those trains for the carriage of third class passengers to and from London to Scotland, viâ Crewe, and from Chester and intermediate stations to London, and was the consent of the Post Office authorities asked and obtained by the Company to this practice; and, if so, at what date;

  161
  whether the Post Office, authorities have powers under the old mail contract and the new contract now being arranged to prohibit the London and North Western Railway Company using the Irish mail trains for the carriage of third class passengers other than passengers to and from Ireland; and, if so, will they in the new contract compel the Company either to afford Irish passengers facilities for travelling third class on the Irish mail trains between London and Holyhead or else discontinue the carriage of third class passengers altogether on those trains; and, whether, before giving final sanction to the new mail time table, he will reconsider the question with the view of meeting the wishes of the Irish people who are most concerned?
  MR. HANBURY: The Government took no power in the contract of 1859, which is, I presume, the one to which the hon. Member refers, to exclude third class passengers from or to convey them in the trains referred to between London and Holyhead. It is understood that the London and North Western Railway Company use the down day mail train for the conveyance of third class passengers for Scotland between London and Crewe, and the up day mail train for third class passengers for London from Chester and certain intermediate stations. It was not necessary for the Company to obtain the consent of the Post Office to this practice, and they did not apply for it. The Postmaster General's statutory powers for dealing with railway companies are confined to making arrangements for the conveyance of mails, and do not extend to making provision for the carriage of any particular class of passengers. In these circumstances, it is not expedient to attempt to introduce any provision into the new contract binding the Company in the manner suggested. The new mail time table, which has already been laid before the House, was drawn up with the view of meeting, as far as possible, the wishes of the Irish people, and it is regretted that the concession now asked is not practicable.
  MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a Resolution, proposed by Mr. Stubbs, D.L., and seconded by
  162
  Mr. R. Sweeny, J.P., unanimously passed at a public meeting held in the Court House, Ballyshannon, on the 3rd of February, Mr. John Daly, Chairman of the Town Commissioners, presiding, complaining of the inconvenience accruing to the inhabitants of Ballyshanuon and the surrounding districts from the inadequate mail service, and urging that the present system of transmission of the mails by car between Bundoran Junction and Ballyshannon, a distance of upwards of forty miles is wholly inadequate; whether he is aware that letters for the night mail must be posted in Ballyshannon before 4.25 p.m., whereas the residents of other towns of minor importance can post letters up to 6 p.m., and 6.30 p.m. in some cases; and, whether regard being had to the fact that the agitation for an improved postal service in this district has been made the subject of repeated complaints to the postal authorities, and that the recent establishment by the Government of a rifle range and military camp for 2,000 men in the immediate locality will increase the mails, the Postmaster General will be able to take any steps for the establishment of a postal service by rail between Bundoran Junction and Ballyshannon?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has received a copy of the Resolution referred to. It is the case that, under existing arrangements, the latest hour of posting in Ballyshannon for the night mail is 4.25 p.m. The question of establishing a night mail service by railway to Ballyshannon has been considered more than once, but it has been found that the expense would be altogether disproportionate to the revenue available. The matter, however, is again being inquired into.

  SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE (IRELAND).
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Veterinary Department has the power to order the slaughter of cattle as diseased without a thorough examination; whether his attention has been called to a case of a tenant farmer, named Patrick Frawley, Lisgriffin, Buttevant, County Cork, who sold a cow on 28th October 1896, at, Mallow, which was shipped with cattle from other districts, some of these cattle being

  163
  found to be diseased; whether, upon an official from the Veterinary Department calling on Mr. Frawley a few days ago, the latter offered to pay the expense of an independent veterinary surgeon with the object of thorough and reliable inspection; and has the Veterinary Department power to authorise the wholesale slaughter of cattle in cases where independent inspection is called for.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Veterinary Department has power to slaughter not only cattle known to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia, or suspected of being so affected, but also any cattle ascertained to have been in contact with affected cattle. In consequence of the occurrence recently of a serious outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in London, the affected cattle, it is stated, having been imported from Cork, the Inspectors of the Irish Veterinary Department were at once instructed to restrict the movement in Ireland of cattle which were ascertained to have been associated with the animals shipped to London and among which disease was found to have existed. Among the cattle so traced and restricted are those belonging to Patrick Frawley, and in the event of the slaughter of his cattle compensation will be paid to him out of the moneys voted by Parliament for the suppression of pleuro-pneumonia. The diagnosis of this disease cannot with safety be allowed to depend exclusively on veterinary inspection of the living animal, as experience has shown that a conclusive decision in regard to the existence of disease in cattle exposed to infection can only be arrived at after slaughter and post-mortem examination. Ireland has happily been entirely free from pleuro-pneumonia since 1892, and it is obviously essential in the best interests of the Irish cattle trade that any ground for suspicion as to the existence of the disease should be promptly removed.

  PATENT LAWS.
  CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Foreigners can, by taking out a patent in England, prevent a process from being carried out in this country by others without any obligation on their part to exercise it here themselves so long as they keep the
  164
  market supplied from abroad; whether he is aware that, in all other European countries, a patentee is bound to exercise his patent within those countries; whether he is aware that trades amounting to very large sums, amongst others in certain dyes, the product of coal tar, are foreign monopolies, prejudicial to British industries, in consequence of this state of the law; and if he will take steps in the interests of Home industries and Home labour to bring the Patent Laws of the United Kingdom into conformity with those of every other European country?
  MR. REICHTE: In reply to the hon and gallant Member I would refer him to Section 22 of the Patent Act 1883. He will see that that section prescribes a course of procedure where (inter alia) a patent is not being worked in the United Kingdom by reason of the default of a patentee to grant licences, and in the absence of any decision to the contrary. I am not satisfied that the law is not effectual as it now stands to meet the cases suggested in the Question.
  CAPTAIN PHILLPOITSasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would answer the last paragraph of the question?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he was satisfied that the law as it now stood was sufficient for his hon. and gallant Friend's purpose, and, therefore, he did not propose to do anything in the matter.

  CASTLETON WESLEYAN SCHOOL.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the letter addressed by the Department to Mr. Matthews, of the Castleton Wesleyan School, dated 23rd December last, has been with-drawn?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): No, Sir. The Committee of Council are still awaiting the plans asked for by their letter of the 7th of January.

  EDUCATION CODE (IRISH CERTIEICATED TEACHERS).
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there is any intention of modifying the Code

  165
  so as to allow teachers holding the Irish certificate to accept positions in English schools?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Yes, Sir. Several modifications to that effect will be introduced into the new Code.

  NAVAL SHIPWRIGHTS.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the skilled shipwrights of the Navy are at present considerably below their proper strength, although special efforts have been made during the past few months at all the naval ports to induce entries; would he state what has been the result of these efforts; and whether, in consequence of the scarcity, a circular has recently been issued ordering the entry of a number of carpenters' crews, although that class was abolished a few years since?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Question of the hon. Member alludes, of course, to shipwrights who go on board ship, and has nothing to do with shipwrights employed in the dockyards. The large dimensions of the increase in the Navy have naturally occasioned an increased demand for almost every branch of the personnal, and here and then; in very special branches it very naturally is difficult to bring up the numbers at once to the desired strength. In the case of the shipwrights, the temporary difficulty is in part due to the general and striking activity in the shipbuilding trade. It has been considered desirable to enter a limited number of carpenters' crews while shipwrights are not being entered in satisfactory numbers, and orders have been issued accordingly. The rating of carpenters' crews, although allowed to lapse in May, was re-established in June, 1891.

  SCHOOL PREMISES.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the case of a Voluntary School having been closed and the building rented by the managers to a School Board, the managers can then give notice to the Board to quit, and prevent them providing additional accommodation for the
  166
  scholars accustomed to attend a Board School?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot answer hypothetical questions; but if the facts of any specific case are submitted to the Committee of Concil they will be considered.

  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
  MR. FLYNN: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim, N. (Mr. PATRICK M'HUGH), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the price of the daily issues of the Parliamentary Debates, or of furnishing same gratis to Members applying for them?
  MR. HANBURY: The contract binds the contractor not to charge more than a shilling for each daily part, but it, does not give the Government any power to interfere with the prices charged for the separate parts within that limit. As regards the proposal to supply the parts gratis to Members, I can only repeat what I said last August, when the same question was raised in Supply. There have already been several Debates as to the heavy expenditure incurred for printing, and, in view of the two Committees of 1888 and 1893, I do not think that the Government would be justified in making any further outlay in that direction.

  CARLLSLE GAUL (DEATH OK PRISONER).
  CAPTAIN BAGOT (Westmoreland,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of a prisoner, John Nelson, which occurred in Carlisle Prison on Tuesday, 2nd instant; whether, previous to Nelson's decease, the prison surgeon had made a report upon his condition, advising his immediate release on account of the serious state of his health; and, will he explain on what grounds the Prison Commissioners refused to grant his release?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): Yes, Sir, I am aware of the death of this prisoner. A report was

  167
  received by me five days before it happened from the prison doctor, not, as the Question suggests, advising his immediate release, but stating that he was suffering from pernicious anæmia and might die soon. The prisoner was too ill to be removed to his home, which was thirty miles away; and as the workhouse infirmary was the only other place which could receive him, and death was in all probability inevitable, I came to the conclusion that it was better he should remain undisturbed in the prison infirmary should add that the prisoner had been received in prison only three weeks before under a long sentence for a serious offence and that the disease was in no way due to or aggravated by his confinement.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMOLATION (WIMBLEDON).
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether the land required to supply the deficiency of school accommodation at Wimbledon has yet been bought, and the building plans approved by, or submitted to, the Education Department; (2) whether he is aware that, as the result of appeals extending over several months, only £2,136 has been promised towards the estimated expenditure of, £7,150; and (3) whether, in view of this fact, and of the continued rapid increase of the population, the Department will, without further delay, give effect to the notice which expired on the 30th of November last?
  SIR J. GORST: I am informed that the conveyance of the site for the new school is in course of completion, and that plans of the buildings will be submitted as soon as it is executed. I understand that the statement in paragraph 2 is correct; but the Schools' Committee have arranged to borrow £3,500 of the total sum required, and are confident that they will raise the remaining £2,000 without any difficulty. Under these circumstances, the Committee of Council see no reason at present to order the formation of a School Board.

  NATIONAI, EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND).
  MR. JOHN DILLON,on behalf of the hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. P. C. DOOGAN), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at a largely attended meeting of the members of the Belfast National Teachers' Association, which was held in Rosemary Street Hall, Belfast, on Saturday last, under the chairmanship of Mr. Erskine, President of the Association, a resolution was adopted expressing their opinion that two or more practical teachers should occupy seats on the Board of National Education in Ireland, and urge on the Central Committee to give this question a prominent place at the next congress; and whether he will take any steps to have the views of this body of teachers carried into effect?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Copies of the Resolution have been received. The question is not one on which I should like to express an opinion without further consideration.

  REGISTERED LETTER ENVELOPES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a letter weighing under half an ounce enclosed in a registered envelope, not registered properly in the office at Thomastown, Kilkenny, but posted in an ordinary letter box, and bearing a penny stamp, was made liable to a charge of fourpence on delivery; whether the Postmaster General is liable for the loss of valuable property if sent in an official registered letter envelope without the sender obtaining a receipt; and if not, on what grounds is a charge of fourpence made for a letter because it happens to be sent, duly stamped, in an envelope issued by the Department; and whether he will alter this rule?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has made inquiry into the particular case referred to by the hon. Member, and he finds that the envelope was posted almost immediately after the publication of the new regulations, and improperly charged through an oversight. The hon. Member is probably aware

  169
  that prior to the issue of recent regulations the envelope improperly posted would be liable to a charge of 6d. viz., four times the registration fee less the 2d. paid on the envelope. The clerk dealing with the case seems actually to have made this charge in the first instance and corrected it, writing 4d. over the 6d. He should, as a matter of fact, have written 2d. The Postmaster General is not legally liable for the loss of any article sent by post, but he voluntarily undertakes to grant compensation in the case of letters, etc., which have been posted and registered in accordance with the rules. A line is levied on letters marked "Registered" butimproperly posted, to make the public careful to avoid placing temptation in the way of servants of the Department, and the Postmaster General is not prepared to abolish the rule.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. HENNIKER HEA-TON), I beg to ask the. Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a person having no stamp, but having a registered letter envelope for which he has paid twopence, and which bears a twopenny embossed stamp, may send a circular, or other bookpost matter of the prescribed weight, in such envelope, provided the envelope be left unfastened, without rendering the addressee liable to a line of fourpence on delivery; and, if a fine is thereby incurred, whether he will explain what offence has been committed, or how the Department can be injured or defrauded by the use of an unfastened registered envelope as a cover for bookpost matter?
  MR. HANBURY: Registered letter envelopes are sold for the convenience of the public in sending registered letters, and must not be used for any other purpose. If a registered letter envelope therefore is dropped into a letter box instead of being handed over a counter it must be assumed, whatever its contents, that it is intended for registration, and the ordinary fine will be exacted for its irregular posting. Regulations of this kind are made to facilitate the work of the Department, and if such suggestions as he puts forward in the Question were adopted, the work of the Department would be proportionately delayed with
  170
  the effect of arresting the mails and casting indirectly inconvenience on the general public.

  CABLE COMMUNICATION (BERMUDA TO JAMAICA).
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of the Dominion of Canada has offered a subsidy of £3,000, and the Government of Jamaica £2,000, towards the cost of the direct telegraph cable from Bermuda to Jamaica, via Turk's Island, and as he stilted in April 1896 that he had no reason to think there are any insuperable constructive difficulties affecting such communication, whether the delay in granting the sanction of Her Majesty's Government is on account of inadequate financial support given, or whether there is any difficulty in consequence of the prior occupation of the West Indies by any other Company which controls the service between Jamaica and the other Islands; and whether he is aware that this Company has announced its intention to give up the service between the Islands if the direct cable to Jamaica should be laid, and that the Company proposing to lay and work the; direct cable has expressed its willingness at once to connect the several Islands by cable, and maintain a satisfactory service at a much reduced rate. In putting his question General Laurie said he believed there was a slight error for which he was responsible. It was stated that the Government of Canada had offered a subsidy. He was informed they had the matter under consideration only.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I believe that what the hon. Member states is the case. The Government of Canada are prepared to consider the matter; they have not got further than that. I have reason to beilive that the Government of Canada are disposed to contribute to the cost of providing direct telegraphic communication between Bermuda and Jamaica, but I am not aware that they have offered a subsidy of £3,000 for that purpose. The Government of Jamaica have expressed their willingness to transfer to a company providing such communication the subsidy of £2,000 a year, which they now pay to the

  171
  Company which now provides telegraphic communication between that colony and the United Kingdom, viâ the United States and Cuba and Panama. In dealing with proposals which have been made for the construction and working of a cable between Bermuda and Jamaica Her Majesty's Government have been obliged to take into consideration not only financial questions, but the provision of communication between Jamaica and Her Majesty's other West Indian possessions. These questions have presented considerable difficulties, which have not yet been surmounted. I am not aware that the Companies to which I understand the hon. and gallant Member to refer in his last Question have committed themselves to the statements which he attributes to them.

  PATTERN POST (BUBBER SAMPLES).
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. HENNIKER HEATON), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, under what authority the transmission of samples of rubber by British firms by pattern post has been absolutely prohibited within the last few days, on the ground that the odour of it is injurious to other correspondence or annoying to the officials, although such samples have been transmitted by post for 30 years without injury to the mails, and are still freely introduced from abroad and delivered in this country by the British postal authorities; is he aware that the rubber trade of Liverpool exceeds six millions sterling per annum, and that the fact that the prohibition of the posting of British samples has been to transfer that trade bodily into the hands of foreign manufacturers; whether he has been informed that by certain processes the odour of crude rubber is now largely got rid of, and that by packing the substance in a tin canister any remaining odour is entirely suppressed; and whether he will at once give directions that the said prohibition shall not apply to samples packed in air-tight canisters?
  MR. HANBURY: The exclusion of crude rubber from the sample post was decided upon on the ground that it is
  172
  the duty of the Post Office to protect the contents of the mails. By 47 and 48 Vict. c. 76 articles such as crude rubber which are likely to injure the other contents of the mails cannot be admitted to the Sample post. It is a necessary condition that samples must be packed in such a manner as to be easily withdrawn for examination, and this would of course be impossible in the samples packed in air-tight canisters. The prohibition applies equally to samples of crude rubber received from places abroad as to those posted in this country, and my hon. Friend is mistaken as to his facts. Neither is it the fact that such samples have been transmitted for 30 years without injury to the mails. In 1894 parcels containing crude rubber were forbidden to pass through the post, unless so packed as to render the smell imperceptible, but continued trouble has been given by the dispatch of these substances.

  CORDITE EXPERIMENTS (WOOLWICH ARSENAL).
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with regard to the experiment carried out at Woolwich Arsenal, on the 2nd instant, with cordite, what were the exact weights of cordite, used, how were the packages constructed, and of what material or materials; how were the cases arranged, and at what distances apart; who suggested the experiment, and who authorised it; what was it intended to prove, what did it prove, and what were the exact results; and whether, in any of Her Majesty's ships having guns especially constructed for the use of cordite, any cordite is carried?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It is neither desirable nor usual to give the details of experiments which are carried out for special purposes with warlike stores. The experiments on the 2nd instant were a series made at Woolwich with different amounts of cordite packed in wooden boxes, in metal-lined boxes, and metal cases. These experiments were made under the authority of the Inspector-General of Ordnance at the suggestion of the Committee on Dangerous Buildings, and were carried on under the

  173
  supervision of the Ordnance Committee. The object was to ascertain what would be the result of cordite becoming ignited when stored under different conditions. The results of the experiments have so far afforded valuable information—[laughter]—and further experiments will take place with a view of determining points that have arisen in connection with the safe storage of cordite. Her Majesty's ships carry cordite charges.
  MR. LABOUCHEREinquired whether the hon. Gentleman could tell them what the results of the experiments showed except the blowing up of a church. [Laughter.]
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSwas informed that that was not one of the results. Perhaps it might be arranged that the hon. Member should be present at the next explosion. [Laughter.]

  VACCINATION (PROSECUTIONS.)
  MR. J. W. LOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that boards of guardians in various parts of the country are just now more than usually energetic in prosecuting persons who, having conscientious objections to vaccination, naturally conclude that some regard will be had to the recommendations of a Royal Commission, and are causing the homes of such persons to be broken up for the recovery of penalties; and if, in view of his declaration that no legislation on the subject can be attempted during the present Session, he will advise boards of guardians to suspend prosecutions under the Vaccination Law for the present?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): It is the duty of boards of guardians to enforce the existing law in regard to vaccination, and the report of a Royal Commission in no way relieves them of that duty. I have no dispensing power, and I should not be justified in advising boards of guardians to take the course suggested by the hon. Member, namely, to advise boards of guardians to suspend prosecutions under the Vaccination Law for the present.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any accounts have been made out between the War Office and the Chartered Company (in payment of Imperial troops lent to the Chartered Company); what sums have been paid by the Company, and what amount is still owing in account by them; and, whether any payments made and sums due or estimated, or both, will appear in the Estimates; if not, in what Statement or accounts can they be found?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It is known that considerable payments have been made in South Africa to the War Office account, but details cannot yet be given. In addition the Company have provided for the subsistence of the Imperial troops employed, besides meeting heavy charges for transport. The whole question of the claim to be preferred against the British South Africa Company is under consideration, but it is expected to be settled on this years' accounts, so that no provision in next year's Estimates was necessary.
  MR. BAYLEYasked whether the hon. Gentleman could state the total amount that had been paid up to the present time?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid he could not do so, because the final accounts had not yet been received.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has taken or intend to take any steps to procure the attendance for the purpose of examination before the South African Committee of this House of Messrs. Sampson and Davis, now imprisoned in Pretoria?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,replying in the absence of Mr. CHAMBEKRLAIN, said that the Question of the attendance of witnesses was in the hands of the Committee.

  QUEEN'S REIGN (SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM).
  MR. MASSEY-MAIN WARING: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, considering that the Prince Consort was the originator of the South Kensington Museum,

  175
  and that the front of the building has never been completed, although numerous plans have been prepared, he will endeavour to induce the Treasury to provide the necessary funds by a supplementary Estimate to complete the front in commemoration of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): This question was carefully considered by the Treasury within the last few weeks in connection with the Estimates for 1807–08, when it was decided that the necessary funds could not be found. I do not think that under these circumstances it is of any use my applying to them to do so by means of a supplementary Estimate.

  NEWBLISS PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) how many magistrates there are in the Newbliss Petty Sessions; (2) have those magistrates held any meetings to consider the wisdom of holding their Court of Petty Sessions in an Orange Lodge; (3) what are the names of those magistrates, and how did they individually vote in this matter; (4) was there a majority of them in favour of removing the Petty Sessions Court from the Orange Lodge; and (5) what prevented the carrying out of their decision?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are twelve magistrates appointed to attend the Newbliss Petty Sessions. The Court of Petty Sessions is not held in an Orange Lodge as alleged in the second paragraph, but in one room of many, in a building which is private property, and this room is rented by the Grand Jury as a Public Justice Room. On Thursday last I informed the hon. Member that the occupation of this room on a certain date in July 1896, by the members of an Orange Lodge has been brought under the notice of the magistrates by the Lord Chancellor, and I also stated the views of the magistrates in reference to the occurrence. I have no information regarding the third and fourth paragraphs and as to the last paragraph I can only repeat what I have again and again explained, that the question of providing accommodation for the use of the Justices
  176
  in Petty Sessions rests entirely with the Grand Jury over whose action the Government exercise no control.

  CRETE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office are in possession of authentic information respecting the position of the Vali in Crete; whether his authority as Governor General of the island has been practically superseded and the Turkish troops act under the sole command of the Military Governor; and what steps, if any, have been taken by the representatives of the Powers to restore the authority of the Vali?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CUEZON,): Under the scheme of reforms sanctioned by the Sultan in August last, the Turkish troops were placed at the disposal of the Vali, in the event of disturbance. His power in this respect does not appear to have been questioned since; and no steps accordingly have been taken to restore an authority which has not, so far as we are aware, been impaired.

  CHRISTIAN POPULATION AT HALEPA.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information the Foreign Office can give the House regarding the position of the Christian population in and around Halepa; and, whether the Mussulman population have been armed and encouraged to acts of lawlessness by the Turkish authorities?
  MR. CURZON: A few days ago Her Majesty's Consul reported that 700 armed Christians were on the heights above Halepa, and an unknown number of Christians to the westward. The embarkation of Christians from Halepa does not seem to have met with any interference on the part of the Mussulmans. The general tenour of the reports indicate that in this neighbourhood the Christians were rather the assailants than the attacked, and the British Naval Commander reported on the 7th of February that an agreement had been made that they should not advance further. No

  177
  information has been received showing that the Turkish authorities have armed the Mussulmans or encouraged them to lawless acts. A Mussulman mob attacked the Arsenal at Candia and possessed themselves forcibly of 2,000 rifles; two Turkish soldiers were killed and live wounded during the assault. But the town has since been reported to be quiet.

  ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL, WILLESDEN.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the public elementary school of St. Andrew's, Willesden, another assistant master is threatened with dismissal by the vicar, because the assistant master declines to relinquish his post of organist at another parish church in order to attend the church of St. Andrew; whether in view of the fact that the managers of the said school received some £1,200 of public money during the year last reported on by the Education Department, any steps can be taken by the Department to prevent the threatened dismissal; and, whether if the Department does not at present possess the requisite powers to redress abuses of management, he will take the necessary steps to obtain them?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council have received no information on the subject; but, as I have frequently stated, the Committee of Council have no power to interfere in the contracts made by the managers and teachers of elementary schools, and do not see how if would be possible for them to exercise such a power.

  INDIAN FAMINE.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will request the Viceroy, in his usual weekly telegram stating the number of persons on relief, also to include the number of deaths due to the famine in each of the affected districts; and, whether he has ascertained by telegraph the number of deaths due to famine in the Central Provinces?
  LORD GEORG E H A MILTON: As I informed the hon. Member on the 5th inst., it is not possible to associate
  178
  with the telegrams describing the weekly progress of relief operations and the numbers receiving relief any statistics relating to mortality for the same period. An interval of time must elapse between the period to which vital statistics in India refer and their receipt in this country. In a Dispatch (seepage 176 of the Blue-book on Famine) I anticipated the hon. Member's request by asking for:—
  "The earliest possible information of my considerable rise of the death-rate above normal, and also a periodical report of continued mortality of an unusually high rate in any province."
  I have also requested the Government of India to let me know the total number of deaths from all causes in the Central Provinces in 1896 as soon as the statistics are available.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum represented by 5s per head for every child in average attendance in Voluntary Schools will be paid for the whole of the financial year 1897–8; whether such sum will be paid in respect of every school, whether its school year ends before or after the Bill receives Royal Assent, and the necessary machinery for distribution is set up; and whether it will be possible to pay the aid grant quarterly, as is now done in the case of the fee grant?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the sum represented by 5s. per head for every child in average attendance in Voluntary Schools would be paid for the whole of the financial year 1897–98. The dale of the school year would not affect the distribution of the grant. It would probably not be possible to pay the aid grant quarterly (certainly not during this first year), but the question would be further considered after the necessary machinery had been set up.

  RATING COMMISSION.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Rating Commission has begun its sittings: and, what progress has been made in its work?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am informed that the Commission met in the autumn, and decided upon the character of the information it was desirable to secure from certain public departments and public bodies. They appointed a Committee to arrange the precise form in which the information should be obtained, and to communicate with the public departments and public bodies concerned. The information required being largely composed of statistics, has taken the various Government departments a considerable time to prepare, but it is nearly complete; and regular sittings to hear witnesses have been arranged, and will commence at an early date.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY).
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the "Supplementary Civil Service Estimates will be issued?
  MR. HANBURY: The usual date for sending in these Estimates to the Treasury is the middle of February, and whether Parliament meets early or late the Departments cannot be expected to ascertain their requirements before that date, as even then there are six weeks left of the current financial year. I hope to issue them next week.

  SOLDIERS' EFEECTS FUND.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the failure on the part of the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, as disclosed by the Report of the Select Committee, to administer the "Soldiers' Effects Fund," formed from the unclaimed balances of soldiers' effects transferred by the War Office to the Patriotic Fund Commissioners from time to time; whether he is aware that since 1884 the funds in the hands of the Commisioners have been allowed to accumulate from £44,182 to £134,333, and that from the income of £4,830 in 1895 the Commissioneis expended in relief £1,060 only, although the corpus of the fund is being added to continuously by further sums arising from soldiers' unclaimed effects; and, whether, in view of the fact that urgent cases of destitution
  180
  among widows, children, and dependent relatives of soldiers who have lost their lives in performance of Military duty are frequently brought to the attention of the War Department, he will consider the advisability of recommending to Her Majesty that the Soldiers' Effects Fund for the future should remain under the control and be distributed as formerly by the War Department?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: When the balance of the "Soldiers' Effects Fund" was transferred in 1881 to the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, it was anticipated that, with short service, the source whence it is replenished would be much diminished, and in that view the Commissioners were informed that the fund should not be appropriated to provide allowances for widows other than those of men on war service, actual campaigns being at that time in progress. The remainder of the fund was to be kept in hand to meet any extraordinary demand which might arise. Further instructions were issued in 1887 modifying this restriction, and it is believed that in consequence all the widows of men who have lost their lives in the performance of military duty have been relieved by the Commissioners. Instructions conveying further modifications in the same direction are being issued to the Commissioners, but there is no intention of removing the distribution of the fund from them.

  ESSEX ASSIZES (TRIAL OF W. WALDEN).
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will cause an official inquiry to be made into the allegation that William Walden, who was tried and acquitted at the last Essex Assizes, was nearly starved in prison while awaiting his trial, and that, during his detention he was not allowed to see any newspaper with an account of his case in it?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have not seen or heard of any such allegation. The prisoner received the ordinary diet of prisoners awaiting trial, and when asked if he wished to spend on food any of the money he received from his friends replied "No." Nor were any of the newspapers sent to him withheld,

  181
  with the exception of two which contained an account of the inquest on his brother, and the comments in which might, if was thought, be painful to him.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to amend the Compulsory Education Act, 1892, and whether it is intended to make the Act effectual to insure attendance, and to provide primary, technical and agricultural education in Ireland, especially in view of the fact that the United States Senate has passed a law against the admission of illiterate immigrants into the United States?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I introduced a Bill last year with the object of amending the Irish Education Act of 1892, and I am ready to introduce a Bill this year embodying those clauses of last year's Bill which were intended to remedy the acknowledged defects in the Act of 1892, provided I receive an assurance that such a Bill would be treated as non-contentious. If, however, it were treated as a contentious Measure and made the battleground for fighting the questions connected with the exclusion of the Christian Brothers' and other schools from the benefits of the national system, it would be impossible for the Government to ask the House to spend over it the time that would be necessary to pass it into law.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: asked whether the Government had definitely abandoned the intention of settling the claims of the Christian Brothers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh, no Sir.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state at what time it is intended to bring in the Bill to amend the existing system of Private Bill Legislation; and whether he is aware that there is a practical unanimity amongst all classes of Irishmen asking for its immediate amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe there is a considerable volume of
  182
  opinion entertained among the various classes in Ireland in favour of an amendment of the existing system of Private Bill legislation. On the general question, however, I cannot add anything to the statement in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the present Session of Parliament.

  LAND COMMISSION COURT (BALLYMENA).
  MR. J. PLNKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a considerable number of land cases were heard before the Sub-Commission Court in Ballymena on 5th November 1896, and that no decisions have yet been given; and if he can explain the reason why these decisions have been so long delayed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that the decisions in the cases referred to will be given at an early date.

  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the amount of money paid to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under the Local Taxation (Ireland) Estate Duty Act of 1896; and to what purposes the Government intend that this money shall be devoted?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not possible at the present time to make an exact statement of the amount payable to Ireland, and I am not yet in a position to state the purposes to which the Government propose to allocate the money in Ireland.

  MARSHALL'S CHARITY (NORFOLK).
  MR. T. L. HARE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, as a Charity Commissioner, why the Charity Commissioners do not proceed to apportion Marshall's Charity, at Welney, Norfolk, in accordance with the application of the parish council, who desire to appoint trustees?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: This Charity is applicable to purposes partly ecclesiastical, partly

  183
  eleemosynary, and partly those of an Elementary School. The Commissioners could apportion between the ecclesiastical part and the rest of the Charity, if that would give effect to the Local Government Act 1894, and enable the parish council to appoint trustees, but this is not the case. Before they can do so it is necessary, having regard to Section 66 of the Parish Councils Act, to separate eleemosynary from the educational part of the Charity, and the Act gives no power to do this. I understand that a Bill will be introduced by Members on both sides to remedy this state of things, which has caused disappointment in many parishes. Until that Bill is passed the Commissioners cannot give the parish councils representation on any part of these mixed trusts—except by way of scheme, and the trustees in this case have not made the necessary application.

  EDUCATION GRANT (SCOTLAND).
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to state approximately what is the amount of the additional grant proposed to be given for educational purposes in Scotland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have nothing, and shall not have anything, to add to the statements I have already made on this subject. I have said that in my opinion it cannot be dealt with on the basis of an equivalent grant, but that, if the Voluntary Schools Bill becomes law, fair consideration will be given to providing for the educational requirements of Scotland. Any questions as to the nature of that provision should be addressed not to me, but to the Lord Advocate; but I do not suppose they could be answered until the consideration of the English Bill is completed.

  ARMY RETIRED PAY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the limit imposed by the Treasury on the amount of the just equivalent under Article 978 xiii. of the Royal Warrant of the 18th June 1884 affected Engineer Officers of the regimental rank of
  184
  Lieutenant Colonel; and, if so how many; and, if only one, what was his name?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The limit referred to affected thirty-one regimental Lieutenant-Colonels of Royal Engineers.

  LAND COMMISSION (KING'S COUNTY).
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when is it likely a Sub-commission will sit in. Edenderry, King's County, for the hearing of the land cases listed in the district; and, is he aware that a Commission has not sat there for two years, and that there is a considerable nnmber of cases awaiting a hearing?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is probable that a list containing cases arising in the district referred to will be issued in the course of the coming month. A Commission last sat for the disposal of cases in the Edenderry Union in March 1895. All cases then outstanding were disposed of. There are now 36 cases awaiting a hearing.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state to the House the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland which the Government propose to appoint?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Resolution to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was necessarily passed in ignorance of the terms of the reference to the proposed Commission, and, though I should not like to question its authority, it is a decision come to on very imperfect information. The actual terms of reference which we propose are as follows: (1.) To inquire and report how much of the total expenditure which the State provides may properly be considered to be expenditure common to England, Scotland, and Ireland, and what share of such common expenditure each country is contributing after the amount expended on local service has been deducted from its true revenue,

  185
  (2.) How the expenditure on Irish local services which the State wholly or in part provides compares with the corresponding expenditure in England and in Scotland—[Cheers]—and whether such Irish expenditure may with advantage he readjusted or reduced. (3.) Whether when regard is had to the nature of the taxes now in force, to the existing exemptions, and to the amount of expenditure by the State on local services, the provision in the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland with regard to particular exemptions or abatements calls for any modification in the financial system of the United Kingdom. [Cheers]

  SUGAR REFINING INDUSTRY (UNITED KINGDOM).
  SIR THOMAS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that the sugar refining business of this country has dwindled to such an extent that the output in 1896 was only 712,000 tons compared with 916,000 tons in 1888, whilst the import of foreign refined sugar has risen during the same period from 344,000 tons to 729,000 tons; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of causing an inquiry to be made into the operation of the bounties granted by Foreign Powers with the view, if possible, of arresting the further decline of the refining industry in this country, simultaneously with the separate investigation which is now being made with regard to the sugar growing interests of the West Indies?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that the figures supplied to me by the Board of Trade do not quite agree with those in the question, but there, is, I believe, no doubt that the industry referred to is in a very depressed condition. I think, however, any special inquiry into it, if it should be decided that such inquiry should ever take place, should at all events be reserved until we know the results of the inquiry of the Commission now sitting.

  PROSECUTION OF MR. IVORY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to compensate Mr. Ivory (alias Bell), a citizen
  186
  of the United States of America, who was recently imprisoned for four months in London; have the Government received any communications from the United States Government relative to the question of compensation to Mr. Ivory; and, what amount of compensation is claimed, and what amount do the Government propose to give?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SUBY: No communication on this subject has been received by Her Majesty's Government from the United States, and I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it would be entirely contrary to the established practice to admit any claim for compensation in such a case as this.

  QUEENS REIGN (NATIONAL HOLIDAY).
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government would take into consideration the desirability of establishing a National holiday in commemoration of Her Majesty's long and auspicious reign?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I believe that in 1887, the year of the Jubilee, there was a Bank Holiday provided under the existing statute, and we should propose to follow the precedent then set, in the present year. [Cheers.]
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government will not consider whether they should continue that holiday in the future and make, it, a permanent, holiday. [Cries of "No!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That opens a very difficult and much larger question. I hardly think that would be desirable. [" Hear, hear."]

  NECESSITOUS BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Bill authorising an aid grant to necessitous Board Schools is drafted; and whether he will introduce this Bill with a view to its being lead a First time and in the hands of Members befere a division is taken on the Second Beading of the Voluntary Schools Bill, in order that Members may be in possession at once of the contemplated intentions of the Government both in regard to Voluntary Schools and of Board Schools?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think any advantage would be gained by introducing this Bill before we have disposed of the Measure dealing with the Voluntary Schools now before the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of ray question.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Bill is quite ready to be brought in as soon as a proper opportunity offers. (Opposition laughter.)

  LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRLMHNAL CASES) BILL.
  MR. J. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to move the Second Reading of the Law of Evidence (Criminal Cases) Bill before they take the Committee stage of the Education Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF TILE TREASURY: I can give no definite answer to this question, but in view of the immediate business before the House I do not think it very likely that an opportunity will be found in the course of next week, but I should not like to pledge myself on the point.

  LAND TAX.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,replying to Mr. GRANT LAWSON said: The Land Tax Commissioners, in distributing the fixed quota among the unexonerated properties in a parish, are not bound to take the Income-Tax assessment, or the ratable value, or any other particular valuation as the basis of distribution. They are free to take any basis, as long as they distribute the charge, in the words of the original Land Tax Acts, "with as much equality and indifference as possible." [Laughter.] But, where relief is claimed under Section 31 of the Finance Act 1896, which provides that the land-tax in any parish shall not exceed is. in the pound on the annual value of the unexonerated lands in that parish, the "annual value" referred to is, as defined by the interpretation clause of the Act, the Income-Tax assessment. As there seems to be much misapprehension on the subject, I have instructed
  188
  the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, before the next land-tax assessments are made, to issue a circular to the land-tax-authorities explaining the provisions of the law. [" Hear, hear."]

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SURYrose to move:—
"That the several stages of the Voluntary School Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on every day for which the Bill is appointed."
The right hon. Gentleman said: Quite apart from the Notice standing on the Paper, I should imagine the Housefully expected and, on the whole, approves of the course which the Government find themselves obliged to take on the present occasion. I think it was in answer to a question put to me by the learned Member for Louth, at a very early period of the Session, that I stated that the Government did not propose, as had been reported, to take all the Wednesdays up to Easter, but that no doubt we should feel ourselves obliged, when once the proceedings on the Education Bill had commenced, to propose that the successive stages of the Bill should be taken continuously until each was finished. That obviously is the most convenient plan, and a plan which has been adopted by successive Administrations in dealing with Bills of this important character. Though I admit this will, of course, inflict hardship on private Members which I would gladly avoid, I do not see how I can possibly do so consistently with the general interest of the business of the House and of the great mass of Members belonging to the House. ["Hear!"] I am sanguine enough to think that the Bill is of so simple a character that it need not occupy any very prolonged period, and if that forecast proves to be accurate the sacrifice on the part of private Members will be extremely trifling. If, on the other hand, hon. Gentlemen think they would not be fulfilling their duty to their constituents without discussing the Bill at great length, then I admit the hardship to private Members will be increased considerably, and private Members will be the first to admit

189
that the necessity for pursuing the course we propose is forced upon us by the action of the Opposition. ["Hear, hear!" and "Oh, oh!"] On that hypothesis, I mean. I am afraid these objections come from hon. Gentlemen who have not followed me. If, I say, the period of time taken for the successive stages of the Bill proves to be brief, then the sacrifice on the part of private Members will be small, but if that period is prolonged, the necessity for asking for further privileges for Government business stands manifest in the eyes of everybody. ["Hear, hear!"] Under the circumstances I hope the House will feel that in doing what every Government has found it necessary to do, we are doing that which the interests of the House, the interests of the country, the interests of legislation in connection with Voluntary schools, and the interest of the general legislation of the Session alike require, It is with some confidence I ask the House to accept this Motion, reminding hon. Members of what I have before stated, that, although it is not absolutely necessary that the Bill should come into operation at a given moment of a given day, it is in the highest degree desirable from the point of view of the Voluntary Schools that it should pass into law as soon as possible, so that the fullest time may be given for those organisations to spring into existence on whose work so much of the success of the Bill must, in my judgment, depend. I will not argue this further or I shall be launching into Debate more proper to the Second Beading than to this preliminary notice, but I thought it necessary to remind the House in the general interest of the work of the Session, and of the interest of education in Voluntary Schools, this Measure should be placed on the Statute-book without any unnecessary delay. I do not think it necessary to say more, and now I ask you, Sir, to put the Motion from the Chair.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid before the House adopted this Motion, it would be well to consider, without at all going into the merits or demerits of the Bill to be affected by the Motion, the position the House occupied in regard to its Standing Orders. It was very possible those Standing Orders were not absolutely perfect, he was perfectly willing to admit that, but while those Standing Orders remained to guide the proceedings of the House, some attempt
190
ought to be made to conform to them. What a good many Members complained of was that they did not know from day to day what the order of business would be. ["Hear, hear!"] What took place last Session certainly did not tend to regularise the conduct of business, and a condition of Parliamentary anarchy might be said to have prevailed. ["Hear!"] It was the law of the strongest. The Standing Orders prescribed one class of business for a particular day, but the law of the strongest interposed and that day was taken away for purposes which, whether good or bad, were not the purposes contemplated in the Standing Orders of the House. The House might very well consider how far it was conducive to business that its Orders should remain to be violated from day to day. Whether private Members should have the right to make Motions at all was a matter for the House to consider. Some hon. Members thought such Motions a nuisance which should be put down. ["Hear, hear!"] His right hon. Friend behind him with a large Parliamentary experience emphatically endorsed that idea. Others said that Bills introduced by private Members were for the most part advertisements for the purpose of ventilating "fads," and to glorify Members who advocated those Bills, and he was not prepared very loudly to contradict that opinion, but what he did say was, that the House ought to establish some reasonable code of rules and orders, and when established these should be adhered to. ["Hear, hear!"] What had happened this Session in regard to Tuesdays, which, according to Standing Orders should be set apart for Motions? The very first Tuesday, he would not say whether lightly or wrongly, was allocated to another purpose, and after one Tuesday had been used for the purpose contemplated in the Standing Orders, probably for the rest of the Session or nearly so, those days would be diverted from the purpose contemplated in the Orders. The House had been told that if these Tuesdays were given up, Members would still find opportunities for bringing on subjects in which they were interested on the details of Supply. Now, whatever the merits or demerits of the rule in regard to Supply, which he was bound to admit had in many respects worked uncommonly well, it did

191
not fulfil all the purposes, for there were many questions it was perfectly impossible to raise on Fridays in connection with the Votes in Supply. He would not go into detail, but under the rules of Debate, rightly interpreted by the Chairman of Committees, many questions which were legitimate subjects for discussion in the House had been ruled not within the four corners of any single Vote, and could not, therefore, be discussed. So much for Tuesdays and Fridays. Then they were told that any question of real urgency could be discussed under Standing Order No. 91 on a Motion for Adjournment. But what happened was well known. A rumour obtained currency that such an intention existed, and a Notice made its appearance on the Paper effectively precluding the intended course from being taken. Of course, he would not be in order in referring to Standing Order No. 91 in detail, but he thought when the Government took away from the great body of the House, that was all the non-official Members, facilities which the Standing Orders placed within their reach, they had a right to ask whether some modification should be made in the Rule governing the right of Members to call attention to matters of urgent public importance. A blocking Notice, perhaps inspired from interested quarters might preclude discussion, and the obstacles to the free ventilation of grievances concerned every Member. He thought some alteration might reasonably be made under which the Speaker should be judge of the desirability and fitness of the subject proposed for Debate. Some concession of this kind might go some way to accommodate Members for this huge encroachment on the rights and privileges they had hitherto enjoyed. On the present proposal he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the merits of the Bill, and he was rather trespassing on delicate ground when he spoke of the urgency of the Bill. He assumed the matter was urgent. Every Government thought every Bill it brought forward of great importance and urgency, and his right hon. Friend found a reason, for the course he proposed in the fact that all Governments had done the same thing, and within recent years had asked for similar facilities. But where was this to end? Were non-official Members simply
192
to be converted into cog-wheels in a lawmaking machine? Were they to maintain the position of the House as the grand inquest of the nation, or were matters of urgent importance to be tabooed and no convenience to be consulted but that of the Government? This it would be well for the House to consider when once more the opportunities for private Members were annexed for an indefinite time. They would perhaps be told that this was only to last perhaps for a few days, that if the House behaved well and did as the Government wished that even next Tuesday would be at the disposal of Members, and that with a moderate amount of good behaviour even Wednesdays would be left at the disposal of Members who had been fortunate enough to obtain days for their Bills, but he asked the House to consider whether it was desirable that the condition of affairs last year, which he referred to as absolutely chaotic, should be perpetuated.
MR. LOUGHsaid that this discussion might have been shortened, or altogether obviated, if the right hon. Gentleman had not put down the Second Reading of the Education Bill for such an early day. The country had not had time to understand the Bill.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing the question whether the Bill should have been postponed or not.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the Bill was a very complicated Measure. But his chief objection to the present Motion was that it was the most drastic of its kind ever submitted to the House. The right hon. Gentleman took precedence for the Bill in all its stages; he might have held out hope that, with fair progress in the earlier stages, consideration would be shown to private Members when the later stages were reached. He hoped the Bill would not be put down on every day in the week. The right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned Tuesdays, but, of course, that priceless possession of private Members went by the board with the Wednesdays. The right hon. Gentleman would have shortened discussion by adopting a more conciliatory tone, and leaving to private Members some shred of those ancient rights which the right hon. Gentleman had so often defended.
MR. J. SAMUELsaid that he had charge of the Steam Engines and

193
Boilers (Persons in Charge) Bill, which was down for Wednesday next. He hoped that that day would be excluded from the Resolution. This Bill had been introduced for many years, and in 1895 it obtained a Second Heading. It was regarded with the deepest interest by a large section of the working classes, and last year the Trade Union Congress unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the Bill.
MR. HENRY SETON-KARRsaid he did not desire to delay the progress of the Education Bill, but he could not approve or support the Government's Motion. He had secured in the ballot Tuesday fortnight for the question of our National Food Supplies; and he should like to have an assurance that that date would be exempted from the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not anticipate that the Education Bill would take long to discuss. If so, this Motion was quite unnecessary; and if the Bill were to be obstructed, the Government ought to wait till the obstruction had declared itself before proposing such a Motion. If private Members' time was to be taken away so early Session after Session, there should be some examination of the Standing Orders. Private Members balloted for Tuesdays on the understanding that they would have a chance of using those days for their own questions. During the last 11 years, however, he had often secured first or second place on Tuesdays and Fridays, but on every single occasion he had had his privilege taken away by the Government of the day. This was turning the Standing-Orders into a farce, without the element of humour, which was the only justification for a farce.
MR. JOHN WILSONsupported the appeal on behalf of the Steam Engines and Boilers Bill. There was quite as much urgency for it as for the Education Bill. The Measure had been before the House for the last 18 or 19 years; and it was thought to be of the greatest importance by the working-classes of the country, as promoting the safety of the men working by the side of engines and boilers. If, at the outset of the Session, the Government had given notice that they would thus early take away private Members' time, the
194
promoters of the Bill would have set it down for a later day.
*MR. J. G. WEIRsaid, that although Parliament had been summoned earlier than usual, the time of private Members was also taken earlier than usual by the Government. He had a most important Motion down for Tuesday next—a Motion which affected every county Member in the United Kingdom. It seemed as though private Members were destined to become the mere slaves of the two Front Benches. The interests of the working classes should be considered first, rather than that the time and attention of the House and the nation's money should be devoted to creating nurseries for Ritualistic Churches. [Laughter.]
*MR. SPEAKER: I have great difficulty in, hearing what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am under the impression that he is out of order. [Laughter.]
*MR. WEIR,who, on again rising, was received with cries of "Speak up," concluded by stating that the Government's line of action in regard to the Education Bill was unfair, undignified, and unworthy of a great Party. [Laughter.]
MR. DOUGLAS COGHILLasked whether the First Lord of the Treasury could indicate what time it was proposed to occupy with the Second Reading of the Education Bill. He would point out that when the subject was last before the House, notwithstanding all their tremendous orations, only 99 of the Gentlemen of the Opposition went into the Lobby against the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEproposed, after the word "That," to insert the words "except on Wednesday, the 17th February." He said that last year he had charge of the Engines and Boilers Bill, which was down for consideration on Wednesday, February 17, and he could assure the House that the Measure—the object of which was to save the lives and limbs of the working classes—had not only the unanimous support of the workmen, but the support of a large number of the employers. ["Hear, hear!"] He found that Wednesdays had never before been taken from private Members earlier than March 30th, and that was in 1893,

195
when the Home Rule Bill was under consideration.
MR. J. M. PAULTONseconded the Amendment, which he should be glad to see extended so as to cover all Wednesdays. ["Hear, hear!"] He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet that there ought to be a little more certainty about the conduct of the business of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he rose not, of course, to reply to the general queries which had been put to him from both sides of the House, but merely to deal with the Amendment, which was that Wednesday next should be excluded from the operation of the Resolution. He expressed his entire sympathy with the views of the hon. Gentleman who had urged upon him the importance of discussing the Boilers Bill. He did not profess to be entirely acquainted with the merits of that Bill, but he believed it had found acceptance on previous occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the Bill was in no danger whatever from the rule now under discussion. The rule did not take every Wednesday. It only provided that on any day the Education Bill was put down it should have precedence over every other Order of the Day, the object in view being to obtain continuous discussion of each separate stage of the Measure. He was sure, from what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Boilers Bill, that they would co-operate with the Government in bringing the Debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill to a close before Wednesday next. [Cheers and Opposition cries of "Oh!"] Those hon. Gentlemen had said that the lives and limbs of working men were imperilled by the existing machinery of the law, and they had impressed earnestly upon the House the desirability of having that state of things altered. He had never in his wildest moments imagined that the Second Reading Debate on the Education Bill would extend over next Tuesday night—[Opposition cries of "Oh!"]—and if he were right in that forecast the Boilers Bill would be absolutely safe from the operation of the rule. He hoped, therefore, that everybody on both sides of the House would co-operate in
196
bringing the discussion on the Second Reading of the Education Bill to a close before that day. [Cheers.]
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he did not think he had ever heard before such an attempt to put the House under duress. [Opposition cheers and Ministerial laughter.] First of all the right hon. Gentleman, departing from the usual practice in such cases, began his reasons for asking for this control over the time of the House with a sort of anticipatory censure of the conduct the Opposition might possibly pursue. [Cheers.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Not at all; nothing of the sort.
*SIR W. HARCOURTsaid he certainly understood the language of the right hon. Gentleman to convey such a censure, and he was not alone in getting that impression. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no dispute at all that this demand was far beyond that which any Government had ever made under similar circumstances. Why was it necessary to make that extraordinary and unprecedented demand? The First Lord of the Treasury was under the impression that the Education Bill was a very simple Measure. [Laughter.] He thought the right hon. Gentleman had said the same of the Bill of last year. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No; I never said so.
*SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that the simplicity was rather in the author than in the Bill. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman had given the House as a reason for coming to a speedy decision on the Bill that it was in order that the voluntary organisations might get to work at the earliest opportunity. Might he suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a good thing, at the earliest possible opportunity, that the House of Commons should discuss these voluntary organisations, and that the country should have some opportunity of understanding them? [THE FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman told them that these voluntary organisations were very simple affairs. They were very simple, no doubt, because they were not explained. Part of the principal business of the House, if it was going to do its duty, was to insist on particulars as

197
to their voluntary organisations which the Government had not inserted in the Bill. That was true of every line of the Bill, for it suggested a great number of things of which it made no explanation whatever; therefore to call it a simple Bill which was to be passed under this sort of pressure was to give an entirely wrong interpretation of the character of the Measure. From the nature of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman it was clear that as soon as the House got into Committee on the Bill all the Wednesdays were gone. They had a, perfect right, and it was, indeed, their business, to demand that this Bill and its bearings should be understood by the country. The Second Beading stage was the proper occasion on which the House should consider whether this was a fair Bill, having regard to what it did and did not contain. There had been no previous proposal on the part of any Government to take the Wednesdays in February under any circumstances. He desired to point out that next Wednesday was to have been devoted to a subject of great interest and importance; therefore, the Division they should take on the Amendment was a declaration that, in order to hurry through the House this Education Bill before the country had had time to examine and understand it, the Government were going to take a Wednesday which was to be devoted to a subject of the highest importance to the working classes. [Cheers.]
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEobserved that as it was the general desire that the opinion of the House should not be taken with regard to this particular Wednesday, but all Wedneslays, he proposed to amend the Amendment by moving to insert, after "17th, of February," the words "and following Wednesdays." He made this Motion in the interests of two or three Bills which were of the first importance, and of a particularly urgent and practical character. For instance, for the 17th of March a Bill was to have been considered for the Amendment of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. That, he submitted, was a matter of great and urgent importance. Many of the accidents which occurred were reported by the inspectors to be attributable to negligence in the management of the mines, and when they had accidents from explosions imperilling
198
the lives of workmen it was highly essential that a Bill of this character should receive the early and earnest consideration of the House of Commons. The First Lord of the Treasury did not attempt to make any case of urgency for this Motion. It was true he made the assertion that other Governments had done the same thing, but he failed to point to a single instance of it. The Coal Mines Regulation Bill was not the only Bill of importance which was to come on upon a Wednesday. There was a Bill for dealing with the land question in Ireland, and also a Measure which, hon. Gentlemen opposite had stated to be of the greatest possible importance to agriculture—namely, the Agricultural Produce Marks Bill. These were to be swept on one side altogther, for the purpose of dealing with a Bill for which there was no urgency at all amongst its attributes. He begged to move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
MR. EDWARD MORTONseconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. He said he wished to remind the House of the position in which they stood. At the end of last Session they were told by the First Lord of the Treasury that Parliament was to be summoned at an exceptionally early time in order that there might be got through a Bill—the present Education Bill—before the 31st March. Parliament this year did meet at an exceptionally early period, and one of the first things hon. Members were told was that there was no necessity whatever to get this Bill through before the 31st March. The result was they found themselves to-day about to commence the Second Reading of the Bill at a period which was two days earlier than Parliament met last Session, and at that period they were asked by the Government to allow them, whenever they chose, to take the whole time of the House. Last Session the Government did not come to the House with any such demand until the 27th April, or ten weeks later than the period they were now at. This had been done for the sake of a Bill which the Leader of the House himself told them was not a Bill of urgency, and did not need to be passed before the close of the financial year. The usual practice was, that when a Government asked for the time of the private Members it was

199
because there was special urgency for Government business. It was perfectly impossible for the Government to pretend now, at a period earlier than that at which the House met at all last Session, and earlier than, that at which the Session usually commenced, that the Government business was of such urgency that they required all the time of private Members whenever they chose to take it. As had been already said, the Government ought seriously to consider whether they should repeal all the Standing Orders of the House. What was the use of Standing Orders, when Session after Session—and this year before the usual time for the Session to commence at all—the Government proposed absolutely to abrogate the Standing Orders of the House?
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Proposed Amendment amended, by adding, at the end thereof, the words "and other Wednesdays."
The House divided:—Ayes, 129; Noes, 256.—(Division List, No. 24.)
*MR. SPEAKERread, and was about to put the main Question, when
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,)proposed that on the Opposition side of the House they should assent to the proposals of the Government with regard to the Second Reading of the Bill, but refuse to tie the hands of the House in all the future stages of the Measure. He, therefore, moved to leave out the words "the several stages of," leaving the House free to come to a decision on each successive stage as circumstances seemed desirable.

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Banbury, Frederick George

Bill, Charles

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Banes, Major George Edward

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Arnold, Alfred

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.)

Boulnois, Edmund

Arrol, Sir William

Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Brassey, Albert

Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.)

Brown, Alexander H.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Beckett, Ernest William

Ballard, Sir Harry

Balcarres, Lord

Bemrose, Henry Howe

Butcher, John George

Baldwin, Alfred

Bethell, Commander

Campbell, James A.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Maneh'r)

Biddulph, Michael

Carson, Edward

Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds)

Bigwood, James

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

MR. JOHN BRIGGseconded the Amendment.
*MR. SPEAKERhaving put the Amendment to the House,
MR. PHILIP STANHOPErose to address the House amid cries of "Order!"
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late.
MR. STANHOPE: I regret that I did not catch your eye, Sir, but I certainly did rise before you put the Amendment for the purpose of making a few observations.
*MR. SPEAKER: I did not see the hon. Member rise, although I was looking in his direction. When I did see him I had already collected the opinions of both sides of the House.
The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 123.—(Division List, No. 25.)
MR. Lloyd-George, Mr. JOHN DILLON,Mr. P. STANHOPE, and other Members of the Opposition rose to continue the discussion, but
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Loud Opposition cries of "Oh," and cheers.]
Question put, "That the words" the several stages of "stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 123.—(Division List, No. 2G.)
Main Question put accordingly.—The House divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 117.—(Division List—No. 27—appended.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Banbury, Frederick George

Bill, Charles

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Banes, Major George Edward

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Arnold, Alfred

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.)

Boulnois, Edmund

Arrol, Sir William

Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Brassey, Albert

Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.)

Brown, Alexander H.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Beckett, Ernest William

Ballard, Sir Harry

Balcarres, Lord

Bemrose, Henry Howe

Butcher, John George

Baldwin, Alfred

Bethell, Commander

Campbell, James A.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Maneh'r)

Biddulph, Michael

Carson, Edward

Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds)

Bigwood, James

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

Cecil, Lord Hugh

Hardy, Laurence

O'Kelly, James

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Chamberlain J. Austen (Worc'r)

Havelock-Allan, General Sir H.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Heath, James

Parkes, Ebenezer

Chelsea, Viscount

Heaton, John Henniker

Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Helder, Augustus

Penn John

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)

Rhillpotts, Captain Arthur

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead)

Pierpoint, Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hobhouse, Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

Pryce-Jones, Edward

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hopkinson, Alfred

Purvis, Robert

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Houston, R. P.

Quilter, William Cuthbert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Howard, Joseph

Rankin, James

Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.)

Hozier, James

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Richards, Henry Charles

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Richardson, Thomas

Cranborne, Viscount

Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Isaacson, Frederick Wootton

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Carrie, Sir Donald

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Robinson, Brooke

Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lancs. SW.)

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Round, James

Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

Russell, Sir George (Berkshire)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Joliffe, Hon. H. George

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Darling, Charles John

Kemp, George

Rutherford, John

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Kenny, William

Savory, Sir Joseph

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Kenrick, William

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon, James

Seely, Charles Hilton

Drage, Geoffrey

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Drucker, A.

Knowles, Lees

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Smith, Abel (Herts)

Fardell, Thomas George

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lecky, William Edward H.

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane'r)

Lees, Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Fielden, Thomas

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Finch, George H.

Llewelyn, Sir Dilhwyn-(Swnsea)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. (Essex)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Strauss, Arthur

Fisher, William Hayes

Hong, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Fison, Frederick William

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (L'pool.)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Flannery, Fortesctue

Lome, Marquess of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Folkestone, Viscount

Lowles, John

Talbot, John G. (Oxford Un.)

Forster, Henry William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Taylor, Francis

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lueas-Shadwell, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fry, Lewis

Macdona, John Cumming

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Galloway, William Johnson

MeCalmont, M j.-Gen (Antr'mN)

Usborne, Thomas

Garfit, William

Malcolm, Ian

Valentia, Viscount

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W F.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Warkworth, Lord

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Milbank, Powlett Charles John

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Webster, Sir R. E. (L of W.)

Godson, Augustus Frederick

Milward, Colonel Victor

Welby, Lieut.-Col, A. C. E.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Monckton, Edward Philip

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Gordon, John Edward

Monk, Charles James

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Goschen, Rt. Hon. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

More, Robert Jasper

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrison, Walter

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Graham, Henry Robert

Mount, William George

Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mow bray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y)

Muntz, Philip A.

Wodehonse, Edmond R. (Bath)

Gretton, John

Murdoch, Charles Townshend

Wyndham, George

Greville, Captain

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

William Walrond and Mr.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Anstruther.

202

203

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Perks, Robert William

Arch, Joseph

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Pickard, Benjamin

Asher, Alexander

Harrison, Charles

Piekersgill, Edward Hare

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Reid, Sir Robert T.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hogan, James Francis

Rickett, J. Compton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Birrell, Augustine

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robson, William Snowdon

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Brigg, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Scott, Charles Prestwich

Brunner, Sir John Thomas

Kilbride, Denis

Seton-Karr, Henry

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Labouchere, Henry

Shaw, William Rawson (Halifax)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lambert, George

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

Spicer, Albert

Cameron, Robert

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Deng, Sir John

Stevenson, Francis S.

Causton, Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, David

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Cawley, Frederick

Lockwood, Sir Frank (York)

Tonnant, Harold John

Channing, Francis Allston

Logan, John William

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan)

Clough, Walter Owen

Lough, Thomas

Ure, Alexander

Colville, John

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Walton, John Lawson

Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Wayman, Thomas

Dalziel, James Henry

Macaleese, Daniel

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

McEwan, William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

McKenna, Reginald

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Dillon, John

McLaren, Charles Benjamin

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Doughty, George

McLeod, John

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

Dunn, Sir William

Maden, John Henry

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Engledow, Charles John

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Woodall, William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Woods, Samuel

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Hy. (Wol'tn)

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

Gilhooly, James

Morton, Edward John Chalmers

TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John

Thomas Ellis and Mr.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

McArthur.

Gold, Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Paulton, James Mellor

Ordered, that the several stages of the Voluntary Schools Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion on every day for which the Bill is appointed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  *MR. REGINALD M'KENNAproposed to leave out the word "That," to the end of the Question, in
  204
  order to add the words "no Bill will be satisfactory to this House which does not provide for Board Schools as well as Voluntary Schools." He stated that he approached the problem raised by the Second Reading of this Bill on general principles. He did not pretend to any further knowledge than was open to every hon. Member. The basis of our educational establishment was the voluntary system, and the Act of 1870 distributed the carrying out of our educational system over school districts. The Act compelled each district to provide sufficient school accommodation, and where before 1870 there was already sufficient accommodation in existence, the Acts of that year and of 1876 were rather Acts in the nature of exoneration than of bringing fresh burdens to bear on those districts. Three classes of districts had been created by the Act of 1870:—(1) School districts already fully supplied with

  205
  educational facilities, or subsequently supplied by voluntary effort—these were the Voluntary School Districts; (2) districts which might be called mixed districts, partly supplied by School Boards and partly by Voluntary Schools; (3) a very large class of districts supplied exclusively by School Boards. The Voluntary School district was the one which generally speaking possessed prior to 1870 the greatest adaptation for the needs of education. Many districts now supplied by Voluntary Schools had not been affected by the Act of 1870 except in so far as they had received an additional parliamentary grant. In the pure School Board District, on the other hand, the inhabitants had from the beginning supplied the whole of their educational requirements. They had had no endowment; no beneficent ancestor had established a school in their district; no wealthy residents had borne the expense of maintenance. Without experience, endowment or wealth, they had had to supply themselves with the whole of their educational equipment since the Education Act came into force. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to discriminate between these different districts, and the pure School Board district was the only one which, under this Measure, was to receive no relief. He was going to say to the district, which had the least burden to bear, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, thou hast paid little and much shall be given thee;" and, on the other hand, he was going to say to the pure Board School district, which from a variety of causes had been least equipped for the educational struggle, "You shall have nothing at all" The right hon. Gentleman under this Bill. "fed the rich and the poor he sent empty away." That was the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman acted in discriminating as between districts. Passing from the question of districts, he proceeded to consider its bearing on the inhabitants. It was clear that within the Voluntary Schools district the voluntary subscribers had borne the whole cost of education, apart from the grants from the Education Department. In the mixed district the ratepayers paid part, and the Voluntary School subscribers paid as ratepayers and something more in respect of voluntary subscriptions. It was evident, therefore, that if they
  206
  were going to discriminate at all between classes of persons, the voluntary subscriber in the mixed district was entitled to double relief as against a subscriber in a pure Voluntary School district where there were no rates. On the principle of the Amendment such a subscriber would receive double relief, inasmuch as his rates would be diminished at the same time that he received assistance in respect of his Voluntary School. What had been the avowed reason for introducing this Measure? They had been told that it was the intolerable strain on the Voluntary Schools. The intolerable strain was supposed to be represented in these schools by £620,000 a year. This strain was supposed to be brought about by the Education Department in making further demands upon the schools. That increased strain was no doubt met by increased voluntary subscriptions. Since 1876, when the Parliamentary grant was increased., voluntary subscriptions had been augmented to the amount of a little over £100,000 a year. But what was the extent of the relief? For every pound of increased strain the right hon. Gentleman gave £5 of relief. He called that an intolerable relief to a slight burden. The right hon. Gentleman could not justify his proposal upon any statement of figures; he could only justify it by either open or covert attack on the Board Schools. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to establish universal denominational education let him do so openly. Let him propose rate aid to the Voluntary Schools. The right hon. Gentleman had not got the courage of his opinions. He could only indulge in a plan of piecemeal pilfering. He surreptitiously nibbled at a principle which he dared not openly attack. His own supporters would not follow him in a declared assault on the School Boards; and all he did, therefore, was to offer a bribe to each school district in turn to renounce their freedom and to accept denominational teaching. He hoped that on this Amendment they should have the unanimous support of hon. Members from Ireland, who on the resolutions were not able to go into the same Lobby with the Leader of the Opposition. This was a, question of abstract principle; a, claim for equal treatment of one school district as against another school district, just such a claim as hon.

  207
  Members from Ireland would bring before the House in connection with the Report of the Financial Relations Committee. Some hon. Members had stated that the difficulty of the Voluntary School subscribers had been that there were so few of them that a heavy burden was cast upon individuals. That was an argument against the whole Voluntary School system. It only showed that in particular districts where the money was not easily raised, there was no effective demand for denominational teaching; otherwise the inhabitants, with the fear of a, School Board Rate before them, would willingly subscribe to the schools. He begged to move.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSseconded the Amendment. He said the discussion on the Second Reading could be narrowed down to one issue—whether there was at present equality of treatment between the Board and Voluntary Schools, and what would be the effect of the Bill on the relative positions. It was clear that before the two classes of schools could be compared, it must be supposed that the Board Schools were under private management and control. He admitted to the full the value of the sacrifices made by Churchmen for the maintenance and building of the Voluntary Schools; but the moment an appeal was made on their behalf to public funds, the public had a right to some degree of popular control. His contention was that the denominational system had succeeded in spite of its voluntary element, and not on account of it. Further, the history of the last half-century showed that it was impossible for the denominational schools to provide adequately for the elementary education of the country. The Government claimed a mandate from the country for this Bill. But the mandate would extend to the helping of the necessitous Board Schools as well as of the Voluntary Schools; and, at any rate, it was not backed by the overwhelming feeling of the country. This mandate seemed to be a variable quantity according to circumstances. For instance, as the present Archbishop of Canterbury complained, if the Bishops asked the Government for temperance legislation, the deputation was politely bowed out; but if they asked for increased aid to the Voluntary Schools, they received it at once. He looked forward to a universal
  208
  system of School Boards; and this Bill failed entirely, because it handed over more money to private control, appointed sectarian bodies to administer it, compelled well-managed schools to confederate with badly-managed schools, and, by repealing the 17s. 6d. limit, removed the chief security for the continuance of voluntary subscriptions. It did all this without giving any corresponding advantage to Board Schools. There were special reasons why Wales should oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. The overwhelming feeling of the Principality was against this Bill. Even in the present condition of parties there were 25 Welsh Members against the Bill and only nine for it. Lord Salisbury had said it was unfair that legislation should be forced on England by the Celtic fringes. Was it not still more unjust that English and Conservative legislation in behalf of Anglican education should be forced on Welsh Nonconformity. Again, Wales already had her separate system of education. She had her own intermediate schools, colleges, and universities established by Act of Parliament, and all were popularly controlled. Was it likely then that Wales would submit to the perpetuation of irresponsible primary education without a protest? No one who knew Wales, the circumstances of the people, and the part which the Church schools had played in the life of Wales, would wonder at the attitude taken by the Welsh Members. He should like to point out how the Bill would operate in Wales upon the system of elementary education. There were 840 denominational schools and 821 Board Schools in the Principality. The number of children in average attendance in the denominational schools was—Church of England, 71,940; of other denominations, 24,400—making a total of 96,000. In the Board Schools there were 171,507 children. The subscriptions of members of the Church of England amounted to 7s. per head of the children attending their Voluntary Schools, or a total of £25,000. They earned in grant £101,314; and the result of the Bill would be to hand them over an additional sum of £17,895. It would, therefore, be possible for the subscriptions to drop from 7s. per child to 2s. per child, and for every 2s. subscribed the Voluntary Schools would receive

  209
  £1 the State, or 17 times the amount of their subscriptions. The cost of the Board Schools in Wales was £2 4s. 4d. per child, provided from the parliamentary grant, and from a rate which yielded 14s. 10½d. per child. On the whole, the ratepayers of Wales paid £127,998 every year towards the Board Schools. They received nothing from the Bill, and that, in his opinion, constituted a grave injustice. But there were special reasons why that injustice should be more keenly felt in Wales than in other parts of the country. Most of the Church Schools in Wales were in country parts. The great majority of the inhabitants of those parishes were Nonconformists in religion and Liberals in politics; and he could say, from his own personal experience, that the Church Schools in Wales were indirectly made instruments of party and agencies to win the children of Nonconformists to the Church of England. It would, of course, be said that there was a Conscience Clause. But the Conscience Clause was a dead letter. ["Hear, hear!"] The First Lord of the Treasury had said that one of the chief aims of the Bill was to maintain the efficiency of religious teaching in the day schools throughout the country. That was another grievance. Over 70,000 children—most of them Dissenters—were forced to attend those schools in Wales, and were forced to accept the teaching of the Church of England. Again, so far as the teachers were concerned, the case of Wales was worse than the case of England. Wales was a poor country, and some of the most painful episodes he had witnessed there were the instances of bright children who had been made pupil teachers—to whose families the few pounds a year they earned as pupil teachers was a great help—and who had been forced to leave the religious communion to which their parents were attached in order that they might retain those positions. ["Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members in favour of the Bill had asserted that it was necessary, for the sake of religion, to maintain the denominational schools. So far as Wales was concerned, that was absolutely unnecessary. The cause of religion in Wales bad long ago been lifted far above the elementary schools. There were in Wales 2,300 competent ministers; 4,000
  210
  Nonconformist Churches, and the people subscribed over £500,000 every year towards the support of religion. There were also in Wales a large number of Nonconformist Sunday Schools. In connection with only three of the principal Nonconformist bodies in Wales there were 400,000 members of Sunday Schools in the Principality. If, therefore, they took the number of children as compare I with adults to be one-half of that number, they had as many children attending the Sunday Schools of three of the Nonconformist communities in Wales as there were attending all the elementary schools, Board and Voluntary, every day of the week. It had been said over and over again in emphatic terms that it would be impossible to establish a system of universal participation by all schools in those State grants. But they voted many millions in addition to the Army and Navy Estimates every year without a murmur; and if they were willing to do that for the purposes of the Army and Navy, how much more willingly ought they to do it for the paramount interest of the education of the children! Besides, if the Bill passed it would place a charge of £620,000 upon the Consolidated Fund. And for what purpose? For the purpose of aiding one class of schools only. He opposed the Bill because he believed it would be educationally bad. But he opposed it on higher grounds. It was a sad thing that, after 2,000 years of Christianity, they were unable to agree as to the teaching to children of the fundamental principles of Christianity. He believed that the passing of this Bill would strengthen the perpetuation of the present system of denominational education in this country, and would be, in the long run, a very great bar to spiritual progress. We had built up a splendid Empire; and it was beginning to dawn upon the millions of the country now that the roots of industrial progress were to be found in the completeness and the wisdom of our system of primary education. [Cheers.]
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  *MR. WALFORD CREENsaid the question of the Voluntary Schools was often argued as if it were

  211
  a question between the Church of England and the Roman Catholics on the one side and the entire body of Nonconformists on the other. He thought that method of arguing the question was very misleading. There were a very large number of British schools, which were Voluntary Schools, and which at the same time were undenominational, and those British undenominational schools enjoyed the implicit confidence of Nonconformists in exactly the same degree as the Board Schools did. But apart from the British Schools, there were a large number of Wesleyan schools, and he desired to speak chiefly on the question as to how the Wesleyan community, with which he was himself connected, would be affected by this Bill. The Wesleyans had always taken a keener interest in education than other Nonconformist body, and they were deeply committed to the principle of dcnominationalisin. He thought there was distinct evidence that the Wesleyans were desirous, as a body, of maintaining their denominational schools in the fact that under the late administration at the Education Office of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham, they raised, in response to his demands, a sum of £70,000, which had to be spent on buildings alone. The evidence that the Wesleyans felt the pinch of the present system was found in the fact that in 1894–5 they had to give up no fewer than 29 of their schools, owing to the intolerable strain which hon. Members opposite were fond of deriding. The Wesleyans had 168,010 scholars in their day schools at the present time, so that this religious community would receive under this Bill a sum of more than £42,000 a year from the extra grant alone, in addition to what they would receive from the exemption of their schools from rates and the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit. Apart from the establishment of clay schools the Wesleyan community had shown their keen interest and belief in denominational education by establishing training colleges for teachers. [" Hear, hear!"] There had passed through these training colleges 2,700 teachers, and at the present time there were 228 students in them. It was, he thought, a very natural thing that the Wesleyan teachers should ask themselves what would be their position if increased aid to Voluntary Schools were not given. They had asked themselves
  212
  that question, and there was no doubt whatever that whatever might be the opinion of perhaps the majority of Wesleyans on the Government Bill, those who knew most of the position of Wesleyan day schools—that was the teachers themselves—were strongly in favour of the Bill, and strongly felt the absolute necessity of an increased grant to Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The Manchester and District Wesleyan Teachers' Association, at a meeting at Manchester in November last, unanimously passed along and strong resolution in favour of increased aid to Voluntary Schools. This Bill did not, unfortunately, go quite so far as their resolution in favour of some legislative enactment, which would place Voluntary Schools on an equal footing, financially, with Board Schools, but he thought it was a matter of great importance that the House should realise that there was a body of Nonconformist educational experts, such as these Wesleyan teachers undoubtedly were, which was strongly in favour of the continuance of the Voluntary system, and which realised that, if that system were to be continued, some extra help was necessary, and immediately necessary. ["Hear, hear!"] There was one grievance of Nonconformists, which had been admitted, he thought, by everyone who had studied the education question, from Lord Salisbury downwards. That grievance was that, in many rural parishes, Nonconformists were compelled to send their children to the Church School, because it was the only public elementary school in the parish. He thought that admitted grievance might probably be lessened by that part of the Bill which encouraged the formation of the association of schools. He thought all reasonable Nonconformists would admit that the proselytising tendency, which they naturally strongly objected to, did usually occur in those Church Schools, which were under one-man management. It was precisely those schools which would be beneficially affected by the association of schools. In this Bill there seemed to him to be two great principles. The first was that the denominational schools were the only permanent security for maintaining religious teaching. ["Hear, hear!"] He admitted that at the present time they had religious teaching, and very excellent religious teaching, in the great bulk of

  213
  the Board Schools in this country, but supposing a wave of infidelity, of crude feeling against religion, were to pass over the country? Then if they had none other but Board Schools in the country, in one moment the light of religious teaching might be eclipsed throughout the whole country. He did not say that was probable, but he did say it was possible, and against the possible danger of a great popular feeling of hostility to religion the denominational schools were the only security. ["Hear, hear!"] You cannot teach religion unless you are allowed to depart from that curious compromise, the Cowper-Temple Clause. It is not possible to teach it without some dogma distinctive of some particular sect. We are not all logical people in England, much more so are the people of Scotland, who had discovered that truth long ago. In many Board Schools under the Cowper-Temple Clause dogmas were taught distinctive of some particular sect or church, and only because the Cowper-Temple Clause had been interpreted in this broad fashion did it work at all. Many Wesleyans took the view that religious teaching must be maintained in Board Schools. The Rev. Hugh Trice Hughes the other day made a proposal which was received with almost as much ferocity in some Nonconformist circles as any proposal emanating from a Tory Government—that the Apostles' Creed should be taught in all Board Schools, and he made that suggestion as a special compromise. Immediately there was a loud outcry. Yet it might have been thought that if there was any one common ground among all Christians as to what constituted religious teaching, that would have been found to its most limited extent in the Apostles' Creed. He believed that eventually we should follow, as we had had to follow in other respects, the example of Scotland, and that denominational teaching in all schools, Board and Voluntary, would be admitted on some such principle as was contained in the 25th or 27th Clause of the last Bill introduced by the Government. There was one other main principle at the bottom of the Bill, the principle of educational efficiency. He did not think any reasonable man would say that the prospect of abolishing the denominational system was within the range of practical politics. If at the next General Election
  214
  the Liberal Party should come back with a majority equal to that of the present Government—and that was going to the extreme of conceivability—supposing them to have such a majority, even then their majority of 150 would not be large enough to abolish the denominational system, because 80 of their supporters would be pledged to maintain the denominational system. The line taken by Members from Ireland, settled once for all the impossibility of abolishing the denominational system. If you admit that denominational teaching must be part of our national system, then you are striking a blow at educational efficiency if you refuse to allow any extra grant to be given to these schools. Voluntary Schools needed more money, teachers were wretchedly underpaid in Voluntary Schools, head-masters on an average receiving 34 per cent. less than the salaries paid in Board Schools, and head-mistresses often 58 per cent. less. Pupils had spent upon them every year in Voluntary Schools, 19s. 6d. per head less than the pupils in Board Schools, and in maintenance, Voluntary School pupils had to put up with 11s. less than Board School pupils. What was the result of this? Voluntary Schools had worse buildings and worse teaching in the long ran, and a blow was struck at educational efficiency, especially in country districts, by a refusal to allow this extra grant to be given. He could understand the position of hon. Members if they said the denominational system must be abolished, but they did not say that, they knew that was impossible, and yet in admitting that, and refusing to allow the Voluntary system to become efficient by this extra grant, their action could only be construed as action contrary to the interests of education. It was said this was refused in the interest of education and in the interest of religious liberty. But what was done? Because a parent preferred to have his child taught in a school of his own religion, therefore, the child of that parent was to be handicapped in his education and deprived of national advantages given to other children. This, because the father preferred to send his child to a school of his own religion, was done in the name of religious liberty! ["Hear, hear!"] The position of hon. Members who refused to give any extra grant at all to Voluntary Schools, and

  215
  who were forced to admit that Voluntary Schools must be a permanent part of our national system, could not be called a position friendly to the interests of national education. ["Hear, hear!"] For his own part he would give every vote he gave on behalf of the Bill, in entire confidence that the money granted would go to the improvement of education, and would do something to relieve a grievous religious disability that parents who sent their children to Voluntary Schools had been suffering under for a very long time. [Cheers.]
  *MR. LLOYD MORGANsaid he was sorry to be obliged to oppose an Education Bill, and did not think that the amount of money expended upon education was by any means excessive. Indeed, the lesson we ought to learn from continental countries, much poorer than ourselves, seemed to be that we were well within the reasonable limits of such expenditure. From those countries we were able to see that increased grants to national educational purposes meant increase of national prosperity. This Bill, however, professed to advance education, but on such terms as made it impossible for him to give his assent to it. He could not help thinking the Bill would create very widespread disappointment and dissatisfaction in the country, beneficial as it would be to a certain class, a class anxious to propagate certain religious formularies and dogmas at the expense of their poorer brethren. No doubt it would be received with satisfaction by those who had declined to rate themselves for educational purposes. Election addresses he saw, during the last electoral campaign, not only in his own, but in other constituencies, pointed to the conclusion that all ratepayers were going to be benefited, if only a Conservative Government came into power. But what did they find? There had been a hope that a scheme would have been forthcoming that would throw on the Imperial Exchequer part of the burden of school rates, not for the purpose of assisting Voluntary Schools only, but for the relief of poor districts where school rates were highland all poor schools would receive advantage from it. But the Bill did nothing to relieve ratepayers where rates were most heavy; nothing to relieve any district where schools were most necessitous; it did a great deal to make
  216
  the load of the taxpayer heavier. The Bill was indefensible, on the ground that it did everything to assist people who had done nothing for themselves and for those who had shown themselves laggards in the march of educational progress. As regarded Voluntary Schools, how stood the case? They had always been treated by Parliament in a manner more favoured than any other. When the Act of 1870 was passed, the Liberal Government not only assisted them, but deliberately held out to them inducements and opportunities to extend, at the public expense, an educational system which at that time and ever since had loudly and repeatedly called for reform. The operation of that Act was suspended, so far as Voluntary Schools were concerned, for a period of twelve months. And what was done? Up to that time the annual number of applications for building grants for denominational schools were 150. And what happened during the period of grace which followed the passing of the Act of 1870? Applications came from 3,300 parishes in the country for the establishment of Voluntary Schools, and the House voted £268,000 for the purpose of perpetuating a system which the great mass of the people of this country believed, as they believed now, was unfair and unjust to the cause of educational progress. It was a great mistake to imagine that Voluntary Schools were as popular as some Members wished the House to believe they were. The popularity of these schools depended, not so much on the fact that the religious doctrines of certain sections were taught in them, but from the fact that there were no rates charged in those parishes where such schools were maintained. It was the dread which the farming class had of any further rates that really lay at the bottom of the popularity of those schools. It was a great mistake to suppose that the popularity was derived from the fact that they belonged to the Church of England, the Wesleyans, or any other section; the base of such popularity as they had was in the fact that they saved the ratepayers' pockets. Whenever the question arose in one of these parishes whether the Voluntary system should be continued or the broader and better system of School Boar is should be introduced, the way in which parishioners were induced to decide

  217
  against the School Board was by the I appeal of those interested in the maintenance of Voluntary Schools to the ratepayers to save their pockets. He could not assent to the proposition of the hon. Member who had just spoken, that these denominational schools were the only schools of a really religious agency. He could not accede to the view-that there was any substantial objection raised by anyone to the religious instruction given in Board Schools. He could not help thinking that the wave of infidelity which the hon. Gentleman had referred to as being possible was much more likely to be brought about by debating this question in the House of Commons and about the country than by anything else. From his point of view he did not think a day school was the right place in which to teach religion at all, or the schoolmaster the proper person to teach it, or that the State was the proper quarter from which the payment for religion in any shape or form ought to come. If religious teaching was to be taught at all, it ought to be taught by agencies outside the day school. When the hon. Gentleman said that the voluntary system of education would counteract any wave of infidelity, he seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the real religious agency in this country was not the day school at all, but the Sunday School. If hon. Members in that House who took an interest in religious and philanthropic work would devote their energies to getting agencies outside to take up this question of instructing the young in religion—and there was a wide and splendid field of work—they would be doing much more substantial good to the community than they would do by fighting over questions of sects and creeds, which would have a very bad effect on the country. What would the effect of this Bill be when passed? In the first place it would make Voluntary Schools more independent of public opinion than they were at present, and put an end to any control the parents had over the schools—if they had any—now. The claim in the past for free action on behalf of those who managed the Voluntary Schools was based on the ground that the managers had made great sacrifices in the large amount of money they had spent. But the subscriptions to the Voluntary Schools were a diminishing quantity. In 1875 they amounted to 9s. 6d. per head;
  218
  in 1890 to 7s.; and at the present time they were but 6s. 8d. per head. Still this control went on. The subscriptions, it was contended, represented the religious teaching, but if they went down year by year it was clear that the control the managers had over the schools should diminish in a corresponding ratio. They now found that practically the State was paying for a system of denominational education in this country. In 1876, when an Education Bill was introduced by a Conservative Government, Lord Hartington, speaking in that House, said if that kind of thing went on the schools might be called denominational schools, but they could no longer be called Voluntary Schools. It was qute clear that a substantial case had been made out for some control on behalf of the public over such a vast amount of public money as was being expended, and he asked the Government to approach this question of control with a free and open mind. He, and those who thought with him, did not object to the teaching of dogmas in schools, but they objected to their being taught in schools which were supported almost entirely out of public money. Whatever religious doctrine was preferred might be taught in a school, so long as it was not paid for by the State. Where the State had to pay largely to the schools there ought to be some public control, and the fact that this was the principle adopted in the case of Board Schools accounted for their educational superiority over the Voluntary Schools. Those connected with the Voluntary Schools ought to see that this Bill was introduced, not for such schools in general, but principally for the Voluntary Schools of the Established Church and the Roman Catholic Church. They had heard of the "intolerable strain." Where did it come from? It had been said that a large number of Wesleyans were in favour of this Bill. That was not the case, for the view the Wesleyan body had taken was that there ought to be established within the reach of every family in this country a school which was managed on thoroughly un-sectarian lines. But how did this question of intolerable strain come in? It came in simply with regard to the two classes of schools he had mentioned. Other Voluntary Schools, namely, those of the Wesleyan body and the British

  219
  Schools, which were managed on unsectarian lines, provided for the education of 480,000 children, and this intolerable strain did not appeal to that class. It did not appeal really to the very poorest class in the country, the people who provided for the education of 480,000 children, who paid for their own chapels and ministers, and who did not say one single word about the intolerable strain which hon. Members opposite said existed. If he happened to be a Churchman he should be ashamed of the attitude Churchmen took up with regard to this matter, belonging as they did to the richest and most powerful class in the community, complaining of the intolerable strain of keeping up their schools, whilst the poorest people in the country not only said nothing about any intolerable strain, but protested against this proposed unjust expenditure of money. There was one question which the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire put the other night, and to which there had as yet been no answer, namely: why £600,000 should be given to districts which declined to rate themselves and declined to subscribe, while nothing was to be given to those districts which had made large sacrifices for the sake of education? He would suggest to hon. Members who intended to speak in that Debate that they should deal with that question, and, if it were possible to do so, give an answer to it.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNEremarked that the hon. Member who had last spoken seemed to think that this Bill was hostile to the ratepayers. That was a most extraordinary delusion, because, by securing the continuance in safety of the Voluntary Schools, it would, instead of being hostile to them, save the ratepayers of this country an enormous expenditure of the ratepayers' money. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member said that the whole popularity of Voluntary Schools, or, as he himself should prefer to call them, denominational schools, was a myth. He had told them that why people liked the denominational school was because it saved them expense in education. There were more places in Board than in Voluntary Schools, but many parents preferred to send their children to Voluntary Schools. Why was that? He freely admitted that the secular education in Board Schools was better. It was because they valued the religious teaching
  220
  of the Voluntary Schools. The Mover of the Amendment tried to make out that the supporters of Board Schools were more to be pitied than the supporters of Voluntary Schools. He seemed to think the latter were rich people who deserved no sympathy. But take the Roman Catholic schools. They were supported by the pence of poor persons, collected with much difficulty and infinite labour. The whole contention that the ratepayer was worse off than the voluntary subscriber was simply absurd. Nothing had been more splendid than the earnestness of the religious denominations during the last 27 years in their competition to maintain their schools against the wealthy ratepaying communities which supported the Board Schools. The hon. Member was not the only one who had tried to minimise the strain that existed upon the supporters of the Voluntary Schools. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, on the First Reading of the Bill did so.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I said that the strain on the ratepayers was quite as great as that on the supporters of Voluntary Schools.
  *VISCWNT CRANBORNE,resuming, said he did not think the facts would bear out that contention. They found that even under the stress of the competition between Board and Voluntary Schools the expenditure of Voluntary Schools was relatively less and was yearly becoming more so. That phenomenon on one side of the account produced a coresponding phenomenon on the other, and they found that not only was the grant greater to Voluntary than Board Schools, but the difference in the grant to the two classes of schools was yearly becoming greater. Was there no "s rain" on the teachers of Voluntary Schools? From their love for the schools the teachers were willing to receive lower salaries than those paid to teachers in Board Schools. The hon. Member could have no conception what a difference this made. In Birmingham Board School teachers were paid half as much again as the teachers in the Voluntary Schools; in Manchester Board School teachers received nearly half as much again as Voluntary School teachers; and in London, which was, of course, the worst and most striking instance that could be given, Board School teachers received nearly two-thirds as much again as the

  221
  Voluntary School teacher. In rich communities like these the great inequality was most acutely felt, and he hoped the Bill would do something to remedy it. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman said the surrenders of Voluntary Schools were few. To surrender was the last resort of such schools, but he regretted to say the number of schools that had surrendered was not inconsiderable. Since 1870, 1,323 Voluntary Schools had surrendered, of which 938 were Church of England Schools. Whether they looked at The amount spent on the Voluntary Schools or earned by them, the sums paid to the teachers or the schools that had surrendered or been given up, they must come to the conclusion to which their private experience had led them—that the strain on the Voluntary Schools was great. ["Hear, hear!"] It varied as between place and place, school district and school district, locality and locality; it also varied from year to year. This was very important to bear in mind when they came to consider the policy of the present Bill. As between county and county he did not think the existence could be doubted of the great inequality which the Colonial Secretary had told Parliament it was the policy of the Bill to remedy. In Oxford-shire the difference between the expenditure of Voluntary and Board Schools was almost nil. If anything, more was spent on the Voluntary Schools. In the case of an ordinary agricultural county he believed it would be found that 5s. or 6s. marked the difference in the expenditure in Voluntary and Board Schools. But in the large centres it was different. In Manchester 14s. more per head was spent on the education of Board School than on Voluntary School children. He was quite willing to consider the ratepayer, but what he thought was of the utmost importance was that the children should receive a good education. [Opposition cheers.] A parent who desired that his child should receive a religious education, so far from being
  222
  treated worse than the parent who cared chiefly for secular education, ought to be favoured by the State as a worthy citizen who desire I that his child should be one too. In Birmingham 16s. 11½d. more was spent per head on the education of Board as compared with Voluntary School children. In London, the most crushing case of all, 22s. per head more was spent on Board School children. This showed the enormous inequality between place and place, and justified the discrimination between place and place provided for in the Bill. The Education Department were permitted to make a larger grant for urban than rural children. He hailed this with satisfaction, and trusted that when the Bill became law the Department would avail itself of the power which he hoped Parliament would confer upon it. A. distinction was also to be made between school and school in the same locality. The expense of a child's education in a small school was much greater than in a large school. There were many varieties of schools, and it would be most unwise if 5s., or whatever it was, were granted to every school alike, regardless of individual necessities. ["Hear, hear!"] Consequently the Government had adopted, and he thought most wisely, a device which they had pressed upon them over and over again during the last ten years—namely, to give this money especially in order to induce schools to federate together. ["Hear, hear!"] That had been the policy of Churchmen, and, indeed, he believed, of all those who had the interests of education at heart. He recollected that in the Act of 1891 they succeeded in putting in a provision to bring about federation, but the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton discovered some musty privilege of that House which made that clause abortive; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman, although he succeeded in destroying that clause, had ever disapproved of the principle. He was very glad that the germ of federation which

  223
  they planted in the Bill of 1891 was developing into so promising a plan as that in the present Bill. That policy had been favoured always by the Churches; and the National Society, which had the supervision of more than half the schools of this country, was strongly in favour of the system of federation which the Government had consented to. ["Hear, hear!"] The distinction between urban and rural, and the federation of schools, appeared to him to be admirable points. He ought not to omit to say, with regard to the 5s., that since the last time the subject was before Parliament there was a great improvement, for which they were grateful to the Government. He had pointed out that not only were Board Schools much richer than Voluntary Schools, but every year they spent more and more, and the difference between the two classes of schools grew greater. He was sorry there was nothing in the Bill that would meet that case. This Bill, although a Measure of very great relief, could not in any way be considered as a settlement of the difficulty. [Ministerial cheers and ironical Opposition cheers.] There was, for example, the case of the London School Board. He thought he was not inaccurate in saying that last year the expenditure per child on the London School Board had increased to the extent of over 3s. It was quite clear that in a place where such a rapid increase had taken place, nothing in the Government Bill could be looked upon as a permanent settlement of the difficulty. This was, as his right hon. Friend had implied, an interim Measure. He did not criticise the Government for a moment for having adopted an interim Measure rather than a permanent one, but, of course, it left a good deal to be done in the future. The Bill as it stood could not meet the difficulty of the growing expenditure. He understood that the position was, that as soon as the Bill passed, schemes would be drawn under which sums of money would be allotted to the various schemes, and that
  224
  these would receive the approval of the Department, together with the constitution under which these various federations would work. He was afraid that when once the sums of money had been determined on they never could be varied. They could not say, because a School Board in one district had determined to give a more expensive education, that, therefore, they must give more money to certain Voluntary Schools, and for that purpose must take some of the money hitherto granted to other Voluntary Schools. That would be an impossibility. Therefore no readjustment was possible to meet the growing expenditure, and that was sufficient to show that this Bill could not be considered permanent. He understood the position of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite was that whatever was done to the Volun-Schools should be done to the Board Schools; and that, if the Voluntary Schools were placed in a better position to compete with their rivals, in this Bill, when light hon. Gentlemen opposite came into office they would put it right by increasing the sum given to the Board Schools. [Opposition cheers.] They probably would not have enough money to do it—[laughter]—but that would be absurd. Churchmen had asked the Government to treat the Board and Voluntary Schools upon the same footing as far as State money was concerned, on the express condition that the existing inequality between the two should be remedied by a measure of rate aid. To ask them to give State aid money equally to the Board and Voluntary Schools would be the most absurd thing in the world if those inequalities of which they complained were not remedied. ["Hear, hear!"] Although, as he had said, it was not of a permanent character, the Bill appeared to him to be in many ways an admirably drawn Measure. He thought that some parts of the Bill were rather vaguely expressed—[ironical Opposition cheers]—but it was not at all a bad plan in the case of an interim

  225
  Measure to allow the Department a free hand in making the necessary arrangements, although he was no advocate for giving too great power to the Education Department. He earnestly hoped these considerations would be borne in mind. Of what kind ought a permanent Measure to be? On that point he would like to offer a word of warning to many of his hon. Friends sitting behind the Government. Some of them had indicated a Measure of secondary education as the proper ultimate solution of the Primary Schools difficulty. He believed that to be a delusion, though he had not a word to say against the establishment of a system of secondary education. The establishment of such a system would help the solution of the difficulties of Elementary Schools, but it would not solve them. [" Hear, hear!"] They had it on the assurance of the Government themselves, in the Report of the Committee on Education, that it was the cost of elementary education which was continually rising and must continue to rise. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to say that the scheme which was drawn up at Church House had been commented on not, at all unfavourably. He believed that in its general outlines it was an admirable scheme, and it was a scheme which would not have been in any way unpopular with Board Schools, because it would have treated Board and Voluntary Schools alike. The remedy for the inequalities which now existed would have been found in the rates, and the income of the Voluntary Schools would have been the same as the income of the Board Schools, and in that way it would have been a final settlement. He did not, however, criticise the Government because they did not find themselves able to adopt that scheme, and while the Unionist Party was making up its mind—[Opposition cheers]—he did not think it was at all a had thing to have an interim Bill. Hut Voluntary Schools could not be saved permanently by any fixed sum. ["Hear, Hear!"]
  226
  There were two parties, one of whom, as had been said, had a bottomless purse, and was perpetually raising the expenditure. In consequence of public opinion not being ripe, the Government were unable to effect a settlement of this question. They had done what in them lay to meet the difficulties of Voluntary Schools, and he thanked them most heartily that in some of the provisions of this Hill they had realised and attempted to meet the conditions under which their unequal contest with Board Schools was carried on. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed the Bill would give that sufficient breathing space to Voluntary Schools which would enable them to survive until a more permanent Measure could be agreed on by Parliament and the country. [Cheers.]
  MR. JOHN MORLEY,who was received with cheers, said: I am sure that the whole House, however they may differ from the noble Lord on many important topics of difference, will recognise in all he said on this question, and in what he has said to-night, a tone of absolute sincerity. [Cheers.] But while I hope that in what I have to say I shall not say anything to wound the feelings of the noble Lord, I must say that he has made some remarks which I do not think will afford comfort-to right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite, or persuade the House of the expediency of the Measure which we are discussing. ["Hear, hear!"] It appears from what the noble Lord has said that this is a Measure which we are to take as an interim Measure, to last while the Unionist Party is making up its mind. [Cheers.] But how long are we to wait? [Cheers.] What is to be thought when one of the most important supporters of the Government says that this is a casual and temporary settlement which they have not thought out, and which they do not design to be a settlement, but something to amuse their own supporters for a year or two, or for whatever lapse of time is necessary to enable them

  227
  to make up their minds? ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord said one or two things which are instructive. He flattered himself that when the time comes for the occupants of that Bench to retire those who succeed them will find no balance of revenue with which to deal either with Voluntary Schools or Board Schools. [Cheers.] That is a very discouraging announcement on the part of the noble Lord, which I think is very likely to come true. The prospect he is holding out to my right hon. Friends near me is certainly a gloomy one. [Laughter.] But all that the noble Lord could say of the Bill was that it was not a bad plan, that it was vaguely expressed and all the better for that. [Cheers.] That I comprehend, because, if your intentions are crude, or if you have intentions which it is not convenient to disclose, crude drafting is certainly an advantage. [Cheers and laughter.] In that portion of the noble Lord's speech which I heard, I did not detect once the accent of the citizen. I heard the accent of the Churchman, I heard the accent of the sectarian—[cheers]—but I never once heard the accent of the citizen, and I am bound to say that I did not hear the accent of a man who thinks that we are discussing the great topic of the education of our common people. I submit, with all respect for the noble Lord's sincerity and the work in which he is engaged, from his own point of view, that the fact that he does not regard this subject from a civic standpoint—
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Before the right hon. Member came into the House I had said that what I cared most about was the education of the children, and that I did not regard the interests of the ratepayers as approaching in importance the interests of the children. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. MORLEY: That does not materially affect my view, because the noble Lord, perfectly conscientiously and perfectly within his rights as a citizen, regards education as Church education, and
  228
  that is not what the State is concerned with. [Cheers.] It is a good many years since I took an active, and perhaps an aggressive, part in this controversy, following and working with my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. [Cheers.] We are engaged in a very serious controversy, and behind all this discussion there are—I should be the last person to deny it—grave and solemn issues. As far as those things as to which it is very important that men should care are concerned, I have not changed my views since the opening of the education battle after Mr. Forster's Act was passed. But I am quite willing to admit that in some respects the movement of events, the movement of men's minds, has not gone as far as in those rather distant days the Colonial Secretary and I anticipated. I admit that, and therefore if anybody is in a humour to bring up against me utterances of an aggressive character upon education policy, made under a different set of circumstances, I do not withdraw from them as made at that time. But, as I said, a new situation has arisen, partly owing to the merits, which I will not deny, and services, and activity, and generosity of the Party which the noble Lord represents. [Ministerial cheers.] I should not be dealing fairly with the subject or the House if I did not make that admission at once. But we have come to a new situation, or rather we have arrived at a point where we have to recognise a new situation. The view held between 1870 and 1880 by the Colonial Secretary, myself, and others, was that the nation would desire to have what we thought and I still think most desirable that it should have—namely, a system under which there should be no recognition by the State of any educational institutions which in any way partook of a sectarian character. [Cheers.] I hold that view as strongly as I ever did; but in this House we must deal with the practical problem before us in a practical spirit. I do not think that the

  229
  Government do that by bringing in what the noble Lord truly calls an interim Measure, a Measure which is not a settlement, but which is in the nature of a defence hastily thrown up, and a defence of what? It is a defence of a Church endowed with privileges, and which seeks to endow itself both by interim Measures and by the permanent Measures which the noble Lord hopes some day or other to have—Measures which shall strengthen its defences and add still more to the sectarian character of these educational institutions. Now I come to the Amendment before the House. I do not think, after the extremely clear and lucid speech in which my hon. Friend below the gangway moved this Amendment, that need labour the question of the expediency of attempting a settlement of the claims of the Voluntary Schools without also attempting a settlement of the equal claims of the Board Schools. I will not go into that question on its merits, because the Government have been slowly, reluctantly, and grudgingly driven to this position, that they feel they are bound at the earliest possible moment to bring in a Measure which shall deal with Board Schools more or less on the same principles as those on which they are now dealing with Voluntary Schools. But that was not the language used at the beginning of the Session. [Cheers.] The Government have had some sharp spurs applied to them. [THE FIRST LORD of the TREASIRY: "That was exactly the language used."] [Opposition crien of "No!" and cheers.] I do not believe that in the speech with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill there was any serious language of that kind.
  THE FIRST LORD OF TUB TREASURY: That was because I was introducing one Bill and not another. [Laughter mid cheers.]
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, the position you now take up is that you are eager to introduce the other Bill, but you did not
  230
  take up that position then. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Bill was not ready. It would not have been in order.
  MR. J. MORLEY: We understand perfectly well that various sharp spurs have been applied to the Government. We have had declarations from hon. Members below the gangway opposite, and there have been one or two elections. [Cheers.] I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot have overlooked what was said by the defeated candidate for Walthamstow, who belongs to the Ministerial Party. He said:—
  "If the Education Bill had been introduced three days later we should have kept Walthamstow; if three days earlier we should have lost Romford."
  [Cheers.] Now the high-water mark of the pledges or promises of the Government on this question of bringing in a Bill dealing with School Boards, as you are now proposing to deal with Voluntary Schools, was reached by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, whose absence and the cause of it I am sure we all very sincerely regret. [Cheers.] What did my right hon. Friend say? He said:—
  "We pledge ourselves to this, that if gentlemen opposite give us reasonable time we will deal with this matter, even though it is not, as I have shown, as urgent and as pressing in the same Session."
  Speaking of the Leader of the Opposition the Colonial Secretary added:—
  "He will say, 'Oh, that is not enough for us; we are of a suspicious disposition; we do not trust you.'"
  Well, we do not trust even my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. Our confidence in him has been rudely shaken—[laughter]—and even his stern stability of conviction and his fidelity to the professions of a lifetime—[laughter and cheers]—do not entirely reassure us. When my right hon. Friend was speaking, my memory went back to the time

  231
  when he was President of the National Education League—[cheers]—and, lo! now we have revealed to us the statesman who was then, the prime leader in the Nonconformist attack on the Act of 1870, because it was unfair to Nonconformists, turned into the valiant leader of the clerical attack on the School Boards—[cheers]—because they are unfair to the clerical party. We may always change our opinions: as I have said I have changed some of mine. It may be said that "men may rise on stepping-stones of their dead selves to higher things." [Laughter.] It is, however, a very ungraceful performance; and it is a great mistake if you lay the ghosts of your dead selves by executing exultant war dances over the graves of your dead selves. [Laughter and cheers.] We have a right, therefore, to be suspicious as to the intentions of the Government with regard to this companion Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] We cannot forget the well-known language of Lord Salisbury when he said:—
  "It is our business to capture the Board Schools under the present law and then to capture them under a better law."
  You cannot expect us, when you blame us for not accepting your pledges that you are going to bring in a companion Bill, to take all this for granted in face of a Government which has uniformly treated School Boards and Board Schools or used language in connection with them as if they were of the nature of a scourge or a plague. [Cheers.] It is quite true the Government have had their lesson, but we still cannot be quite sure that you will treat the introduction of the School Board Bill as urgent and as a companion Bill. The notions of the Government that a matter is urgent are very elastic, for they told us that this Bill was urgent. We were summoned together before the usual time, and it was urgent that the Bill should pass before March 31. The Vice President of the Council, in November last, said it was urgent that a Measure dealing with Voluntary Schools should be
  232
  passed; but what guarantee have we that the Board School question shall be considered urgent? The Government have promised, no doubt, to deal with the matter, but that is not going very far. We want to know how the Government is going to deal with the matter of Board Schools. [Cheers.] Are you going to treat the Board Schools as under this Bill you are treating Voluntary Schools, or are you going to limit the grant in the Board Schools as you do not limit it in connection with the Voluntary Schools? While you give 5s. under this Bill to the Voluntary Schools all round, are you going to give 5s., not to all Board Schools, but only to certain Board Schools? That is a point which we should be glad to have light upon. [Cheers.] Are you going to help subscribers on one footing and payers of school rates on another? The noble Lord clearly thinks that there is a claim on the part of Voluntary School subscribers to relief which does not exist in the case of the ratepayers. [Ministerial cheers.] That claim I will examine in a moment. But on this point let us know whether you intend that in cities like New-castle, Bradford, and Leeds, where the ratepayers contribute most to the great cost of education, this cost is to be continued while you are to reserve your bounty for places where the rates are light and the Voluntary subscriptions are inadequate. Take the case of Newcastle. There is about an equal number of children in the Board and the Voluntary Schools—about 12,000 in each of those classes of schools. Under this Bill the Voluntary Schools will get something like £3,000 or £4,000 and the Board Schools are to receive nothing at all. [Ministerial cheers.] Now we know. It will interest that constituency to know that the most zealous supporters of the Government think it a perfectly fair, equitable, and just thing that, though the same number of children are in the Board Schools and in the Voluntary Schools of Newcastle, the latter are to receive all this money and the Board

  233
  Schools are to receive nothing at all. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, I could go through an endless list, but I only mention one other place, the circumstances of which are different, and that is the case of Nottingham. In Nottingham there are 12,000 children in the Voluntary Schools and 25,000 in the Board Schools, and the rate is 13d. in the pound. The Voluntary Schools of Nottingham will receive, amid the plaudits of hon. Gentlemen, £3,000, and the ratepayers, instead of being relieved as they ought to be to the tune of £0,000, will not receive a farthing from this so-called interim settlement. [Cheers.] I say you tell us nothing unless you tell us you are going to treat those two classes of schools on the same footing. I was very much impressed by the fervour with which the Colonial Secretary brought forward the case of Birmingham. "The case of the Board Schools," he said.
  "is not the same as the case of the Voluntary Schools. The Board School has its grant and it has in addition the bottomless purse of the ratepayer.
  [Laughter.] I do not know what our ratepaying constituents will say to the proposition that you may do anything with rates because the purse of the ratepayer is bottomless. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not know even what the Vice President of the Council thinks of that, because last year he cited rather striking figures. He showed that every rural School Board, or almost every rural School Board, is as necessitous as any Voluntary School or set of Voluntary Schools in the country. [Cheer.] The purse of the ratepayers in those poor country parishes is bottomless, according to the argument of the Colonial Secretary, but the argument will not hold water. I do not think the noble Lord to-night quite fairly appreciated the situation. He said the State has stiffened the conditions on which education is carried on and has raised its demands as to the quality of the education, and the result is a strain on the Voluntary Schools winch it is not fair they should have imposed upon them. He forgets that there is a
  234
  real difference of opinion as to what a voluntary subscription is, and what is the meaning of the claim which a voluntary subscription gives on the purse of the State. What the State says to the local community is that they are to provide their fair share in making provision for education in the locality. The State stands perfectly neutral between the two sources of local contribution. ["No!"] Who says "No"? Surely, theoretically—I wish it were practically—the State stands neutral. No hon. Gentleman who is at all acquainted with the matter will deny that proposition. It is a matter of indifference to us, says the State, whether you raise the funds by local contributions of by rates. The two sources of local contribution stand on precisely the same footing in respect of a claim for a Parliamentary grant of any kind whatever. The obligation on the ratepayers is one imposed by Parliament. Why, then, should Parliament, in giving to schools a relief, made necessary by a Parliamentary demand as to the character and quality of education—why should the State deal differently with the two classes of local contributions, and why should the ratepayers be placed at a disadvantage as compared with voluntary subscribers? ["Hear, hear!"] What is the argument of the Colonial Secretary? It is a most remarkable argument; and I invite the attention of the noble Lords the Members for Rochester, Greenwich, and South Kensington to the consideration of the point of this argument. The Colonial Secretary said at Birmingham—and the argument will be used all over the country—
  "If you allow the Voluntary Schools to be extinguished, your rate will rise from Is to 1s. 9d."
  [Ministerial cheers.] I see the Attorney General enthusiastic over those words. [Laughter.] But they are not an argument at all; they are a prediction. [Cheers] The argument is that if you do not deal liberally with the Voluntary Schools you will have to provide for all the work that

  235
  those Voluntary Schools now do. [Ministerial cheers.] But what does that presuppose? Why, that the existing religious communions, although receiving out of moneys voted by this House 30s. per head rough, and though themselves only contributing 6s. or 7s. per head, yet care so little for their educational denominational institutions, are so little in earnest about them, are so insincere—[cheers]—in their professions as to the deep value of this denominational instruction, that they are willing to throw it all to the winds, and falsify all their professions because terms are to be made as to a 5s. grant. [Cheers.] I wonder what the noble Lord and his friends would have said of me if I had imputed to him and his friends such shallowness in their deep convictions. [Cheers.] The prediction of the Colonial Secretary is one that is very likely to tell, and it is one which—if there is any force in it whatever—proves what I do not myself believe, that all this talk about the earnestness of Churchmen and others for their denominational instruction is not sincere. [Cheers, and cries of "No!"] Mind, it is not I who say it is insincere. I cannot forget this fact—that the communion which is poorest, which is most hard-pressed in this country, in which a shilling is harder to get than a sovereign is in the Anglican communion—I mean the Roman Catholic communion—they have not transferred one single school. [Cheers.] Therefore, do not let hon. Gentlemen opposite be angry with me because I do not accept this argument based on the prediction that rates will go up if you do not deal generously with the Voluntary Schools. I know that at this day it is impossible to assume assent to a system extinguishing the Voluntary Schools. But do not let us be frightened out of being just to the Board Schools by this empty threat that if you do not concede what the extreme partisans of the Voluntary Schools demand you will have those schools extinguished and an enormous burden cast on the rates. There is no evidence of such a thing, and I do not believe it. Now, as to the Bill, hitherto I have been dealing with our contention that it ought to be attended by a companion Bill, and that without it a grievous injustice will be done. This is not a Bill. It is the skeleton of a Bill. [Cheers.] The First Lord has spoken of
  236
  the simplicity of the Bill; but, as my right hon. Friend observed, the simplicity is rather in the authors of the Bill than in the Bill itself. Before the Session is over a good many reasons will be given for the contention that this Bill is too simple a Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] I doubt whether there has ever been such an abdication of legislative function on the part of this House before as that which the Government rashly and in their simplicity ask the House to consent to now. [Cheers.] This Bill creates unknown bodies. It does not tell us on what principle they are to be created, or how large they are to be; it does not pacify the right hon. Member for Bodmin by saying whether or not there will be proportional representation on them. [Laughter.] They are created under conditions of which this House knows nothing whatever, and they are to be invested, under certain conditions, with important statutory rights. The Education Department, without a hint or a glimpse of the intention of this House, or of what is called "the wisdom of Parliament," is to form associations as it nkes. [Cries of "No!"] Who says "No?"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do.
  MR. J. MORLEY: This is what the Bill says:—
  "If associations of schools are constituted in such manner, in such areas, and with such governing bodies representative of the managers as are approved by the Education Department. "
  [Cheers.] I say there is not a hint there, there is no principle whatever by which the Department is to be guided in forming, or approving of the formation, of these bodies, their areas, or any particulars concerning them. [Cheers.] Second, the Education Department is to distribute grants and amounts as it likes. Third, it is to exclude from participation in the grants all schools whose refusal to associate themselves does not satisfy the Department as reasonable. [Cheers.] Fourth, it is to fix a discriminating scale between rural and urban schools, if it likes and as it likes. [Cheers.] Fifth, it is to decide as it likes, whether due regard is or is not being paid to the maintenance of Voluntary Schools. I say there is no precaution taken to secure that what the wisdom of Parliament

  237
  desires the Department to do in regard to any of these cardinal principles shall be done. We talk very often of the necessity for devolution and delegation; but this is devolution and delegation with a vengeance. [Cheers.] This may be crude drafting. It hides either a crude intention, or an intention it is not thought desirable to make clear. ["Hear, hear!"] I now come to a couple of minor points indicating the spirit in which this Bill has been framed and showing that it is worse than the Bill of last year. Audit is one of the most important things if we are going to have real control over these schools. In the present Bill the Department may require an audit if they are so minded. In the Bill of last year you declared that the accounts of every school should be audited, not by the inspectors of the Department, but by the inspectors of the County Councils. I do not believe the Vice President of the Council would deny that the, present system of audit is very much in the nature of a sham. Last year you said the audit must be undertaken by an independent public officer. Now, the audit is optional and the auditor is a less responsible officer. [Cheers.] Then there is another small point. The First Lord of the Treasury said this was a very simple Bill; that the Second Heading would be got rid of in two-and-a-half days' discussion, and that we would have a short Committee stage. But does the right hon. Gentleman know how many questions are lying in wait amid the complex machinery which has been invented? ["Hear, hear!"] You propose that the Voluntary Schools shall pay no rates. I do not see anything objectionable in that. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, but why do you nut extend it to the Board Schools? [Cheers.] I know you will say:—
  "Oh, what is the use of taking the trouble to free the Board Schools from rates—that would simply be taking money out of one pocket to put it into another?"
  [Ministerial cheers.] That is not so at all. All Board Schools will pay rates, not for themselves, but fur the whole union in which they are situated; and if there is a Voluntary School in any parish in the union it will not contribute one penny to the rates. [Cheers.] In most towns the School Board is in a union
  238
  which is much larger than the area of the town itself. The town of Luton, in Bedfordshire, has 30,000 inhabitants, but it belongs to a union with 45,000 inhabitants. Therefore Luton will pay rates on its own schools for the benefit of 15,000 people—that is, the difference between the 45,000 population of the union and the '50,000 population of the Luton School Board area—the 15,000 being outside the town in rural parishes with Voluntary Schools which will make no contribution in relief of the union rate. [Cheers.] And yet this is a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman describes as a simple Bill and hopes will pass quickly. [Laughter.] Again, we were told, I think by the Solicitor General in the Debate on the Resolution, that if adequate safeguards were a point upon which we wanted light, why did we not reserve our criticisms until we saw the Bill? We all know that that is a common argument when a Bill is introduced or when there is a preliminary Resolution. It is first said: "When you see the Bill you can better raise your points." Then you are warned they are Committee points, and you must wait for the Committee; and then, when you raise these points in Committee you are ruled out of order. [Cheers and laughter.] There were three points upon which we said that safeguards were necessary. They were popular control, that this additional grant should be expended in promoting efficiency, and that the level of private subscriptions should not be lowered. As to efficiency, I discern no safeguard whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill says the Department shall distribute the aid grant as they "think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency." That is all. Last year you enumerated what you meant by efficiency, but in this Bill you substitute a single phrase for what in the Bill of last year was an elaborate and detailed account of what efficiency was and what the conditions were which the local authority was to require. The substitution of an indefinite phrase for definite and detailed language will certainly not tend to make the Department regard increased efficiency in proportion to the expenditure as a vital object. We have to take care by definite enactments—[cheers]—which we shall, at all events,

  239
  try to insert in the Bill, that this increased grant shall go to increased efficiency, and that no portion of it shall find its way to such matters as structural alterations, or paying off debts—["Hear, hear!"]—which, I am told, is a possible use to which the balance of this money may be devoted. As to the maintenance of subscriptions, what are the words of the Bill? "Due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions." Surely that is a very weak phrase in regard to what, in our view, ought to be an obligation of the very first order. What is "due regard to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions?" Do you mean the maintenance of the present rate? There are 1,000 Voluntary Schools which have no subscriptions, and there are 3,000 whose voluntary subscriptions are under 5s. Are you going to stereotype that for all time? Is the Department, having due regard to the maintenance of subscriptions, to insist upon their maintenance at that level? Subscriptions went up during 1894–95. That, however, was a special effort. Will you, for instance, insist upon the subscriptions being kept up to the level of a five-years' average? Then there is the question of local popular control, which many of us regard as the most important point of all. Where is the safeguard for that? Last year you recognised the principle; but I find no recognition whatever of it in this Bill. There is no provision introducing any sort of popular control either on the board of managers of the schools or on the management of the associations; and you are going to hand over these large sums of public money to bodies of persons who will distribute it in absolute irresponsibility of public opinion and public feeling in the localities concerned; so you are aggravating what is a well-recognised, established anomaly in our educational system. Our view on this point was well stated in 1885 by my light hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman then said:—
  "The existence of sectarian schools supported by State grant is no doubt a very serious question, and one which some day or another ought to receive consideration. Whenever the time comes for its discussion, I for one shall not hesitate to express my opinions that contribution of Government money, whether great or small, ought in all cases to be accompanied by
  240
  some form of representative control." [Opposition cheers.] "To my mind the spectacle of a so-called national school turned into a private preserve by clerical managers, and used for exclusive purposes of politics or religion, is one which the law ought not to tolerate."
  The right hon. Gentleman laid it down the other night that the consistency of one of its prominent Members was one of the priceless possessions of the House. [Laughter.] Now, the Bill directs that the Education Department might, if it likes, take into account differences that exist between schools in the towns and schools in the country. The First Lord of the Treasury has said that the argument for this discrimination between town and country rested upon a broad fact. What was that fact? That which the right hon. Gentleman alleged to be a fact I do not believe to be a fact at all. I think he made a mistake—that he was misinformed when he said that the cost of education is lower in the country than in the towns. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] The House will readily understand that this is a very important matter, and that it will greatly interest the constituencies, especially those in the urban districts. Well, a distinction may be drawn between urban and rural schools, because, as the First Lord of the Treasury says, the urban schools are more costly than the rural schools, and by a rural county I mean a county where the majority of the population live under rural circumstances and are engaged in rural pursuits. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, taking the most recent figures that are accessible, I will compare Durham and Staffordshire, which are obviously urban counties, with Dorsetshire, Herefordshire, and Shropshire. In Durham the cost of education per head is 34s., and in Staffordshire 32s. 6d.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Does that apply to all schools, or only to Voluntary Schools?
  MR. J. MORLEY: To all schools.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Including Board Schools?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think so, but I will see in a moment. [The right hon. Gentleman having consulted a paper, said] No, I beg pardon; I was in error. The figures apply to Voluntary Schools. Well, to proceed; I find that while in the two urban counties I have named

  241
  the oust of education per head is only 34s. and 32s. 6d. per head respectively, in Dorsetshire the cost is 37s. 6d. per head, in Herefordshire 42s. per head, and in Shropshire 38s. per head. [Cheers.] Those figures, therefore, do not bear out the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"] I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another fact. The proposal is that urban schools should have more than rural schools. Why? I have shown they do not spend more on education, but less. Then as to subscriptions—this, at all events, concerns Voluntary Schools only. In Durham the subscription is 5s. 8d. per head and 4s. in Staffordshire. Yes, but in Dorsetshire it is 9s., in Herefordshire it is 10s. 3d., and in Shropshire 9s. So you come to this, that where the subscription is highest, and where the cost per child is highest, there, according to the intention of the Treasury, there is going to be the least appropriation of this grant. [Cheers.] Of course, it is perfectly obvious why rural schools cost more than urban schools. It is because they have a smaller attendance, and therefore the cost is divided over a smaller area. ["Hear, hear!"] I have, I think, given some reasons why the Members for urban constituencies should be somewhat concerned in this Bill. I think this is a reason why the Members for rural constituencies, too, should think they are not very fairly dealt with. I come now to the matter of the associations. The proposal of the associations is the kernel of the Bill. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY; "Hear, hear!"] What does this association mean? It means that, instead of allowing the Department directly to distribute this 5s. per head in the same way as it distributes the capitation grant—instead of dealing with it in that simple way—the ingenious mind of the author of the Bill has invented machinery which, to those who realise the conditions under which the associations are to work, is as cumbrous and as unworkable as any machinery that has ever been invented. The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me on the point of the hypothetical character of the formation of these associations. I do not know that there has ever been before an organic part of a Bill introduced by such a word as "if "—
  242
  "if" these associations come into existence. It is very peculiar, at all events. If they do not come into existence, if they do not offer to create themselves in some way or another, then I suppose the Education Department will distribute this grant as it thinks fit through its inspectors. But it is not your intention that these associations shall not come into existence, On the contrary, your whole hope—and the light hon. Gentleman did not conceal it—[The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"]—is that these associations will form themselves. I will not give any opinion of my own of what these associations are likely to be, but I will quote the words of The Times this morning in a well-informed article, of what the Government undoubtedly expect:—
  "We may take it for granted that they will be fur large areas, possibly one for each diocese "—[cheers]—" working through sub-associations for archdeaconries or rural deaneries, and that at first they will be no more than bodies representing the managers of the associated schools, with the duty of drawing up a scheme of distribution of the aid grant among them—the said grant, when confirmed by the Education Department, being paid, not to the association (as contemplated in some schemes of federation), but direct to the schools."
  To put it shortly: if that is the true meaning of what is in contemplation by the Government of what the Department will do, if the right hon. Gentleman continues to administer the Department under the direction of the Government, you are going to give this money to the Bishops and to Cardinal Vaughan to distribute as they think best. [Cheers.] That is the plain interpretation of it. Of course, there may be, for all I know, some other interpretation; but if there is, you had better tell us plainly what it is that you do mean. ["Hear, hear!"] I am not sure, so far as my information goes, that this device will be very acceptable. I rather think that when the proposal was made some time last year, either at the Church House or some such gathering, it was received very frigidly indeed, and for a very good reason—because the local clergy, the clerical managers, felt that any step of this kind, any diocesan centralisation, would stop the interest of local subscribers and the flow of subscriptions. I want to ask this

  243
  question, which perhaps the Solicitor General will presently answer. Suppose that a clergyman, a clerical manager, or any manager, says, "Oh, no; I think that by joining this diocesan association I shall be checking local interest in the school, and therefore I cannot agree to pool"—I use a profane word—"my grant." Is that to be, or is it not to be, a reasonable ground of refusal? ["Hear, hear!"] Depend upon it, it is one of which you will hear a great deal. ["Hear, hear!"] Take another case. I am told that British schools and many Wesleyan schools have posts of their own foundation, but I take such an instance as this. A clergyman, say, in the town of Blackburn, where are excellent Voluntary Schools, this clergyman has this 5s. grant warm in his pocket. Will he, do you think, be happy to hand this grant over to the diocesan centre and receive back perhaps some 2s. or 3s. as his share? Well, if he refuses to associate and pool his money, is that to be treated as unreasonable? ["Hear!"] There are hundreds of illustrations I could give, but I will not at this hour labour the point. My own impression is, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know more about-this than I do, but I suspect they will share my impression, that these local managers, clergymen, and others, would far rather trust the Education Department to distribute the fund than they would under compulsion—for it is a kind of compulsion—enter into one of these associations where everyone will be ready to make a fight for his own hand under circumstances far more disadvantageous than if he had to do with the Department itself. Let us picture to ourselves what will be the position of the Department in the face of these associations. There will be two attitudes, either the Department will be energetic, vigilant, and with a, will of its own, or it will see with the eyes and hear with the ears of the association. If the latter, the Department sees with association eyes and hears with association ears, then these diocesan associations will be left completely masters of the field, which I do not think is contemplated by the House of Commons. If the Department does not surrender itself, if it stands fast and exercises its judgment as to the local fitness and fairness of schemes submitted to it, if it satisfies itself that the schemes
  244
  are properly carried out then why should not the Department, if it is going to undertake all the work of supervision, do the thing itself direct and at once without this intervening body? The right bon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council last year gave us instances of the overwork of the Department. It was a striking account, and I want to know what in the view of the Government is going to be added to the burden of this already overworked Department. Then there is the question of the administrative cost of the machinery you have chosen. These associations will, I presume, have to sit permanently with a, secretary and offices. Who is to pay? I do not know whether the cost is to come out of the £620,000. ["No, no!"] Then it will come out of a charge on the Department? [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "No!"] It must come out of one or the other, or where is it to come from? I gather it is not to be an extra charge on the Department? [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] Then we have this position—here is this unknown, unconstituted body to be paid out of some unknown fund. [Opposition cheers.] Then, besides this local charge, there will eventually be, as everyone must see, an enormous extension of the central staff; there must be in such a system as this. Have you realised how much that will be? The Department will have to exercise supervision over all the refusals, to consult with the diocesan body as to schemes, and will have most unenviable functions. Many have been the trials of the Department before now, but nothing to compare with this. Under the Bill it will be a sort of Court of Appeal to which will come complaints of all kinds as to the appropriation of funds and other wranglings, all of which the Department will have to decide. I do not wish to say anything uncharitable about the clergymen and these diocesan centres, but I presume they are not exempt from the ordinary infirmities of human nature where money is concerned, and nobody can doubt that the Department will have to settle endless complaints and contentions arising out of this business. I should like to know whether any estimate has been made of the cost of all this. The First Lord of the Treasury said one reason against giving 5s. all round to

  245
  all schools alike in addition to the capitation grant—a scheme of which before this Bill leaves the House we shall hear more was that it would involve enormous waste. ["Hear, hear!"] Quite so. He meant, I suppose, you would give the grant to schools that did not need it. Has the right hon. Gentleman attempted to estimate how much extravagance and waste will be involved by this costly and cumbrous machinery which will be set up? I beg him to think of that. ["Hear, hear!"] Meanwhile, I have a strong objection to the Bill as it stands. The noble Lord opposite was right in calling this an interim Bill. If you had meant to proceed to a final and full settlement you never would have devised all this unworkable machinery. You know perfectly well, and Members for urban constituencies must know, that you will not be able to pass separately a Board School Bill.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Why not
  MR. MORLEY: Of course it is only promised on condition that there is abundance of time. You will see from the few points I have stated against the Bill as it now stands, as fairly as I could, what by fair consideration and fair examination of all the points that you have raised, and which you must have known you would raise whenever you touched this complex and intricate educational question—you will see what time there will be to consider another Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] It would have been a far greater economy of time, and you would have arrived far more rapidly at the object you profess, if you had united the two Bills. [Cheers.] At any rate your own skeleton will have to be clothed. I hope I have said nothing in the remarks I have made to make Gentlemen below the Gangway suppose I am for a moment in conflict with what I think is good in their aims. But, as I began by saying, I do not feel in this Bill there is a true recognition of the great principle of civil equality. I think there is an attempt—a clumsy and cumbrous attempt—to do what the noble Lord desired to have clone—namely, provide a sort of defence hastily thrown up. I think the noble Lord accurately
  246
  described it, and it is because it is in the nature of a defence, not for a great public object, but for a sectarian object, and because it is hastily thrown up and not deliberately conceived and maturely planned, that I, for one, shall cordially vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. [Cheers.]
  *MR. GRIFF1TH-BOSCAWENthought if the Government wanted any justification for their policy in dividing the two Bills it was furnished by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who, only raising a few points on one of the Bills, had spoken for an hour and a half. How many hours would have been taken up if the two schemes had been included in this Bill? The Government were to be sincerely congratulated on their policy, and if what the right hon. Gentleman had urged was the worst that could be said about the Bill they might proceed with it with a very light heart. The right hon. Gentleman had asked them why, in the case of Newcastle and other places, they were going to give a large sum of money to the subscribers of Voluntary Schools and not going to give an equal sum of money to the ratepayers who supported the Board Schools? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the people who, by their subscriptions, supported the Voluntary Schools in Newcastle, also by payment of the rates, supported the Board Schools. They were the people who were now contributing to both sets of schools, and in relieving them the Government were not only relieving the voluntary subscribers but those ratepayers who were now paying doubly for the education of the people. The right hon. Gentleman asked them the old question, "Why is there to be no popular control?" But in the last year's Bill there was popular control, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have that popular control, although they now taunted the Government with not having put it into this year's Bill. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question

  247
  was that for this particular proposal local popular control was unnecessary, because, as the funds were provided entirely by the taxpayer, all that was necessary was to see that the taxpayers' money and interests were properly safeguarded, and that was effectually done by the inspection of the Education Department. The right hon. Gentleman waxed very indignant over the fact that the associations of schools in the Bill were so very vague. It was complained that no exact process was laid down by which the associations were to be formed. Elasticity in the formation of the associations was of the greatest importance, and he submitted that a great deal of harm would have been done, and this provision rendered nugatory, if, instead of allowing localities to form associations in the way that seemed best to them, elaborate instructions were laid down exactly how the associations were to be formed. He attached the greatest importance to the associations, and could not imagine anything better or more calculated to relieve distress in connection with the schools. More or less distress existed among the Voluntary Schools all over the country. But the distress varied. In his own constituency were schools which did not want any aid; to others, from 5s. to 10s. would be barely sufficient. By means of the associations the help given could be made suitable to the amount of distress existing in each particular school. He would rather have the associations with no grant at all than any grant likely to be given without association. Nothing was more likely to effect a permanent settlement of the question than the association of schools. By association Voluntary Schools would not only be able to make the pecuniary grant go further, but, with good management, they would be able to stand up against the Board Schools which were competing hostilely against them. The right hon. Member for Montrose asked why such vague words were used as to maintaining volun-
  248
  tary subscriptions? He himself contended that the best way had been adopted of maintaining the subscriptions. If a school ceased to raise subscriptions, trusting to get this aid grant, the Education Department would have an absolute right to refuse it. The power of the Department to refuse would have the best effect in maintaining the subscriptions. The right hon. Member for Montrose gave fallacious figures to disprove the position of the First Lord of the Treasury that larger grants ought to go to urban than to rural schools. The right hon. Member for Montrose in his figures had only referred to Voluntary Schools. Voluntary Schools in urban districts had to compete with the Board Schools, which had the unlimited purse of the rates, and it was in the urban districts that this competition, was most severe. There was no point whatever in simply taking the Voluntary Schools. The friends of Voluntary Schools were all in favour of educational efficency, but they held strongly that there could not be educational efficiency in the proper sense without definite religious instruction. That was a most serious matter, which the citizens of this country had to consider. They had to consider the future of the nation, and it would be a very serious thing to turn out on the country children who, in the future, would have votes and be our governors, who had not been brought up with any definite instruction in religion. The Opposition had undoubtedly brought forward many different arguments against the Bill. They had complained that the Voluntary Schools were all to get grants and that all the Board Schools were not to. He did not believe in the sincerity of these arguments. He believed that the real reason for the opposition to this Bill, and to the Bill of last year, was that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were determined to get rid of religious instruction in the schools altogether. The right hon. Member for Montrose had said that in former years that was his position. The Party opposite had been in alliance with what was called the Edu-

  249
  cational Progressive Party on the London School Board, whose programme in 1891 was to do away entirely with religious instruction in the schools. He submitted that that was the real issue, and there could be no agreement between those who wished to get this Bill pushed through and those who were determined, not only to stop this Bill if they could, but to stop any Education Bill brought in in the interests of the Voluntary Schools. The Board Schools had the rates to depend on, but the Voluntary Schools had only the voluntary subscription—[Opposition laughter]—as compared with the rates. [Cheers.] Partly owing to the competition of the Board Schools, partly owing to the increased cost of education, it was almost impossible now to keep the Voluntary Schools alive. It had been said that the talk of an intolerable strain was all nonsense, and that they were proposing an excessive remedy for a very small grievance. But since 1870 the cost of education per child per annum had increased by no less than a sovereign each. So far from asking for an excessive remedy they were asking for a minimum, and the Government in this Bill were proposing a minimum. If the Bill were rejected, in a great many places the Voluntary Schools would cease to exist, and, in his opinion, that was the object of hon. Members opposite, who hated religious instruction. [Cries of "No!"] Well, who hated definite religious instruction. [Cries of "No!"] They were content, at all events, with the sort of religious instruction they got in the Board Schools, which meant that they might hare no religious instruction at all, because it was left absolutely to the members of the Board to decide whether they would have religious instruction or not. That sort of religious instruction would not satisfy hon. Members on that side of the House. He quite believed the time would come when the Cowper-Temple Clause would be repealed, and when all schools alike would be supported out of the rates or by Government money, and all would be denomi-
  250
  national; but if the country were not yet ripe for that, they must, at all hazards, save the Voluntary Schools. As a temporary Measure this was an exceedingly good one, and this grant would be of the very greatest use to the Voluntary Schools. He believed in the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit, which worked most unfairly. He thanked the Government most emphatically for this Bill. He would only like to make one criticism. There had undoubtedly been some disappointment among the friends of Voluntary Schools at the postponement of the share which they thought they were promised last year. A great many schools had been counting upon getting this grant soon, and getting it in the present year; and he earnestly hoped that, when the Bill was through, the Government would be able to make arrangements whereby at all events a portion of the grant should he paid as soon as possible—that was to say, that they should not have to wait until the end of the financial year 1897–98. He would only repeat that while not accepting this as a final settlement of the question, he thought that it was an exceedingly useful Measure, that it would render a great deal of help to schools which were seriously in need of help, and that it would tend to the maintenance of the dual system in education which had been going on now for 27 years. For these reasons he thanked the Government for having introduced it, and he hoped they would put it through as quickly as possible. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [5th February] further adjourned till To-morrow.

MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
MR. T. LOUGHsaid that before the Bill was read a Second time, he thought that the House ought at least to have some explanation of its purpose.
*MR. J. SAMUELsaid this was a very important Bill, and ought to be debated in the early hours of the evening. In the first place, it proposed, with the consent of the local authorities, to transfer the cost of the maintenance of Volunteer establishments, such as drill sheds and other permanent works, to Corporations and Town Councils, and other public bodies. He thought that the principle of the Measure was entirely wrong, because, if the Volunteer force was to be maintained, it ought to be maintained out of the National Exchequer, and not out of local taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] In the borough he represented the rates were at present exceedingly high, but there was a proposition on foot in the town to build a drill shed at a cost of £7,000 or £8,000. Under this Measure the Corporation might be asked to build and maintain that shed. The Government were adopting a wrong course entirely with reference to Imperial and local expenditure. ["Hear, hear!"] There should be a proper and marked line between the two. At present the Imperial Exchequer were sending to local authorities something like £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 a year in aid of local expenditure, and a large amount of that money was actually wasted. Anyone who had experience of local authorities must admit that grants in aid were to a great extent mere waste. [" Hear,
252
hear!"] There was a great outcry now coming from the Port Sanitary authorities that the expenditure placed upon them ought to be national expenditure; but what would local authorities say if they were asked to build and maintain drill sheds and rifle butts and other permanent works? This Measure was constructed entirely upon wrong principles, and the House ought not to agree to it. ["Hear, hear!"] The Under Secretary had said the other day that he was quite prepared to limit the expenditure under the Bill to a rate of 3d. in the pound. In the borough he represented a 3d. rate would raise close on £2,000 a year to be handed over to the Volunteers.
The hon. Member was speaking at midnight, when the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Heading deferred till To-morrow.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

SHOP ASSISTANTS (HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
House Adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock.