Lords Sitting of 4 August 1893

TOOK THE OATH.
The Lord Braybrooke.
PROGRESS OF INDIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India in his place, I wish to ask him a question of which I have given him private notice. Every year there is, by Statute I believe, a Blue Book presented to Parliament called The Moral and Material Progress of India. At every tenth year it has been the custom lately that there should be a more popular book published for the information of the public upon this interesting subject. Some time ago, knowing the tenth year was approaching, I took the pains to find out some gentleman specially qualified in order that he might have the editing of that decennial account, more especially with regard to the poorer people—the ryots, and as to the condition of the inhabitants—the several peoples in the different parts of India. I wish to ask the noble Earl whether that book is now in progress, and whether there is any chance of its being presented before the Session is over, or whether there has not been time to finish the inquiries which it is necessary to make for the purpose?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, the noble Viscount is very desirous, as I understand, to have an early summary of the Report, and not to have to wait as long for it as on previous occasions, a desire in which I fully sympathise with him, and I have been anxious that his wish should be carried into effect. I am afraid I have not altogether succeeded. The Government of India telegraphed—I think it must have been before I was in Office—that the time allowed (six months) for collecting the necessary information was too short; and they suggested that the Memoranda called for should be pre-
  1298
  pared by the Local Governments and Corporations, and should form part of the Administrative Reports for 1892–3. A telegram has been sent in reply to the effect that it was intended that the Report should be published in the present July, and that short Memoranda should be prepared as requested. Those Memoranda only began to arrive in January last. On the 6th April, in reply to representations made to us from India, we approved their reasons for not completing the Census before June last, and that, in accordance with that arrangement, Mr. Baynes would commence his "Moral and Material" Report when he got the information from India, which will not have been finished, in fact, until about this time. Mr. Baynes is the gentleman who was appointed, I think, by the noble Viscount. He has recently begun to prepare his Report, and it is expected that it will be ready in January next—not before. I can assure the noble Viscount I am as anxious as himself that it should be published as soon as possible, but the information could not be obtained earlier.
  Viscount CROSS: I do not know whether I may infer from the noble Earl's answer that the Report will be considerably fuller than those previously published, and that Mr. Baynes will have a pretty free hand in the matter.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is no kind of limitation imposed upon him, except that it should be prepared by the time mentioned. Of course, it will not be so full as if a longer time had been given, but I have no doubt it will be very useful and instructive.

REPLACING H.M.S. "VICTORIA."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HOOD OF AVALONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was intended to take a Supplementary Estimate in order to provide, with the least possible delay, for the commencement of a first-class battle-ship to replace the Victoria, and also for the entry of the necessary number of men to replace those lost by the sinking of that ship? He said, the grievous loss the country had sustained must be deplored most deeply by all as a great national disaster. In Sir George Tryon the country had lost an Admiral of the very

  1299
  highest distinction and ability, who had won the admiration and respect of the whole Naval Service and the entire confidence of every officer and man who had served under his command. We had also to deplore the loss of some 400 of our officers and trained men. But whilst deeply mourning their loss, one bright spot stood out conspicuously in this great disaster, which must command the admiration and sympathy of all, and that was the cool courage displayed and the high state of discipline maintained by officers and men to the very last. No panic was shown, but each man remained steady at his station until the order was given them to endeavour to save themselves. The country might well be proud of such men. All honour to them! It was of vital importance that this great national loss should be repaired as soon as possible. First, as to replacing our trained men. Heretofore, when it had been necessary to do so through any sudden loss in the personnel of the Navy, an additional number of boys had been entered for the Service; but the adoption of that course was not to be recommended in this case, and the trained men lost must be replaced by trained men. Boys after 18 months' service in the training ships only became ordinary seamen at 18, and, therefore, if the necessary number of boys to replace the men lost in the Victoria were at once entered, nearly three years must elapse before they became ordinary seamen. On the other hand, a Marine recruit joined as a man in 14 months after passing through the whole of his training, and was ready to embark as a trained gunner, his cost to the country during training being £48, as compared with £102 for a boy, from his entry on the training ship to his becoming an ordinary seaman. He would, therefore, strongly recommend that an addition of 400 men should be made to that most valuable corps, the Royal Marines, to replace the loss of trained men in the Victoria, in the shortest possible time. Then as to replacing the vessel herself. The loss of a first-class battle-ship was a matter of the greatest importance at present when large increases were being made in the number of battle-ships in both the French and Russian Navies, and that loss should be replaced with as little delay as possible. Three years were required to complete a first-class battle-ship, and six or seven
  1300
  months' time would be saved if a new one were commenced now instead of waiting for the Naval Estimates for next year. There would be no necessity to wait for a design to be prepared, for that of the two first-class battle-ships in this year's Programme could easily be adopted for a third, and but a moderate sum, comparatively speaking, would be required for the material and so much of the construction as could be carried out in the present financial year. He trusted the noble Earl the First Lord would be able to assure the House that it was intended to take a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of replacing the grievous loss the country had sustained by this great national disaster.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I do not wonder at the noble and gallant Lord referring in appropriate and feeling terms to the serious loss of the Victoria, or at the tribute he has paid to the high discipline shown by the crew in the foundering of that vessel. But I do not intend to-night, in the few words in which I shall answer the noble and gallant Lord, to enlarge upon that painful subject. I will go at once to the answer I propose to make to him. I would first ask the noble and gallant Lord whether he considers that in the estimate of the strength of the Navy made by the Board to which he belonged they did not intend to have a margin of strength in the ships building and in commission, and whether, in a minor degree, they did not intend to have a margin with regard to the men? As to the ships, I think we should be in an exceedingly bad position if we calculated so narrowly the strength of our Navy and the number of ships we possess that we should be put into serious difficulties by the loss of one of them. I do not under-rate the serious nature of this loss; but, at the same time, I deny that the loss is so pressing that immediate action is imperative in order to keep up the strength of the Navy. Having said that, I at once make the qualifying admission that the loss of a great ship like this is, as the noble and gallant Lord says, a very serious and grave loss, and that in the Estimates and Programme we are making, and have made, the loss of the Victoria has been considered, and will be

  1301
  considered in any plan of construction we have to lay down. That I say most deliberately. It would be impossible for any Board having a sense of responsibility to exclude from their view the loss the country has suffered by this grave disaster. Now I come to the other question of the seamen. I have very little to criticise in the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, but I do not think any immediate stops are pressed upon us owing to what has taken place. The losses in the Victoria, which were so serious and which we all so much deplore, are divided among different ratings. There were 124 seamen lost. That includes 15 boys. I will not go through every one, but will take some of the principal ratings. There were 81 stokers and 68 Marines. Altogether, exclusive of the officers, there were 320 lost. Now, there will be no difficulty whatever, with the ships now in commission, in replacing the 124 seamen lost. If there were a difficulty, we could resort to two courses: We might resort to the course suggested by the noble and gallant Lord—namely, increasing the Marines, who can be made efficient much more rapidly and at a smaller cost than seamen. As the noble and gallant Lord has reminded your Lordships, the seamen now are educated and trained in special training ships as boys for a period of from one and a-half to two years. It may be necessary on account of this loss to keep up the rather large number of boys now entering the training ships for a longer period than would otherwise have been necessary. We may have to continue the number voted each year at the somewhat high figure at which they were put for 1892–3. That was not intended to be continued as a permanent figure, and it was supposed that by 1894–5, if those numbers were entered, we should have got up the strength of our seamen to what it should be for the number of our ships. That full number may have to be kept up, as I have said, rather longer in consequence of this serious loss. Then, coming to the question of stokers, I have to say that we are trying to increase the number of stokers; and the recruiting for them, under the new conditions we have imposed, has been so far satisfactory. If it continues as satisfactory as it has begun, we hope that by the end of the year we shall have brought up the
  1302
  stokers to the number we have asked for in this year's Estimate. That, I think, is satisfactory. With regard to the Marines, I also hear that the recruiting is satisfactory, and alike in this respect and in respect of the stokers we have sufficient numbers without reducing the standard. I need hardly say that if we reduced the standard for men joining the Navy, especially for the Marines, we could immediately increase the numbers very materially. There is another source to which we could turn in case of real necessity. We could turn to the Royal Naval Reserve men, and we believe we should be able to get at once a very considerable number of Royal Naval Reserve men to join the Navy as seamen if there were necessity for doing so. At present we do not think there is that necessity, as we believe we shall have sufficient men to man the ships we put into commission. But in regard to this we are now considering very seriously—it has not been absolutely settled—whether we cannot put through training on board Her Majesty's ships for a certain time Royal Naval Reserve men who are seamen just in the same way as we put officers of the Royal Naval Reserve into a great many ships that are commissioned. That is the answer I have to give to the noble and gallant Lord. I am not prepared to pledge Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Supplementary Estimate, we do not consider that is necessary, and, while keeping in view our responsibility to maintain the strength of the Navy, we do not consider it is absolutely necessary to take fresh steps at present, considering especially that the ships under the Naval Defence Act are rapidly going forward. We may press forward to completion rather earlier some of those ships, but we do not consider the needs of the moment are so urgent that we must at once lay down a now ship or in any way increase the number of recruits in the Navy.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN) BILL.—(No. 219.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 1.
  LORD SANDFORDregretted that the noble Lord who presided over the Royal

  1303
  Commission on the Deaf and Blind in 1889 was not present to give their Lordships the benefit of his experience on the subject. On the other hand, he was glad to see opposite the noble Lord now representing the Scotch Office, who gave so much time and attention to the work of that Commission, as he had done on almost every Commission that had sat of late years, for he would probably give his assistance in carrying some of the Amendments, which were taken direct from the Report of the Commission. One point he would like to mention as a preliminary to moving the Amendments in detail—
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon for interposing, but I must remind him that it is not in Order for him to make a general speech in Committee. He must confine himself to his Amendments.
  LORD SANDFORDsaid, he was only proposing to save time by one or two remarks, which would have to be made on almost all the Amendments. His Amendment on this clause was to insert an exception in the case of a deaf child under seven years of age, as recommended by the Commission. Under this Bill a deaf or blind child could be sent to school at the age of live and kept there until 16. He would not touch the case of blind children, because the sooner they were sent to school the better.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 9, after ("itself") to insert ("except in the case of a deaf child under seven years of age").—(The Lord Sandford.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I agree to this Amendment. I would only say that this is in the Scotch Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  LORD SANDFORDsaid, one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission (No. 208) was that, subject to inspection, the control of the internal domestic management of the Institutions should be left as heretofore with the existing Governing Bodies. The clause as it stood proposed to introduce representative Governors where the Education Department thought it possible or expe-
  1304
  dient upon the Governing Body of every school, whether industrial or day, receiving grants from the rates or from the Department. He thought this was unnecessary. He would not go back to the recommendations of Mr. Forster in 1870, for circumstances and ideas had changed considerably since those days, but would only refer to a statement made when it was proposed that the London School Board should make an arrangement with the School Board of Liverpool to send children to their industrial schools that—
  "The Board had not the slightest representation on the management of those schools, although they were almost entirely kept up by the contributions of the School Boards."
  In reply to that, Mr. Lyulph Stanley said the Board had a power which was rather more efficacious than that representation, for they could send to the schools their Board Inspectors, who made suggestions which were generally agreed to by the managers. That was the line taken by Mr. Forster in 1870 in the House of Commons, when it was suggested that every voluntary school should have representative Governors on its management. In this Bill provision was made for the representation of the Local Authorities, who sent their children to these schools, whether near or at a distance. His Amendment was based on a conversation he had had with the late Cardinal Manning as to the conditions on which rate-aid should be given, when His Eminence said that he would have no objection to the inspection of any schools receiving such aid by officers of the rate-paying Body which contributed to them; but he would certainly object very much to representatives of School Boards or other Local Authorities being added to their management. His Eminence referred to the case of industrial schools, and especially to the Roman Catholic Deaf and Dumb School at Boston Spa, in Yorkshire, where the system of inspection worked well. The Boards of Guardians of 63 Unions sent children to that Institution. They came from all quarters of the country: from Alnwick in the North, from Birkenhead and Swansea in the West, and a considerable number from London in the South. If it were claimed under this Bill that the large School Boards in Yorkshire should be

  1305
  represented on the management of this Roman Catholic Institution, he did not think the Department would be able to resent this claim, and they would have a number of representatives from such towns as Sheffield, Leeds, York, and Manchester placed upon the Governing Body, and over-ruling the existing Manager. He saw no necessity for that, for popular control was given by the Bill, which provided inspection by Local Authorities in the form which Mr. Lyulph Stanley and others thought was best.
  Moved, to leave out the Clause.—(The Lord Sandford.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment. The clause as it now stands is a very mild one, far less stringent than was strongly desired by many who took part in the preparation of the Bill in the other House, because it is merely giving to the Education Department power whore they think it expedient and convenient to allow representation. In the case mentioned by the noble Lord, I should think it could not be done, because each of the 63 Boards of Guardians could not be represented on the Governing Body. But there are many cases where such representation can be provided, and it is extremely desirable, where a considerable amount of public money is to be given, that in these schools there should be some representation of those who contribute the money. As I said before, this is only a provision that it may be done. If it were compulsory the noble Lord's objections would have considerable weight; but to give a discretionary power of this kind seems to me desirable and quite in accordance with the principles of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  LORD SANDFORDproposed to add to the clause a limitation of the powers of School Attendance Committees appointed by Boards of Guardians. It was not perhaps generally known that the number of children who would come under the operation of the Bill was comparatively small. There wore in England and Wales about 2,000 blind children between 5 and 16 years of age, of whom 1,544 were
  1306
  at school in 1888, leaving only 450 unprovided for. There were at present probably from 6,000 to 7,000 deaf and dumb children between the same ages, of whom 2,500 were maintained in existing Institutions, generally denominational. If any of those schools were left in existence by the Money Clauses of this Bill new accommodation to that extent would certainly not be required, and only about 3,000 seats would, at the outside, have to be supplied for deaf and dumb children throughout England and Wales. In the Bill of 1892 only School Boards were given power to build schools for these unfortunate children, because the Attendance Committees at present had no powers of providing schools at the cost of the rates. He proposed, however, to allow the Attendance Committees in boroughs and large Urban Sanitary Authorities to have that power, because there might be a considerable number of these unfortunate children in their districts. In country places, where such cases occurred very sporadically, there was no use in giving School Attendance Committees the power of providing schools which would be supplied by the District Councils referred to in this Bill, if and when appointed. As there would be under the Amendment 2,534 School Authorities left with the power of providing school accommodation, and there were only about 3,500 children to be accommodated, there was no use in giving to the 578 School Attendance Committees for Unions extended powers for making such provision. There would, on au average, be only four children to be provided for in each of the areas under their jurisdiction.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 31, at end of Clause, to insert ("Provided that in the case of a School Attendance Committee appointed by a Board of Guardians, the powers of such Committee shall be limited to contributing to the annual maintenance of any school certified under this Act, and to the payment of the expenses of individual children attending such school, but shall not extend to the provision of school accommodation for the purposes of this Act."—(The Lord Sandford.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I observe, in the first place, that there is, in one sense, the provision the noble Lord alludes to. The clause provides that if a District Council should be established it is to exercise those powers. Of course, that is assuming what may

  1307
  not come to pass—it is as well to notice that; but in the interval the School Attendance Committee is to act. But I think there is some misapprehension in this matter. I admit that at first I entertained some objection to the clause on the ground that it did not seem to me a School Attendance Committee was exactly the kind of Body to spend the ratepayers' money; but I found that it was not the School Attendance Committee which would have the discretion in the matter, and that the Authority was to be either the Board of Guardians, the Borough Council, or the Urban Sanitary Authority, appointing the School Attendance Committee, and acting through it. When I referred to the Act under which these Committees are appointed, I found that no expenditure whatever can be incurred without authority from the Board of Guardians, and, in point of fact, in all matters involving expenditure it is the Board of Guardians who will impose the taxation, and not the School Attendance Committee. All that is intended is that they are to use the latter as the Body best acquainted with the subject for the purpose of setting the matter in motion. As regards the general observation of the noble Lord, that there is no necessity to do this, I think it is necessary. It seems to me that when you are enacting provisions requiring schools for deaf and blind children it is absolutely necessary those enactments should be extended to the whole Kingdom. What the noble Lord proposes is that in those districts, which are very numerous, where there are School Attendance Committees, they shall have no power to erect a school for this purpose. My own experience in these matters is that it is very rarely they will do so—that these Committees and rural Boards of Guardians will not incur expense unnecessarily. No doubt there will be cases where it is absolutely unnecessary, and they will, as a matter of course, contribute to some other schools; but there may be cases where there are no means of providing for the education of these children except by the erection of schools, and this clause as now framed will give that power. It seems to me to be giving power which certainly ought to be lodged somewhere, and that it is better it should be done in this way.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved the insertion of the following clause from the Bill of the late Government:—
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 39, to insert new sub-section: ((2.) "In granting or withholding their consent under this section the Education Department shall take into consideration the sufficiency of the accommodation available for blind and deaf children in existing schools.")
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I must say I do not quite see the necessity for this. The clause runs that the Department is to exercise the power in any case in which the exercise of that power appears to the Department to be expedient. That appears to me to cover the case, because, of course, one of the grounds upon which the matter would be determined would be the accommodation available. It seems to me to follow almost as a matter of course, and I do not see any reason for specifying these particular things. The whole question would turn upon whether there was or was not sufficient accommodation. I imagine that the course taken would be that the Department would require from the persons applying a full statement of the grounds upon which it was alleged that the accommodation was not available, and they would thereupon make inquiry in order to ascertain if it was the case that accommodation did not exist; and I cannot see in the least why these particular things should be singled out.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: This Amendment of the noble Lord would, at all events, point out to the Department that it is their special duty to look after these particular cases.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not see why it is necessary, because it seems to me that the provision points that out of itself, almost by necessary implication.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 23; Not Contents 18.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD SANDFORDsaid, this was one of the most important and serious clauses in the Bill. The Lord President had

  1309
  been applied to on this subject by his noble and learned Friend Lord Morris, at whose request he had taken up the question. When moving the Second Reading the Lord President had promised to consider whether the clause should not be amended, as the words were of rather doubtful interpretation.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I might, perhaps, save the noble Lord some trouble by explaining one little point, not interfering with the Amendment. I did not like to answer the other night, though I thought the words somewhat ambiguous; but I find that arises entirely from the word "or" being used instead of "and." I think the noble Lord will at once see the effect of that. It is simply a verbal error.
  LORD SANDFORDsaid, that substituting "and" for "or," the clause as it stood imposed upon the managers of these Institutions, which had done so much good work in times past, and which, he hoped, would be recognised under the Bill, though no provision was made for their immediate certification, too great a burden. He would take the case of the Roman Catholic school at Boston Spa, which he had already referred to. It appeared from the Report of the Royal Commission that the cost per head of educating the deaf and dumb was £7 19s. 10d.—a large sum; but for the instruction of those poor children a considerable number of teachers were required. For maintenance, food, and clothing in those Institutions generally the cost was £16 18s., the total charge being £24 17s. 10d. At Boston Spa there were 150 scholars, and the cost was £22 6s. 6d. This reduction upon the general average was owing to the devoted Sisters of Charity (St. Vincent de Paul) giving their services almost gratuitously. The children's payments amounted to £16 0s. 2d., leaving £6 6s. 4d. to be supplied by voluntary effort. Last year the voluntary contributions, which, like those to similar Institutions throughout the country, had fallen off, amounted to £4 17s. If the parents' payments were not to be taken into account, and one-third of the cost of the school was to be supplied by voluntary effort, instead of £4 17s., £7 8s. 10d. would be required. From the falling-off in contributions, the schools were already getting into debt, and to require the larger sum to be sup-
  1310
  plied pointed to the closing of those valuable Institutions altogether. On the other hand, one-fifth would only amount to £4 9s. 3d., which the Institutions would be able to obtain and to go on flourishing.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 39, to leave out ("third") and insert ("fifth").—(The Lord Sandford.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am sorry I cannot consent to the substitution of one-fifth. The object of the clause is to prevent the schools being supported practically by public money alone—that there shall be a substantial contribution towards the management of these schools. That seems to me to be a proper provision, and I think one-third is right. I cannot agree to the substitution of one-fifth; but if the noble Lord does not press that, I shall not resist the next Amendment. It was intended to exclude from the Bill the calculation of the parents' payments for the children boarded, lodged, and educated at the schools; but on that point, if the noble Lord does not press the one-fifth instead of one-third—whilst I know that in the Committee of the House of Commons, which inserted the words, a good deal of importance was attached to them, as they wore not in the original Bill—I shall not press for their retention.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: As far as the last observation of the noble Lord is concerned, I entirely agree. I may say that I have received a letter from Birmingham, where they feel very strongly on the matter, stating that it would have the effect of injuring the Institution there, which is doing very good work.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, as Chairman of the Managing Committee of the largest Blind Institution in the country—that at Norwood—he could state that they were not afraid of one-third, which they considered was a fair test to put upon such an Institution.
  LORD SANDFORDsaid, if his second Amendment were accepted, he would not press the reduction to one-fifth.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then the noble Lord's next Amendment will be agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In lines 39, 40, and 41, to leave out ("or the payment made by the parent of the children boarded and lodged or educated in the school.")—(The Lord Sandford.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  LORD SANDFORDasked for an explanation of the words "regard being had to the provisions of the Education Act, 1891."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am afraid that point has escaped me, and I cannot answer it off-hand. If the noble Lord will allow me to answer it in Standing Committee, I will then give him an explanation, but at present I do not feel quite sure what it is.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  LORD SANDFORDproposed to insert the words "or boarding with any person," as parents would no doubt wish to have a voice in the selection of the persons with whom their children were to be placed.
  Amendment moved, in page 5, line 17, after ("school") to insert ("or boarding with any person").—(The Lord Sandford.)
  LORD HALSBURY: The Local Authority might nominate some person to whose care the parent would not like to confide his child.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The Bill provides in a previous clause that they are to arrange, if possible, for the boarding-out being with some person belonging to the religious persuasion of the parent. That, of course, is desirable; but I think if these words were inserted they might give rise to difficulties in cases of boarding-out orphans and similar cases. If due care is taken as to the religious education, that, I think, will be sufficient. This might give rise sometimes to a great deal of embarrassment if it entailed an inquiry what were the religious persuasions of parents.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  Amendment moved, in page 5, line 31, after ("education") to insert ("and "industrial training.")—(The Lord Sandford.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think I can explain to the noble Lord that there is no occasion for this Amendment, because the Definition Clause includes what he intends. That clause says at line 16—
  "The expression 'elementary education' may include industrial training, whether given in the school which the child attends or not."
  I am informed by the draftsman that that is intended.
  LORD SANDFORDsaid, the Amendment followed the terms of the Scotch Act, but he had overlooked this Definition Clause.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13.
  Verbal Amendments.
  Clauses 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 241.)

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I have to move an Amendment on page 2 at the end of the clause to add a sub-section. The object is this: Some question has arisen whether by the rule-making power of the Rule Committee rules can be made relating to inter-pleaders. Inconvenience has been found to arise from this doubt, and this Amendment is really to carry out an Act which has already received the sanction of the Legislature by applying the rule-making power to the Acts mentioned in the Schedule.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 3, page 2, at the end of the clause add a sub-section:—"The power to make rules conferred by the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1891, shall include power to make rules with respect

  1313
  to the matters contained in and regulated by the enactments described in the Schedule to this Act."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then in Clause 5 I have to move an Amendment which I do not think is one of substance as the Bill now stands; but I am afraid some misapprehension has arisen as to the intention of Clause 4. When the matter was before the Standing Committee I believe some observations of mine were understood as indicating an intention that that part of the section which related to age of retirement should not be applicable to any existing officers of the Court. Certainly that is not the effect of the Amendment of which I gave notice, according to my opinion, nor the effect of the Bill as it now stands; but, at the same time, I am given to understand that I was understood as having made that statement. I daresay, when one is talking about various sections, what is said intending to apply only to certain of the Judicial officers may be understood as applying to all. Having stated that the one main object of the Bill was to put the clerks and officers in the Central Office of the Supreme Court, speaking generally, in the same position as Civil Service clerks in regard to the scheme of retirement, to have excluded all the clerks in that office from the retirement conditions would have been practically not to put them on the same looting as the Civil Service clerks, but to leave them entirely outside. That certainly was not my intention; it was not the effect of the Amendments of which I gave notice, nor is it the effect of the Bill as it now stands. The proposal I now make is, in my judgment, only putting into a form less open to dispute what I understand to have been sanctioned in Standing Committee; and it is with that view I propose the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 5, page 3, line 23, leave out Subsections (3) and (4) and insert the following sub-section:—"(3.) Any order made under this section may be made to apply to any officer of the Supreme Court, whether appointed before or after the passing of this Act, except that an order as to retirement or removal shall not in any case apply to any master or other judicial officer."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD MACNAGHTENasked if the noble and learned Lord would have any objection to insert at the end of Subsection 3—
  "Nor shall any such order apply to any officer appointed before the passing of this Act who holds office by Statute during good behaviour."
  The noble and learned Lord was aware that there were persons in that position who would be affected by the clause as it stood.
  LORD HALSBURY: I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will agree to that suggestion. It seems to me to be very undesirable that persons who have already a certain status by Statute and who hold office during good behaviour should by a kind of side wind be deprived of their office. That would, I think, cause great dissatisfaction and be a great blot upon a Bill otherwise beneficial.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish to affect Civil servants in the legal offices referred to, and, therefore, I should certainly not oppose the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether on Tuesday next, as there will not be much to be done, and it might probably be convenient for many noble Lords to be able to leave town at an earlier period than they would otherwise, it would not be advisable for the House to meet at a quarter past 4, instead of half past 5 as usual on Tuesdays?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I quite agree that it would be extremely convenient to everyone, and, therefore, I will give notice that on Monday I shall move that the House do meet at a quarter past 4 on Tuesday instead of half past 5, and the Standing Committee will be fixed for 3 o'clock. I shall also take the opportunity of moving that we meet again after the adjournment at the usual hour of a quarter past 4, as there will be no Standing Committee on that day.

LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.—(No. 229.)
Amendments reported (according to Order); further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
IRISH EDUCATION ACT, 1892, AMEND- MENT (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 220.)
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.] (No. 234.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
COUNTY OF THE CITY OF GLASGOW BILL.—(No. 235.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
COMPANIES (CERTIFICATE OF INCOR- PORATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 236.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
STATUTORY RULES PROCEDURE BILL. (No. 237.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
LAW OF COMMONS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 238.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE BILL. (No. 239.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
BURGHS GAS SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 226.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]—(No. 230.)
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
TRUST INVESTMENT BILL [H.L.] (No. 232.)
Read 3a (according to Order); and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BILL. (No. 223.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS (1883 AND 1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for the Third Reading on Monday next, discharged.
CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS AND LIVERPOOL CANAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons: read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 242.)
CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (NAVIGATION OF THE RIVERS AIRE AND CALDER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 243.)
CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (GRAND JUNC- TION CANAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 244.)

CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (WARWICK AND BIRMINGHAM CANAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 245.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.