Lords Sitting of 13 May 1889

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
First Report from the Select Committee made; and to be printed. (No. 61): And to be considered on Monday next.

ARMENIA—QUESTION.
The EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary a question of which I have already given him private notice. There appear in the newspapers to-day serious statements in regard to the state of affairs in Armenia. Those statements are the sequel to many other statements that have been made from time to time of a similar kind; and so far as any contradiction of them on the part of the Turkish Authorities is concerned the denial has been one of a very feeble character. If my noble Friend can give a strong and unqualified denial to the alleged facts, I and everybody else, I am sure, will be satisfied. If, on the other hand, he cannot give that denial, then I hope he will give instructions—as I have no doubt he has already done to some extent—to the British Ambassador at Constantinople to ascertain what are the facts of the case, and to report to the authorities. The British Ambassador at Constantinople both can, and ought, to know what truth there is in these statements. My noble Friend, perhaps, will remember that a great many years ago a very
1810
similar case to this occurred when Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was British Ambassador at Constantinople. That was not in regard to the Armenians, but in regard to a people resident very near, the Nestorians; and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe not only ascertained the facts, but he knew by his great personal influence how to restrain the oppressions of the Pashas and the cruelties of the Kurdish tribes. I have no doubt that Sir William White has every desire to do the same, and also every ability to do it. My noble Friend will remember that in this matter there are both general and special obligations; and certainly any one who looks to the state of the East must know very well what a dangerous thing it is to leave a large district of territory such as Armenia, seething as it now is, under these cruelties and oppressions. I would remind my noble Friend that it is now a good many years since any proposal on the subject was laid before Parliament. It is a matter which concerns not only Europe, but this country in particular.
*THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have no information with respect to the particular matters which appear in the newspapers of to-day. I quite sympathize with the feelings of my noble Friend; and I quite understand the motives which induced him to press Her Majesty's Government upon the matter. I need hardly assure him that if there is suffering among this ancient race Her Majesty's Government would gladly do anything that lay in their power to abate that suffering. Whether the stories that are told are accurate is not so easy to say. My noble Friend talks of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's having obtained information with reference to the Nestorians. We are not

1811
precisely in the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; matters are much changed; and I do not think it is quite so easy to obtain absolutely accurate information as to what goes on. But perhaps I may be allowed to say what the Turkish Ambassador has stated to me; although it is not official, I think I can do no wrong in speaking of it. He entirely disbelieves these stories, so far as the responsibility of the Turkish Government is concerned. He said that what is called Armenia is a country inhabited by various races and various creeds, separated from each other by long traditional antagonism; that Kurdish tribes, a pastoral and nomad people, residing near the Persian border from time to time commit atrocities which the authorities deeply lament and do all in their power to prevent, and when the outrages are committed these pastoral tribes pass over the border the next day and are entirely out of the reach of the Turkish Authorities. We know something even in this country of the difficulty of absolutely preventing in Ireland cruel outrages, resulting from the existence of divisions of race and creed and long traditional antagonisms, but we experience it in a very slight degree, and we cannot be surprised that in a country where the power of the Government is less than it is here, on account of the vast distances, the fewer opportunities, and the smaller resources, that such raids as those of the Kurdish tribes, moving rapidly from one country to another, should be difficult always to prevent. My Lords, I entirely sympathize with the feelings of my noble Friend, and think he was within his right in putting this question, and I agree that England is under considerable responsibilities, in consequence of the engagements that have been entered into; but I do not think that these considerations should prevent us from looking upon the matter with prudence. It must be remembered that remonstrance is a double-edged weapon. If there is any power behind it to give effect to it, it may have effect upon the local authorities of the raided country. Nevertheless, when we know that what we are saying here may have effect rather in aggravating the treatment of the Armenians, those who wish them well will at least refrain from saying anything which may diminish the
1812
activity and zeal of the authorities on their behalf. Therefore, without in the slightest degree wishing to complain of or deprecate such action as that of my noble Friend, I would earnestly press upon the friends of the Armenians to consider these matters with care and prudence, and not to press the Government, or to put pressure through the Government upon the Ottoman Authorities, unless they are certain that there is a strong case for doing so, and unless they have a strong conviction that the remonstrances they ask for will have the effect which they very laudably desire. I will only assure my noble Friend that the Ottoman Government earnestly desires —has every reason that prudence and common-sense could dictate for desiring —to govern these people with justice, and to maintain order; and, further, that when we can exert any influence we shall always do our utmost to give effect to that desire.

THE SUGAR BOUNTIES CONVENTION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, at the last sitting of the House of Commons, Sir W. Harcourt questioned the President of the Board of Trade as to the effect of our commercial treaty with the United States upon our right to exclude their sugar, while we admitted that of other countries. The President of the Board of Trade stated that the question was one for the Foreign Office to answer, but he gave his own opinion that the Americans were absolutely debarred from pleading the most favoured nation agreement against the operation of the Sugar Convention as against themselves. I agree with Sir M. Hicks Beach that this is a Foreign Office question, and as it one of great importance, I ask the noble Marquess to inform the House whether his view is that of the President of the Board of Trade. When, in 1885, it was found that the United States were making treaties with neighbouring countries, giving them preferential advantages over the West Indian Colonies, I claimed for the latter the advantages of the most favoured nation clause. The American Government pointed out that, although the United Kingdom had a most favoured nation agreement, the Colonies had none, and they declined to concede it

  1813
  to them. They suggested in its stead a reciprocity treaty. We made a proposal in that sense, but were met by a counter proposal, which it was impossible to accept. As the Colonies had no most favoured nation agreement, the American arguments respecting the Colonies were irrelevant as regards the present circumstances, but the Government of the United States went further, and argued that the most favoured nation clause of the United Kindom did not apply to the case of reciprocity treaties, where one concession was made in return for another. If we had agreed, or even if we had remained silent, it might be expected that the Americans had lost the moral right to insist now upon their treaty engagements. But the correspondence to which Sir M. Hicks Beach referred was closed by a long despatch in which I repudiated in the strongest manner the American assumption, denouncing it as contrary to International Law and fatal to the principle of most favoured nation treatment. To this Despatch no rejoinder came from the American Government, and the negotiations ceased. For all we know the Government of the United States may say that they had been convinced by the argument. But even if they adhere to their obiter dictum of 1884, that a most favoured nation clause does not apply to a case where a concession is given to a third country in return for another concession, what is to prevent their saying, "The cases are quite distinct. In this one there is no concession in return for another concession. We are not relying upon the general most favoured nation cause, but upon the special provision in our treaty that no prohibition shall be applied to American produce which is not applied to that of other nations"? And what is to be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? Are they going to admit that the Americans were right and we were wrong in our views in 1884? And are we going to adopt a principle which we then showed was fatal to the advantage of most favoured nation clauses? My own belief is that this clause is one of the greatest value, and constitutes by itself the best kind of commercial treaty. It simplifies tariffs and adds to freedom of trade. Its abolition or its weakening might be fatal to the best interests of commerce in the principal markets of
  1814
  the world. It is therefore of great importance that the noble Marquess should make known his views.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in answer to the question of the noble Earl, I may say that I quite agree with the views of Sir M. Hicks Beach. It is a question of what lawyers would term estoppel. The United States Government are estopped by their own statements from making use of the argument which was hypothetically put into their mouths by the noble Earl. Nothing would give me greater pain than to be obliged to throw over the language used by the noble Earl in the Despatch he has referred to. But the Americans are far too high-minded to try to escape from their own statements, from declarations by which they are bound by citing against us subsequent statements from our own side. I am speaking from memory, as I did not receive the noble Lord's notice in time to enable me to fortify my recollection; but if I remember rightly, there was a treaty signed by the American Government in 1886 with the Government of Tonga—it is a small country, but that makes no difference—in which the doctrine is absolutely laid down that the most favoured nation clause is not to be interpreted as operating where there is a difference in the conditions under which equal treatment is demanded. I do not therefore suppose it is likely that the Americans would attempt to pass over their own deliberate and repeated statement; but, perhaps, though I have not the least desire to complain of the question of the noble Earl, I may be allowed to say that it belongs to what has been called the science of hypothetics. There is no ground for believing that the Americans would have the temptation or the desire to make such a plea as that which he supposes. In the first place, the Americans have not dissented or shown any sign of dissent from the Convention, and we have no ground for saying that before it is ratified, towards the end of next year, they may not have adhered to it. But even if they do not adhere to it, their law contains, in the most clear and categoric terms, a prohibition of any bounty, and therefore we have no ground whatever for believing that they would ever come within the purview of the provisions which the noble Earl

  1815
  says would be interpreted by the language of this Despatch in their favour. When the case arises, if it ever does arise, which I do not believe, I shall be prepared to join issue with the noble Earl upon the legal question, but I maintain that the legal question is now so hypothetical that it is not useful, and it is not desirable to carry the discussion any further.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say one word, because the noble Marquess has made no allusion to that clause in the treaty between ourselves and the United States to which the noble Earl referred. This question does not depend only on the most favoured nation clause, but on the express provision with regard to export and import between the two countries, a provision which did not come into existence at all in the controversy which arose at the time to which the noble Earl has alluded, and therefore, it seems to me impossible to say they are precluded from using any argument with reference to it by reason of an argument that they may have used in relation to another clause altogether in the treaty. It strikes me, with all respect, it is a somewhat dangerous doctrine to say that, because a particular Power has used an argument in relation to a commercial treaty, or a provision of a commercial treaty with which they have disagreed, that, therefore, we ought to treat that provision in that treaty as having the meaning which they contended we have erroneously put upon it at any time or at all times.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not understand the question of the noble Lord to refer to anything else but the favoured nation clause; therefore, I am not prepared to deal with the particular matter to which the noble and learned Lord refers. On the other hand, the reference to a subsequent treaty is a reference of a different character to that to which the last argument applied.

  PHYSICAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  *THE EARL OF MEATH: I have to move the following Resolution—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Education Code is defective, inasmuch as it fails to provide adequate facilities for the physical education of children attending elementary schools."
  1816
  My Lords, in moving this Resolution,. I do not desire in the smallest degree to belittle the work of the Government in the new Education Code. I quite feel that it was an improvement on its predecessor. At the same time, I desire by this Resolution to emphasize the fact that physical education seems to me almost entirely ignored in the Code. My Lords, it is necessary that the physique of the population of this country should be improved. But before I enter upon that consideration, I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the population and the circumstances connected with the population of this country are entirely different from what they were a very few years ago, and also that these islands are in a very different position from any other country, I may say, on the face of the globe. I mean by that, My Lords, that whereas Belgium, for instance, is a very thickly populated country, and perhaps more thickly populated than this country, still there is no other land on the face of the globe in which the population is congregated in towns in such enormous numbers as in these islands. Belgium is a thickly populated country, but its population is, to a large extent, found in populous villages; ours, on the contrary, is in a great measure collected within some 20 enormous metropolises, if I might call them so. Then, my Lords, not only have we these enormous cities studding the land, but they are annually increasing at a rapid rate. The population in these islands increases at the rate of something like 300,000 a year, and the whole of this increase goes towards the enlargement of our cities. I believe that the influx of agricultural labourers into the towns of Great Britain is at the rate of something like 60,000 or 70,000 a year. And what cities they are ! Most of these cities have sprung up without any regard to the health of the population, and these masses of people are congregated in a great measure in narrow streets and in confined courts. It is impossible, I think your Lordships will allow, that a generation of children can grow up healthy and strong in such cities unless some means are taken to strengthen their bodies. There is no doubt, as a question of physiological science, that the health of a population is in inverse ratio to its density, or, in other words, that the more a

  1817
  population is aggregated together, other things being equal, the more unhealthy it becomes. Happily, other things are not always equal in the prejudicial point of view, and science is able in a great measure to counteract the bad effects of this overcrowding. But nevertheless, there is a great need, I contend, for the Educational Department of the Government to consider whether they ought not to endeavour to improve the physical condition of children as well as their minds. It is now a quarter of a century ago since Dr. Hayles Walsh first drew the attention of the public to this question, and it is many years since Dr. Cantlie, a surgeon practising in the London Hospital, in giving evidence on this question, stated that after making inquiries among 800 patients in the hospital, he found that there were only one-fourth who could trace their pedigree back to the fourth generation. I believe, my Lord, that if it were practicable to surround the large towns so that it would be impossible for countrymen and countrywomen to enter it, we should find that the degeneration of the race would become so great that the Legislature would be forced to take some action in the matter. The truth is, my Lords, that our eyes are blinded to the degeneration going on, owing to the influx into our towns of countrymen and countrywomen. They improve the race in the towns, but they themselves deteriorate—and their children are less healthy than those who are born and bred in the country. Now what are the requirements of the Code with regard to this matter? There are only two paragraphs in which physical education is at all mentioned. Section 12 sub-Section N provides as to military drill for boys under an instructor for two hours a week, or forty hours during the school time. Section 89 says that the income of the school must be applied only to the purposes of the school, and the school authorities are not allowed to pay the whole or even part of the salary of a teacher of drill unless he is also the drill teacher in several schools. Now, what are the subjects which are taught in the schools under this Code? There are four subjects which are obligatory—reading, writing, arithmetic, and needlework, and for those there is a fixed grant of 12s., 14s., or 15s. 6d. according
  1818
  to the efficiency of the scholars. My own feeling is that physical education is of such importance that it ought to be included in the obligatory subjects; but if that does not meet with your Lordships' approval, I would suggest that it ought to be included amongst the optional subjects, so that any school which chooses to take it up may do so, equally with geography, English, singing, elementary science, or history. Those are subjects which only individual scholars can study, and for which there is a grant of 4s. Now, my Lords, we heard a great deal not long ago about overpressure in the schools. I venture to assert that a good deal of this overpressure is due to the neglect of the Department not to consider the requirement of physical exercise as part of the education in elementary schools. Children of tender years are kept at their desks doing sums, and at other lessons which to them are exceedingly hard, for a much longer time than the children of well-to-do parents are allowed to work; and they are children of parents who have never used their brains to a great degree. If, however, these children had physical exercise, it would be found that their minds would improve as well as their bodies. The children of upper and middle class persons come from parents who for many generations have used their brains, and are children more capable of using their brains than the children of those who for generations, it may be, have not in any large measure done so. I think, my Lords, that if physical exercise were allowed for half an hour so as divide mental lesson from mental lesson, not only the physical condition, but the mental condition of the children would be improved, and the result would be very much better, looked at even from a mental point of view. Then, again, there is another point which I should like to impress upon your Lordships, and that is that the teacher as well as the scholars are kept for very long hours at schoolwork. I believe there is nothing so trying to the nerves—nothing which makes a man so irritable and nervous as teaching; and if you could turn the teachers out to engage in gymnastics with the children, you would find there would be better discipline and less corporal punishment inflicted. This Education Code is a

  1819
  one-sided one. The whole idea pervading it is to train the intellect. There is nothing for the body, which should also receive attention. The intellect and the body I assert should be considered together. But, my Lords, it is no use allowing this subject if you do not put it on a par with the others. Those subjects which are neither compulsory nor paid with money are handicapped, and, I submit, unfairly handicapped. My Lords, it may be said that in the Board Schools of London Swedish drill is taught, and that we have already small companies of boys drilling. I am perfectly aware that Swedish drill is taught now, and for many years I have been trying to get this drill taught in these schools. Although I believe the Board Schools of London have been exceedingly anxious to do all they can in the matter, they have not got the power or the funds to do it, and if they attempted to spend money in this way they would be surcharged. I therefore, through an association with which I am connected, proposed to them to bring over Swedish teachers by means of voluntary subscriptions, to teach the Swedish drill. They consented, and I was enabled to get £400 to bring over the necessary teachers. By that means they have been able to teach the Swedish drill in spite of the Government. Thus the teachers of the Board have been taught Swedish drill and were able to train the girls. But, my Lords, Swedish drill is not all that is necessary. It is excellent for girls, but the experience of several other countries, I believe, proves that it is not everything. Germany has not adopted it. Germany has got regular gymnastic training for its students. Switzerland has not adopted it. and Switzerland has got gymnastic training for the children. In Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway, every child is compelled to go through a course of gymnastics unless physically unfitted. If that is necessary in agricultural countries is it not much more important that English children, who are living in crowded slums and alleys in our enormous towns should have something done for the training of their bodies? And, my Lords, there is another argument, and that is that military drill does not expand the chest;
  1820
  it does not increase the size of the arms; and it does not increase the power of the muscles in the same way as a thoroughly systematic course of gymnastics does. This has been proved by those who have, taken a great interest in this subject. Dr. Brookes, of Much Wenlock, says that of a dozen lads of about equal force and strength, he set six to drill and six to a course of gymnastics for six months, and the result was that at the end of six months the six who had gone through the course of military drill had increased their chest measurement by 11–24, or very nearly ½ an inch, while those who had gone through the course of gymnastics had increased their chest measurement by two inches. My Lords, I do not think I can do better than quote the authority of Sir James Crawford the Director General of the Army Medical Department who lately said at the meeting of the British Medical Association, that in 25 years the number of rejections for the Army had increased from 376·67 per 1,000 in 1862 and in 1866 to 415·58 per 1,000 in 1882 and 1886, showing a physical condition of the masses very much in favour of 1862 and 1866. He said that there was evidence of perceptible degeneration in the lower orders of people, and he says he has been forcibly impressed with the fact that the recruits drawn from the town population gave by far the largest portion of rejections, and that the cause of rejection is inferior physique. The inferiority is shown by the difference in rate between town and country recruits, as well as insufficient chest capacity and diminuity of stature. Again, he says, the masses are of inferior physique to what they were 25 years ago. Another authority, Dr. Fothergill, in a paper which he read before the Anthropological Association at Manchester, said that figures had shown the superiority of country people, as can be seen every day of our lives if we corn-pare the population of Hammersmith, Shoreditch, and such places, with the population in country places like Lancashire and Yorkshire. Very similar evidence, my Lords, has been given by Sir C. Brown in his Report on the London Board Schools. He is the gentleman who brought out the facts which so horrified the public sometime ago with regard to the overpressure in those schools. If we are not careful of

  1821
  the physical health of the children of this generation this country will certainly suffer in the future. I hope I may appeal in what I am about to say with some confidence in this matter to the sympathies of the Conservative Party in this House, for if ever there was a man who cared for the health of the people it was the Earl of Beaconsfield, who said sanitas sanitatum omnia sanitas. There is no nation on the face of the earth which favours physical exercises so much as this country, but the physical exercises are voluntary and are carried on mainly by the rich and well-to-do. The result is that the weak and the poor do not receive that physical training which they should have. The Germans have proved the wisdom of introducing competent physical training, and there is no doubt it was owing in no small degree to this training that their soldiers were enabled to march to Paris. Germany is a country which has done much in this matter of physical education, and I should like to point out very briefly to your Lordships how it was that Germany came to take this step. Most of us know that it was owing to the defeat of the German army, after the battle of Jena in 1806, that Germany determined in future to prevent similar disasters, and in 1811 Johann Jahny formed the TurnerVereine, or Gymnastic Association, which was a German Association for the purpose of hardening the German youths and strengthening their muscles, so that at some future date they might be able to best their enemies. In 1840, the system of compulsory exercises was introduced by Adolph Spiess into the teaching of the schools. In this country we have what may be called TurnerVereine in our large Universities and schools, and in the association for physical exercises, which are so much delighted in by the children of the poorer and middle classes. There is no nation, perhaps, which indulges so much in physical exercises as the English nation. But, my Lords, that is not the point. Being voluntary the result is that the weaker and poorer children do not obtain that physical training which I should like to see them have. The example of Germany, will, I hope, induce your Lordships to see whether it is not possible to do something in the same direction in this
  1822
  country. The Germans have proved the wisdom of introducing that system into their own country. Some people have asserted that force and strength are anachronisms in the nineteenth century, and that science is sufficient for everything, and that by machinery we can do with few physical requirements. But, my Lords, you will yourselves have noticed that those who excel in anything are the people who have most physical power. Take our Parliamentary Leaders; are not they all men who have been renowned for physical strength, or our leading barristers, physicians or City Clergymen, all of whom are hard worked. Could they, if they had not strong constitutions, go through their work? Is strength not also necessary in the lower classes? Consider, my Lords, how hard is the work of a compositor, railway guard, or omnibus conductor. And even in the case of women—dressmakers and semptresses—could they go through their hard work unless they had some amount of physical strength? I believe, my Lords, that really this is a matter in which very little expense would do what I should desire. I have seen practical proof of this in a case with which I am connected, where I converted an ordinary schoolroom into a gymnasium for the small sum of £5, and that was done without in the slightest degree interfering with the ordinary school work, simply by hanging up a few ropes, by introducing into a doorway a bar which could be used for athletic exercises, and one or two other things which could be put on one side when necessary. In fact, my Lords, a large gymnasium is not wanted in every school. I do think it would be well if there was a large gymnasium, or perhaps even two or three gymnasia in our large towns. No doubt some schools have already set up gymnastic apparatus in their playgrounds, but the absurdity of it is that having set up that apparatus, they are not allowed to pay anyone to teach the use of it. I think, my Lords, I have shown that the power of excelling in anything depends in a great measure on physical stamina. I believe, my Lords, that by such a system as I propose the great national crime of drunkenness would be diminished, and I have the authority of one of the principal teachers of gymnastics for saying that those

  1823
  exercises have a distinctly moral effect on young men. As to teachers, I would suggest that the Education Department should name certain gymnasia which should have power to grant certificates. Health and strength are priceless boons to the individual, and I believe them to be equally priceless to the nation. Woe to the nation whose sons and daughters are incapable of enduring fatigue! She will be successful neither in peace nor in war. In peace she will be driven by stronger nations out of the markets of the world, and in war neither money nor science will avail to replace the sturdy arms and steady nerves which should have been forthcoming to defend her. Salus populi suprema lex.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, anyone I think who has looked at the Code will have seen how many subjects there are for the children to take up, and they must be aware how difficult it would be to introduce new subjects which could only be taught by additional teachers at increased expense. It is not correct to say that there is no physical training at the present time. It is creeping in gradually. The recommendation of the Royal Commissioners states that in their opinion it would be dangerous to introduce gymnasia at once, as they are not suitable for weak and underfed children, and unless under very skilful teaching are more likely to do harm than good. In many of the training colleges teachers of gymnastics are being introduced and large bodies of the teachers are themselves being trained in military drill. Though that is the only thing spoken of in the Code, it is a matter of the utmost importance. Military drill is very valuable, and has very beneficial effects. I cannot agree altogether in what has been said as to the physical deterioration of the people. With regard to the suggestion that the physical condition of recruits is now inferior to what it was in times past, I would point out that in times of pressure inferior recruits are taken, and that when recruits are plentiful the standard is again raised. A case was brought to my own knowledge where a man 5ft. 11in. with a very large expansion of chest, active, a good runner and workman, was rejected because he had a hereditary stiff toe. At a time when there was a scarcity of recruits, that man would have been taken as perfectly qualified
  1824
  to fulfil the duties of a soldier. I only give that as an instance to show that there are times when fair recruits are rejected on such grounds, while those of inferior calibre are received under pressure of circumstances. My Lords, I should be very sorry that there should be a negative put upon the Motion as as to the necessity for physical instruction; but I do not think the time has come for adopting the noble Lord's Motion, and introducing it into the Code generally. Can it be said, for instance, that it is necessary in the rural districts, where the children leave school to engage in cricket, football, or swimming, that they should have this gymnastic apparatus, which is dangerous to be used except under supervision? Gymnastics require very special teaching, and, although I quite agree that much might be done for small sums in introducing apparatus, the teachers are not so easily to be found. It is true there is no direct grant for military training, but throughout the country the time occupied by it counts as part of the school attendance, I hope the noble Lord will be content with having brought the subject forward, and that, believing there is a desire on the part of the Department to introduce physical training into the schools as far as possible, he will not press his Motion to a Division.
  *LORD NORTON: My Lords, there can be no doubt entertained by anyone that physical training is required for children. I should think we all agree that it is one of the most important branches of education in our national schools. Indeed, I would go further, and say that I think that it is very important as a part of mental training. I think, my Lords, there is nothing in education more effective than drilling both boys and girls for habits of discipline and quick attention. If I understand the noble Lord's notice, it means that the Code is defective on this point; but he does not point out the defect, or the remedy if such defect exists. The Report of the Commission is very careful to say that athletic instruction in our schools should be cautiously introduced, and upon a regular system in order to be guarded from any physical injury. It is, however, being introduced very largely. I may mention that I saw the other day a very

  1825
  large exhibition of drill to music by some hundreds of London school children. How is the further object aimed at by the noble Lord to be carried out? Does he mean that a special payment by capitation should be made for the children well drilled? It appears not; for, on the contrary, he has said that he does not want to increase the expense, and that what he proposes to do would not do so. I do not mean to say that the expenditure might not be very well made, but I do not see how there can be a payment made for the children who are to be drilled, without increasing the expense of the whole Educational System. Is it to pay a few shillings a head on results of drilling? That is a system which I altogether condemn. I believe that the system of paying a small sum on every detail of education is the very thing which has injured our national education in our country. I believe with Matthew Arnold that such a system as we are now adopting of payments for every detail of education, is the cause of inferior intelligence compared with other countries in our schools. When the noble Earl refers to the German System, I agree with him. Adequate support should be given to the schools for all purposes, and that it should be given upon strict Reports made: to the Department, not only upon this or that detail of education, but upon the whole system, which would include the moral, the intellectual, and the physical education of children. Under such a system as that, the introduction of physical education for the children would be adapted to the circumstances of various schools. The proposal of the noble Earl is to apply equally to all schools, and yet his argument was that it is wanted in town schools more than country schools; that it is the crowded towns, where children get no outdoor exercise, which require this physical training. Certainly a regular course of gymnastics cannot be applied equally to all, and when applied care should be taken to properly apply it. I take it that what we want to do is to regulate a system of physical exercises (which was the topic of the noble Earl's speech), and to incorporate it into the educational system of this country. I hope he may be able to explain to us a
  1826
  little more plainly in what way he would propose to obtain his object.
  *EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, the adoption of physical training would diminish the strain which the noble Lord is quite right in saying is far too severe in the case of the children of parents, who for generations have not used their brains. He should have said, who have not used their brains in abstract studies, for they have to use them, and do of course, in their trades and callings. But there is no doubt they have not the same facility as the children of those who have been accustomed to use their brains on abstract subjects, and, therefore, the strain is much more injurious and severe to them than it would be to the children of your Lordships, or of the more highly educated classes. But I think my noble Friend has done very great service in deed in pointing out the means of affording facilities for a greater amount of physical education and exercise in our schools than we now have. I have no doubt that under proper management, by this means greater physical development—development of the human frame—will be procured, and that it can be better procured by well adapted and superintended gymnastic exercises than by drill. But drill may be applied widely without any danger, and it has been applied with great advantage to the general education as well as in its mere physical results. Even the "peace at any price" party must feel satisfied that drill can be introduced with very beneficial effects. Some years ago either the late Sir Joseph Whitworth or his foreman (I cannot call to mind which it was at the present moment), stated in evidence that for industrial purposes any young man who had gone through a thorough course of drill was worth at the very lowest estimate 1s. 6d. a week more in wages, in consequence of having acquired the habit, and therefore the power, of moving promptly at the word of command, which was of ten of immense industrial importance, and prevented many accidents. My Lords, I cannot say that I think this Code does as much for the promotion of drill as it ought; and I have no doubt the illustrious Duke will bear me out in saying that early habits of drill wonderfully facilitate the performance of work, and that

  1827
  they import a handiness in after life, whether a man is in the Army, Navy, or elsewhere. It therefore seems to me that the Code still remains one which attaches too much importance to book learning, and devotes a great deal too much time to it. The children could pass through the same literary test if a portion only of the time were devoted to this purpose. It seems to me that this is a very strong argument in favour of diminishing the length of the hours devoted to book learning in our schools, and giving more time and some pecuniary encouragement, not merely to gymnastic training, which requires considerable expense in the employment of skilled professors, to prevent danger to the children, but to drill; and in these days of Volunteers, Militia, and short service, it would be a very strange thing if, for a moderate sum, some competent retired non-commissioned officer could not be found to drill the boys in the most remote rural schools. The adoption of gymnasia in our large schools is needed, and I think very inadequate encouragement is given to it by the Code. But I should like to see all our children drilled from the Duke's son to the beggar's son in the workhouse.
  *THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that I consider drill most valuable to young people in all vocations of life. I believe that it will add very much even to the power of science, because where proper physical training is not given, although young men may acquire a great amount of scientific knowledge, still they will suffer so much in bodily health that they will not really be in a position to turn to full account the scientific instruction that has been imparted to them. I am convinced that the application of military drill to a limited extent and as a regular part of the daily work of the schools would conduce to the advantage, both mental and bodily, of the scholars. I quite agree that gymnastics are a delicate thing to deal with, and will require that great care should be taken to see that they are not carried too far and do not cause accidents; but the case is quite different with drill, which can lead to no accidents. As to the matter of expense, there are many non-commissioned officers in every part of the country who could under proper regulations give instruc-
  1828
  tion in drill to the children without causing any very considerable outlay of money for that purpose. As far as the Army is concerned, men are now sometimes taken into the service who shortly after they enlist are found to be disqualified physically, and they have been discharged, entailing great expense to the country; and therefore I quite agree that the sooner boys at school begin drill the better it is in every way. The boys of the Shoeblack Brigade, as it is called, march through the streets as well as soldiers could, because they are drilled young and take a pleasure in it. That shows there exists a disposition to learn drill, if the opportunity for it is afforded. If a reasonable time were devoted to drill in Board Schools and other schools generally, it would be greatly to the advantage of all concerned, and also to the country at large.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, the Royal Commission, of which I was a Member, have inquired into this question, and they had the Report of the Inspectors of military gymnasia before them. I hope that the result of this discussion will rouse the attention of the country to a matter of considerable importance. I am afraid that people may get the notion that there is no drill in the schools at the present moment; but the fact is that there is a great deal of drill given now in the schools, to the delight of the children, and with a good effect on their power of work at their studies. I entirely concur with the illustrious Duke as to the great difference between gymnastic exercises and drill; and the Royal Commission were of opinion that the introduction of an elaborate gymnastic apparatus into the school playgrounds was not to be recommended unless there was adequate and competent supervision of the chilren during their exercises. The Commissioners reported that in towns the best results, both physical and moral, might be expected from the introduction of some system of physical instructtion, such as that recommended by the War Office, but that care must always be taken in applying it to delicate and weak children. I believe that the training colleges might do much in training teachers to carry on drill, and I believe that it would be of enormous advantage to have the bodies as well as the minds of the children exercised.
  *THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I have given you my opinion in this matter. I can state it in a very few words. Physical education would include drill, and as everything depends upon the grant that is given, the National Schools will push into the background subjects that do not earn money. My own opinion is this, that this subject should be included in the class of optional subjects, so that each school should be left to do what it can. If it did not choose to take up this subject, it need not do so. If it chose to take up drill, it would be paid for it. If it chose to take up gymnastics, it would be paid for it. In reply to the noble Lord Norton, I wish to draw his attention to this fact, that I do not ask for any more money, because I only desired to put this subject among the optional subjects. If the scholar is not drilling, or at gymnastics, he will be reading or writing, and therefore the payment will not be increased in any way. I do not think sufficient stress has been laid on the health question. This is a question entirely of health. It is not an ornamental question, or a question of military drill merely, but it is one of health. and I hope it will go before the country in that form. If this training is not required, do not let us have it; but all I said was that we should have it in the large towns, and if the noble Lord will give me an assurance that he will place the subject among the optional subjects, even limiting it to the large towns, I will withdraw my proposal. Otherwise I will not.
  Question put, resolved in the negative.

STATE GRANTS FOR MAIN ROADS.

  QUESTION-OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I have to ask Her Majesty's Government to state on what grounds the Local Government Board have repudiated any claim based upon the cost of quarter maintenance of main roads for the years ending 25th March, 1888 and 18b9. There is one point which I think perhaps in strict accuracy ought to be referred to, and that is that the grants are for a quarter for the Highway Authorities and a quarter for the County Authority. My Lords, I do not think it necessary to apologize to the House for bringing this question forward, because there has
  1830
  been so strong an expression of opinion and disappointment, not only from the County Councils, but also from the various Highway Authorities, that I feel the Government will not object to an opportunity being given of stating in an authoritative way their opinion with regard to the making of these grants. I think, my Lords, in order to make this question clear, I ought to remind your Lordships of the terms on which the main roads have been paid for up to this time. The main roads have been maintained by the Highway Authorities, either the parishes or the Highway Boards. lathe first place the Highway Board has had to pay the whole of the cost, and half that cost has been repaid by the County Authorities. Then, in addition to that half paid by the County Authorities, and which falls so hardly on the district itself, for some years there has been repaid one quarter of the cost to the Highway Authorities, and a quarter to the County Authorities. Therefore, under this somewhat complicated triangular arrangement, which existed down to last year, the Highway Authorities paid one-fourth of the cost of maintaining main roads, the County Authorities one-fourth, and the Government one-half. I think your Lordships would agree that this system is so complicated that it ought to be done away with, and that in future it should be carried out in a different manner. But, my Lords, I should like to call your attention to this, upon the point of the permanence of this system. The payments by the Government must be necessarily in arrear, and such arrears were owing when the Bill passed creating County Councils. What takes place is this: The Local Authorities have to get their accounts made up at the end of the period, and they have to get a certificate that the roads have been kept in order. Then the County Authorities, as soon as they get them, pay their half, and in the process of time the Government, two or three months afterwards, repay a quarter of what has been paid. So that some time afterwards they are repaid one-half of which has been paid by them. This grant has always been paid in arrear. When it was first started, the Government did not give the grant at once, but they waited until. they had the returns for the year, and paid afterwards. It was therefore in

  1831
  arrear at that time, it has always been in arrear since, and it is in arrear now. Then when the Bill appointing County Councils was passed, all these grants made by Government towards the Local Authorities were done away with, and it was resolved in the future to make the grant in a different form, and that the County Authorities should be paid in their stead. I believe the County Authorities desired that the grant which was owing last year towards the maintenance of the roads should be paid, but the ^Government would not pay it. My Lords, I will take the case, first, of the Highway Authority. I am bound to say that the Highway Authority has not so much to depend upon as the County Council; but they had to entirely take over the maintenance of the main roads. That has to be done in future by the County Councils. I will call the attention of the House to the fact that there are two years of arrears to the Highway Authorities. There is something owing for the year ending March, 1888, and a sum owing for the year ending March, 1889. The Local Government Board have informed me that no payments have been made to any Local Authorities in respect to the claims based on the maintenance of main roads for the year ending March, 1888, or for the year ending March, 1889, nor is it intended to give such effect to the Bill. In my letter to the Board I called attention to the fact that really these payments were due for the last two years, but in answer to that the Local Government Board said they had forwarded the claim to the Surveyor of Highways, and that although based on the cost of maintenance of main roads in 1886 and 1887 it was a contribution in aid of expenditure during the financial year 1888–9. Therefore it is clear, as far as the Government contention goes, they are not in arrear, but that the payments have been made for the year which has actually been running. As I have pointed out, I do not believe this contention can be supported by evidence. I know there are certain Highway Authorities who have made financial arrangements knowing that that half would be paid back at the end of the financial year; and they would be put in a somewhat awkward position if it were done in any other manner. But I think the County
  1832
  Councils have a stronger claim upon the consideration of the Government, because I would point out that the County Councils have had to pay during the current half year what is coming from the Government. They say, "You are bound to pay the Highway Authority, though we are not going to pay you." I do not quite see the distinction between the two bodies in that respect, and if one has a payment founded on the sum expended during the past year, and a payment is made for the financial year on account, then, I think, the County Authority should be put in exactly the same position. I think we are bound to pay the Highway Authority. At the same time, I think both of them should be placed in exactly the same position. But, my Lords, that is not the point on which I think the greatest stress ought to be laid. The Government, in bringing in the Local Government Bill, informed us that for the future the County Councils would be placed in a more favourable position than they had been in the past; that those grants would be larger than the amount which had been handed over hitherto; and therefore, that the County Councils, in starting their work, would be in a more favourable position than Quarter Sessions ever were before. I would be perfectly willing to base the whole of our case upon the question whether that will or will not be the case this year. We have had some expenses already, and we shall have to pay for six months of maintenance of high roads to the Highway Authority—that is to say, half the whole cost. In addition to that, we shall have to make some provision for the maintenance of the county roads during the next 12 months. As I have said, we shall have nothing to meet this in the way of any payment in aid at the beginning of the year; and, of course, all we can do will depend upon what we are going to get from the local grant. My Lords, I beg to say there is not a single county in my neighbourhood in which the estimates for the coming year are not in consequence of this higher now than they have been for many years past. They are considered to be higher than they have been for many years, simply from the fact that they have had to meet the cost of the maintenance

  1833
  of roads for the past year. The point of the Government is that the only grants which are now going to be given will take the place of the old grants, and that as far as that is concerned, we shall not be in a worse position. I would ask the attention of the House to the laws which regulate this grant. The whole of the grant which is handed over to the County Council is provided for by Statute in a very strict manner. It is provided in what order the Local Authorities are to be paid by the grant, and not one farthing of that grant can be touched by the County Council for the purpose of the maintenance of main roads until all the Local Authorities have been paid. I understand that part of the grant is paid in July, part in October, and part in February, before the end of the financial year. That will make it more than a year from the present time. I wish to point out that the rates are higher than they have ever been before. It is clear that 18 months will probably have elapsed between the last payment and the payment on account of this new grant. I am very sorry to have occupied the time of the House at some little length upon this matter, but I think the House will see that it is rather an important one, and unless it is put forward in some detail, it would be impossible to make out where we stand. Equitably speaking, even if the Government were to place us this year in as good a position as we were in in former years, we should then feel that if they cannot pay the grant in this form, the County Authorities are at least entitled to some consideration for this present financial year. My Lords, I think that the manner in which the County Councils are working generally seems to give, as far as I can judge, considerable satisfaction, but a great part of that satisfaction will be marred from the fact that during the first year of the County Councils they have been pressed further than these authorities have ever been before. In this way, my Lords, the County Councils will be put in an unfavourable position in which they do not deserve to be placed. They will not be placed according to the declaration of Government in a more favourable position than the old authorities were by the former grants, and that declaration will certainly not be kept if an incident of the period of transition is
  1834
  to be the loss of the grants that are overdue, and which would have been received in the ordinary course if no change in County Government had been made.
  VISCOUNT TORRINGTON: My Lords, there has been no repudiation of any valid claim by Her Majesty's Government in this matter. It is assumed that the Government are, in the present and next financial year, liable to pay to the Local Highway Authorities a quarter of the cost which was incurred by them in the maintenance of main roads in the years ended Lady Day, 1888 and 1889. There is, however, no good ground for any such assumption. The facts are these:—The County Authorities, under the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, were required to pay to the Local Highway Authorities one-half of the cost of the maintenance of the main roads, when such roads had been certified by the County Surveyor to have been maintained in a proper condition. It was therefore the practice of the County Authorities to pay in one year a moiety of the expenditure incurred in the preceding year. In 1882 it was determined by Parliament to make a grant to the Local Authorities in respect of main roads in anticipation of the larger relief to local taxation which was made by the Local Government Act. This grant was, of course, intended to be in aid of the expenditure of the particular year in which the grant was paid; but for the purpose of the distribution among the different authorities it was determined to take as the basis a moiety of the sum allowed by the county in the previous year. This was done in order to secure the full advantage of the examination of the claims of the Local Authorities by the County Authority. It is clear that the grant was made for the particular year in which it was voted and paid, and not for the preceding period in which the expenditure which was the basis of the distribution was incurred. Any other contention would involve this, that when Parliament in the year ended Lady Day, 1883, voted for the first time a certain sum for main roads, that Vote was to be regarded not as a Vote for that year, but for the year ended Lady Day, 1881. This was clearly not the intention. Take the past year. The full grant for the maintenance of main roads has been paid to the Local Authorities as in

  1835
  previous years, but the distribution, for reasons already mentioned, was based on the expenditure allowed by the County Authorities for the year ended Lady Day, 1888, and that allowance was in respect of the expenditure in the year ended Lady Day, 1887. If the Local Government Act had not passed, or if under that Act the County Authorities had not had ceded to them the License Duties and Probate Duty Grant provided for by that Act, the Local Highway Authorities would no doubt receive in the present financial year a similar grant to that which they have received in past years, but under the Local Government Act the License Duties and Probate Duty Grant have been substituted for the Parliamentary grants, and the revenue ceded is largely in excess of the grants which are discontinued. It cannot be contended that, while the Local Authories are to receive the Imperial Revenue out of which the Parliamentary grants would have been paid, they are also to continue to receive the grants for which it is distinctly provided that this Imperial Revenue shall be substituted. It is true that this revenue will be received by the County Authorities and not by the Local Highway Authorities, but it is to be borne in mind that it devolves upon the County Authorities from the 1st of last April to defray the whole cost of the maintenance of these roads, and that the Local Highway Authorities are altogether relieved of the burden of maintaining them.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this matter with regard to the County Councils, after the statement which has been made by the noble Viscount in answer to my noble Friend Lord Belper. This matter of the subvention for the maintenance of main roads is extremely complicated. My noble Friend has put it extremely clearly, and I have nothing to say by way of differing from him upon the former method applied to the subvention. But, my Lords, I think there is this to be said. There are two sets of authorities concerned in this matter—the Highway Authorities and the County Authorities. They have both a responsibility in the matter, and the Government have nothing to do with the question whether the county rate has more thrown on it, and the Highway Autho-
  1836
  rities less thrown on them, than previously for the maintenance of the roads. The Government have only to see that they have paid over sufficient money to relieve the local burthen, whether it be in the shape of County or Highway Bill. The Government have paid certain sums towards main roads, relieving the local rates for the year in which they make the payment, but calculating the amount on the cost of main roads for the previous year. Had they not done this, the Local Authorities would have had to wait until the accounts of the year had been audited, and this would have created an inconvenient delay. They have gone on paying in the same way for 1883–4–5–6–7–8. They have paid the full subvention—the quarter to the Highway Authority and the quarter to the County Authority —down to 1888. Then they say they are not going to pay any more. And why? Because they are going to give an equivalent and more than an equivalent to the County Councils by means of the License and Probate Duties. If the Government paid, as my noble Friend desires, they would be paying some part of their subvention twice over. In my opinion, if a Highway Authority has any grievance it must look now for redress to the County Council. But now I should like to press another matter very much upon the Government. The noble Lord at the latter end of his speech thought that in his part of the country some of the County Councils would have to raise very considerably their rates in this the first year of their administration. I confess that would be a very serious thing. It would have a very bad effect in prejudicing the country against this new Act, and I therefore think it is important that Her Majesty's Government should redeem their declaration and pay the full amount of the subvention. We hoped we should gain a little beside what we had at the old Quarter Session, something more to answer the heavy burdens which we have to meet; but I think it is of the greatest importance that the Councils should not be put to any inconvenience by the subvention being less than the charges which they, instead of the Government, are now bound to meet. We have to meet the subvention to the Unions, we have also to

  1837
  maintain absolutely the whole of our main roads, and we have to pay for the whole of the Police. I need not go through the items of all that is now thrown upon the County Councils. I therefore would press very much on Her Majesty's Government that the Councils should receive within the financial year certainly as much, if not more, than was formerly paid to various Local Bodies; otherwise, we shall fall into difficulties. I am aware that before this can be finally settled an agreement as to the share which counties and boroughs are each to have of the Licenses and Probate Duties has to be made. I was one of those who went through the process of trying to agree to a settlement last week, and I assure your Lordships that you could not have a much more difficult measure to carry through than to come to an arrangement between the borough and the county with regard to the share which is to come from the Government of the Licensing and Probate Duties, because although with regard to the Probate Duty the Act in a certain sense settled the principle of its division for the whole country, you have to make a division on that as well as for the other licenses within each county. My Lords, I think this matter of the division between the boroughs and the counties should be settled as speedily as possible, and until that is done the Government will not of course be able to complete finally the subvention; but I venture to press on Her Majesty's Government strongly what my noble Friend so well put, that it is very desirable we should get the full subvention during the financial year and that we should not be obliged to raise higher county rates than we were obliged to raise formerly.
  *LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I think this is simply an exemplification of the old proverb that you cannot eat your cake and have it. If the Local Government Bill had not been passed last year the grant which has hitherto been paid by the Exchequer would have been paid this year. But the Bill having been passed the licenses have been handed over to the County Councils in the place of the grant. The amount from licenses will be larger than the former grants in aid from the Exchequer. Undoubtedly there will be some delay in the payment of the sums this year, but
  1838
  the noble Earl will see that they cannot be paid until they are received, and the money will not be wholly received by the Exchequer until the end of the financial year. Considerable payments will be made in July, October, and February next. This is an important question, in so far as the different County Councils may be placed in a temporary difficulty arising out of the transfer. I believe every effort will be made by the Government to pay the money as quickly as possible. With regard to the larger question which noble Lords have raised as to how the County Councils are to tide over the difficulty of having to levy an increased rate to meet the present year's liabilities, the point is not covered by the Notice on the Paper and I do not suppose that the noble Earl opposite will expect the Government to give an answer without further consideration. The point is obviously an important one, and if the Government had received notice of the question they would no doubt have been able to deal with it. The Government would not willingly lay an undue burden upon the County Councils in the first year of their existence.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it is quite clear that the Government are right in the view they have taken as to the question of the payment of the money this year. If they are right, it is all the more important that your Lordships should impress upon the Government the extreme hardship which the counties will suffer if they do not receive a sum equivalent to the amount which they have lost. If they have to make a new and additional county rate, the ratepayers will take notice of the increase, although the poor rate may be reduced. I quite agree with the noble Lord that we cannot eat our cake and have it. But in the present year there is no cake. They have been accustomed to a cake of a certain size, and they have been told that they were to have a larger one this year. But they are not to have it, and what they ask is that the cake may be made up to the same size as before. I think the Government are really bound, having announced that their measure will tend to the relief of rates, not to allow the year to go over in such a way that the rates will be actually increased instead of decreased. It is not

  1839
  enough to say that they will get the money in another year, because the ratepayers of another year may not be the same as the ratepayers of this year; and they would be relieving the ratepayers of another year at the expense of the ratepayers of this year. I hope and believe that the larger question will receive the careful consideration of the Government with the view of preventing the grievance complained of from arising.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, if we understand that the Government consider the County Councils are entitled to the payment of the full subvention within the financial year so that they shall not be obliged to raise higher county rates, I think that will be an answer to my question.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1883, AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 42.)

  (SECOND READING.)
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I have to explain that it deals with a single provision of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, the provision which relates to the appointment of arbitrators. Under the provisions in question each party has power to appoint a referee, and a single referee can only be appointed when both parties concur. That provision has caused a considerable amount of unneccesary expense, because many of these arbitrations are in respect of small holdings, and the cost of the arbitrators swallows up their whole value. Under these circumstances, the Bill now before your Lordships proposes a change in the law to avoid that very considerable and unnecessary expense, so that unless the parties agree that a single referee shall be nominated by the parties, the nomination shall be made by the Sheriff. My Lords, I may mention that this Bill has passed unanimously through the other House, and I would ask your Lordships now to give it a Second Reading.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I have no objection whatever to the passing of the Bill, which does not affect the principle of the Act of 1883. It does not affect more than a small part of the procedure under that Act. I have only a few words to say upon the matter. I would point out that the
  1840
  procedure under the Act as it now stands is this: that any case of arbitration must be referred to two arbitrators unless the parties, with an oversman, mutually agree that it should be referred to one referee. The proposal under this Bill is that the procedure should be reversed—namely, that any such case must be referred to one referee, unless the parties interested agree that it should be remitted to two referees for their decision, with power to appoint an oversman. There is, therefore, no change in the principle of the Act of 1883, the alteration proposed having only the object of saving expense in carrying out the provisions of that Act. As any such saving must be for the interest of both landlord and tenant, I am glad to give my support to the Bill.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.