Sitting of 27 April 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (Special Report).
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—London and Saint Katharine and East and West India Docks.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Companies Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) Amendment* [230].
Committee—Customs and Inland Revenue [202]—R.P.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Public Health (Scotland) (Denny and Duinpace Water) * [229].

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRE LAND) ACT, 1887 (IMPRISONMENT OF MR. GILHOOLY).
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had received the following Letter,

737
relating to the imprisonment of a Member of this House:—
Skibbereen, Co. of Cork, West Riding, April 25th, 1888.
Sir,
I beg to state that on Thursday and Friday last, the 19th and 20th inst., an appeal from a decision of Messrs. Gardiner and Warburton, R.M.'s, made at Skule, in this County and Division, whereby they sentenced Mr. James Gilhooly, Member of Parliament for the West Cork Division, to two months' imprisonment without hard labour, for intimidation contrary to the provisions of "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," came before me at Quarter Sessions, and that I confirmed the order of the Magistrates, but reduced the sentence to fourteen days' imprisonment without hard labour.
I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
H. FERGUSON,
County Court Judge, Cork Co. West Riding.
To the Rt. Honble.
The Speaker of the House of Commons.

MOTIONS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (DENNY AND DUNIPACE WATER) BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to Denny and Dunipace Water, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 229.]

  COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT (1845) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur Acland, Bill to amend "The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," in respect to voting by proxy, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Acland, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir Frederick Mappin, and Mr. Robert Reid.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 230.]

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (STAND ING COMMITTEES) (SPECIAL REPORT).
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection have leave to make a Special Report.
  Sir John Mowbray accordingly reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Jus-
  738
  tice, and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill [Lords]:—Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Sydney Gedge, Mr. Gully, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Charles Hall, Mr. Howard, Mr. James William Lowther, the Judge Advocate General, Mr. Mattinson, Mr. Mount, Mr. O'Hea, Mr. Bryn Roberts, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Warmington, and Mr. Waddy.
  Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—WICK- LOW ASSIZES—ATTENDANCE OF CATHOLIC JURORS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a large number of Catholic jurors were compelled to attend the recent Assizes at Wicklow, many of them from distant parts of the county, at great inconvenience and cost to themselves, and that, for the trial of prisoners charged with capital offences, the Crown Prosecutor directed all Catholic jurors to stand aside, and so obtained exclusively Protestant juries; whether he is aware that a meeting of Catholic jurors was held in the Town Hall of Wicklow on the 9th instant, at which a protest was signed by certain of the jurors ordered to stand aside, against the insult to which they considered they had been subjected, repudiating any sympathy with moonlighting, and protesting against the transfer of cases from distant counties; and, whether he will take this protest into his consideration?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The alleged protest has not been received. The hon. Member must be aware that the duties of jurors are diminished, instead of increased, by the order to stand aside.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, is it a fact that in all the Catholic cases tried the juries were exclusively Protestant; and is he aware that in the County of Wicklow the proportion is 58,000 Catholics to 15,000 Protestants? I wish to ask him, then, how it came to pass that exclu-

  739
  sively Protestant juries were sworn in to try the cases?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer the Question of the hon. Member unless he gives me Notice.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: I will repeat the Question.

  SCOTLAND—ISLAND OF LEWIS—THE RAIDS ON DEER FORESTS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, How many persons have been prosecuted for having, in connection with the late raid on a deer forest in Lewis, carried guns without having taken out a gun licence; whether Donald M'Kinnon, who on that occasion threatened with a gun which he carried to shoot a Superintendent of Police and other persons about to arrest him, held a gun licence; and, if not, whether he was prosecuted; and, whether Mr. John Ross, Deputy Procurator Fiscal, who, during the trial of the Aignish rioters, swore that on the 9th of January he had produced a revolver to intimidate a mob, possessed a gun licence; and, if not, whether he was prosecuted?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am informed that eight persons have been prosecuted at the instance of the Supervisor of Excise for having carried guns at the late raid without having licences. Two others, who were unable to appear, will be tried next month. Donald M'Kinnon obtained a licence the day before the raid with money received for this purpose from Donald Macrae, who was charged with inciting to commit the raid. Mr. John Ross, the Deputy Procurator Fiscal at Stornoway, holds a gun licence dated October 4 of last year.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE ESTI MATES FOR 1886–7.
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the discrepancies pointed out in The Economist of April 21, which occurred in the original Estimate, the revised Estimates, and the actual financial results of Indian finance for the year 1886–7, in the last case amounting to an increase of over £500,000 in the receipts and over
  740
  £1,000,000 in expenditure, and what explanation has been offered by the Indian Government of the reasons for these discrepancies; whether he will state how it is possible that such discrepancies can occur, and whether it is due to a bad system of accounts; what control in the way of audit the India Office has over the accounts of the Indian Government; whether there is any independent audit on behalf of the Secretary of State of accounts in India, or whether those accounts are forwarded to England to be audited and controlled by auditors appointed by the Secretary of State; whether the Government Accounts in India are audited by officials of the Indian Government, and not by an independent auditor appointed and controlled by the Secretary of State; and, whether he will lay upon the Table copies of documents and regulations which shall exhibit the system in vogue for estimating, auditing, and accounting for the Revenue and Expenditure of the Indian Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The writer in The Economist is mistaken. He overlooked my statement that if there was a surplus the cost of special defence works would be charged against it, and he forgot to take into account the effect of the allotments to Provincial Governments. The true discrepancy between my statement and the final account was R.X.155,800 in Revenue and R.X.293,800 in Expenditure. The reason for any discrepancy at all is the difficulty of collecting and winding up accounts over so wide an area—a task which it takes nine months to accomplish. The India Office has never attempted to audit the accounts of the Government of India in this country; but the possibility of establishing such an audit has been for some time, and at the present moment is, under the consideration of the Secretary of State. The accounts of the Indian Government are audited by officials of that Government in India. The desired information as to the system will be found in the Report of the Committee on Military Accounts and Estimates, No. 86 of 1881.

  POST OFFICE—SOLDIERS' LETTERS FROM THE SIKKIM FIELD FORCE.
  MR. FOLJAMBEasked the Postmaster General, Whether

  741
  he is aware that letters from soldiers serving in the Sikkim Field Force, who (from the circumstances) were unable to procure field service stamps for their letters, have been charged extra postage on delivery in this country; and, whether this is in accordance with usual practice?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said: The Postmaster General informs me that he was not aware of the circumstance until the hon. Member drew his attention to it; but the charge is in accordance with the usual practice. From that practice, however, successive Postmasters General have from time to time departed on representation being made to them of particular cases of hardship; and he is quite willing to depart from the practice in the case of any of Her Majesty's soldiers employed in the Sikkim Field Force, and to give instructions for letters sent by such soldiers in the circumstances named by the hon. Member to be charged with postage equivalent to the prepaid rate only.

  ARMS (IRELAND) ACT—GUN LICENCES —MAURICE DOYLE.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that Maurice Doyle, of Inchiquin, who was recently evicted from his farm on the Ponsonby estate, was brought last week before two Stipendiary Magistrates, Messrs. Gardiner and Redmond, at Castlemartyr Petty Sessions, on the charge of having a single barelled gun without a licence, and whether he was fined 10 s. by them; whether the gun in question was found by the police in the removal of furniture and other articles at Doyle's eviction; whether the weapon was an old gun covered with rust; whether it was proved to have belonged to Doyle's brother, Denis Doyle, who had recently gone to America; whether District Inspector Ewart stated that Denis Doyle had a licence for a single barrelled gun; and, under what Act was the prosecution taken?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)in reply, said, the Inspector General of Constabulary reported that the reply to paragraphs 1, 2, and 5 was in the affirmative. The weapon was an old pattern and
  742
  rusty; but it was serviceable. It was not proved to have belonged to his brother; but Maurice Doyle did make a statement to the magistrates to that effect. The prosecution was under 44 & 45 Vict. c. 5, and 49 & 50 Vict. c. 24, and 50 & 51 Vict. c. 20.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether Denis Doyle did not take out a licence for this gun 18 months ago?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he gathered that Denis Doyle had taken out a licence.
  DR. TANNER: Was it not proved that it was the same gun?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I gathered that was not proved; but I do not know.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Was guilty knowledge proved against the man condemned?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the man knew he had the gun, and under circumstances which made it illegal for him to have it. I believe a licence for a gun only lasts for one year; therefore the licence taken out 18 months ago would be invalid.
  DR. TANNERasked, was it not a fact that Denis Doyle left the country within the 12 months, and accordingly could not have taken out a licence again. He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the gun, when found, was not all covered with rust, and in a bundle of rubbish amongst a number of articles which were being removed from an out-house during the scene of an eviction; and whether, under these circumstances, it was fair to fine the young man for having it in his possession?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have stated the gun was rusty, but also that it was serviceable; therefore I suppose the licence ought to have been obtained for it.
  DR. TANNER: Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to fire it off?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  AFRICA (SOUTH EAST)—MOZAMBIQUE —THE PORTUGUESE COLONIES.
  DR. CLARKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the western boundary of the Portuguese Colony of Mozambique in South-Eastern Africa; whether there is a Treaty with the Portuguese Government as to Transit Duty for goods passing through the Mozambique Colony

  743
  to the districts north and west of that Colony; and, whether, considering the increase of trade to these districts, it is desirable that negotiations should be entered into with the Portuguese Government for terms of transit to the districts beyond the Portuguese Colonies, and especially those on the Zambesi River and its branches?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): There has never been any delimitation of the western boundary of Mozambique. There is no Transit Treaty; and the Portuguese Government are so far from being disposed to negotiate one, that they have suspended their transit tariff, and refuse to give any facilities for a transit trade. As regards facilities of access, Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the Portuguese Government with a view to keeping open the freedom of navigation of the Zambesi River. The Portuguese Government have already made certain concessions; but these have not been accepted as satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government.
  In reply to Mr. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.),
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the Zambesi was not included in the Congo Conference.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BECHUANALAND— CONCESSIONS OF LAND BY CHIEFS.
  DR. CLARKasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether concessions have been given to land between the Shashi and Macloutsie Rivers by Khama, Chief of the Bamangwata, one of our protected Chiefs, and also by Lobengula, King of the Matabeles; and, whether, in the event of war taking place between Khama and Lobengula, the Government will interfere?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: It is apparently true that both Khama and Lobengula have granted concessions in the debatable country between the Shashi and Macloutsie Rivers, and Sir Sidney Shippard is hopeful that he may be able to effect a settlement. Her Majesty's Government would desire, in the unfortunate event of a continued disagreement between the two Chiefs,
  744
  that the High Commissioner and the Administrator of Bechuanaland should use their good offices to the best of their ability to prevent war breaking out between the Chiefs; but they cannot undertake to say what course it might, under any circumstances, be necessary to take in the event of British interests being threatened.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—ALLOT MENTS OF FARMS.
  DR. CLARKasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government approves of the policy of giving allotments of farms in Zululand to White settlers, as stated in The Natal Gazette of March; and, whether, if the land is given to White Settlers, there will be room for the 200,000 Zulu squatters in Natal?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: The Proclamation to which the hon. Member refers does not mean that any more White Settlers are to be introduced into Zululand. It object is to regulate the occupancy of farms by the Boer settlers in the part of Zululand known as "Proviso B District," and to provide for the forfeiture of title in case of claimants not occupying effectually. The right of the settlers in Proviso B was admitted in principle by the settlement arrived at with the New Republic in October, 1886. This reply, in effect, answers the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Question; but I may also refer him to the Secretary of State's despatch of the 4th of August last, printed at page 20 of Parliamentary Paper C. 5331.

  STATE OF IRELAND—QUARTER SES SIONS AT MACROOM—WEST MUS KERRY.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Mr. Fergusson, has, upon the last two occasions, been presented with a pair of white gloves when sitting at Quarter Sessions, in the town of Macroom, as a sign of the crimeless condition of West Muskerry; whether these cases make the total of nine in the past seven years; and, whether, in consequence of the crimeless condition of the district,

  745
  the proclamation of West Muskerry will be removed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that it is not a fact that on the last two occasions the Chairman at Quarter Sessions at Macroom was presented with a pair of white gloves; but he did receive a pair of white gloves on the last occasion. So far as can be ascertained, the Chairman received white gloves on three occasions during the past seven years. I cannot undertake to adopt the course suggested in the last paragraph.
  DR. TANNER: How often during the last six months has he been presented with white gloves?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the Question. Is it not a fact that Mr. Fergusson was presented with a pair of gloves within the last fortnight, and is not that a sign of the district being crimeless; and I wish also to know whether he will remove this ban from the district?
  [No reply.]
  DR. TANNER: I will repeat the Question again.

  RIOTS AND ASSAULTS (IRELAND)— ASSAULT ON SERGEANT O'SHEA, OF MACROOM.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a young man named Creedon was arrested in the town of Macroom, on Sunday, the 8th instant, charged with an assault upon Sergeant O'Shea; whether he was remanded until the 9th instant on the medical certificate of Dr. Crooke, of Macroom, who stated O'Shea's life was in danger; whether Dr. White, of Macroom, a Protestant and Conservative, was prevented visiting Sergeant O'Shea with Dr. Crooke for the purpose of finding out whether the injuries stated to have been inflicted placed O'Shea's life in jeopardy; whether O'Shea was pronounced out of danger by Dr. Crooke on Wednesday evening, the 11th instant; whether Mr. Gardiner, Stipendiary Magistrate, visited the Cork Gaol at an early hour on Thursday and fur
  746
  ther remanded Creedon on the charge of assaulting a constable dressed in plain clothes, on the occasion in question, named Keaveny; whether a prior information had been sworn by Creedon's father against Keaveny for having brutally assaulted his son, the prisoner, while held by several policemen; and, whether Mr. Gardiner presided on the trial of the case in Macroom on the 18th instant?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that Creedon was arrested for a savage assault on a sergeant. He was remanded on the 9th for eight days, the sergeant's life being certified to be in danger. Dr. Crooke, under whose care the patient was, objected on professional grounds to a second doctor being brought in. The sergeant was pronounced out of danger on the morning of the 12th. Creedon was remanded on the 13th, as alleged. No prior information was made by Creedon's father, as stated in the last paragraph but one; but he issued a summons against Keaveny. This charge was dismissed. Creedon was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment for the assault on Constable Keaveny. Mr. Gardiner did preside.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether Dr. Crooke refused to allow Dr. White, a Protestant and anti-Home Ruler, to see this policeman, because he was afraid he would certify that the policeman's life was not in danger; also, what were the technical character of the injuries of this policeman, O'Shea?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I said before, Dr. Crooke refused to allow the second medical gentleman to be present on professional grounds. As to the nature of the injuries received by the sergeant, the hon. Member must give me Notice of the Question.
  DR. TANNER: What were the professional grounds?
  [No reply.]

  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) ACT—FISHER MEN'S BOATS.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the boats supplied to fishermen under the Crofters Act are put up to tender, or are given to Fraserburgh and East Coast builders without competition?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The fishermen are not in any way interfered with in their selection or purchase of boats, nor are any restrictions imposed as to the locality where the boats are to be built or purchased. The fishermen themselves are the best judges of the class and. build of boats, and the places where they can be purchased to the best advantage, and these matters are left entirely in their hands.

  COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND)— PRINCIPAL CLERKS.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that, for many years past, one of the offices of principal clerk in each Division of the Court of Session in Scotland has been vacant, and that the duties have been discharged by the appointment by the Court of one of the assistant clerks, without a Queen's Commission; and, if the Government will ascertain whether such an arrangement conduces to the efficiency of the Service, and take any steps that may be necessary for that purpose?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I answer the first paragraph in the affirmative. One appointment has been vacant for 18 years, and the other for 14 years. I do not think that the leaving of statutory offices vacant for long periods of years is a satisfactory arrangement; and I have been actively engaged in inquiring into the arrangements of the clerical staff of the Court of Session, and have a Bill in preparation for the re-organization of that Department.

  POST OFFICE—LICENCE TO THE WRITING TELEGRAPH.
  MR. M'EWANasked the Postmaster General, If his refusal to grant a licence to the proprietors of the Writing Telegraph is indicative of a resolution to depart from the position taken up by the Government, as defined by Sir Henry James (then Attorney General), on the 15th December of 1880, in the case of "The Attorney General v. United Telephone Company," as follows:—
  "There is no desire on the part of the Crown to check invention. I most emphatically dis-
  748
  claim that Inventors and Companies will always be dealt with in a liberal spirit if they consent to become licencees of the Crown;"
  and, seeing that the proprietors of the Writing Telegraph only wish to become licencees of the Crown, why should they be treated differently from other Companies using telegraph systems?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said: The Postmaster General has not succeeded in finding a record of the statement attributed to the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James.) The arguments in the ease of "The Attorney General v. The Edison Telephone Company" (it was not the United Telephone Company) were concluded on the 3rd of December, 1880. Judgment was given on the 20th, and there were no proceedings in Court on the 15th. In the absence of more specific information, therefore, I am not able to follow the hon. Member in his reference. I may observe, however, that the Telegraph Act of 1869 leaves it to the Postmaster General's discretion whether a licence shall or shall not be granted to a person or Company proposing to transmit telegrams; and the Government have never assumed the position of granting indiscriminately a licence to every inventor of a new form of apparatus.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —SCHOOL AND PENNY SAVINGS BANKS—THE PASS-BOOKS.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received any representation as to the defective and insecure character of the little pass-books supplied by the Post Office for the use of depositors in school and. other penny savings banks, which, from having only paper covers and being insufficiently stitched, often come to pieces and cause the obliteration of the deposit entries after a few weeks' use; whether, having regard to the importance of preserving such books in a perfect state, arrangements could not be made by the Post Office for providing pass-books with linen covers; and, whether any financial objection to such arrangements could not easily be met by charging a trifling sum for the books, instead of supplying them gratis as at present?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir. The matter was brought under the notice of the Post-master General in January last. He caused inquiries to be made on the subject; and he found that the books suggested would involve a cost of 35 s. per 1,000 as compared with 15 s. per 1,000—the sum paid for the books at present in use. The number of books issued last year was 125,000; and seeing that the proposed alteration would result in an additional cost of about £125 a-year, he has felt some hesitation in adopting it. He will, however, be glad to consider the Question further.

  PERU—IMPRISONMENT OF ENGLISH SAILORS.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the inquiry into the alleged false imprisonment of three English sailors at Talcahuano in April, 1887, of which complaint was made to the Board of Trade on 22nd July, 1887, is still proceeding; and, if so, what is the cause of the nine months' delay?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): In the first place, let me assure the hon. Member that the seamen referred to in his Question were released from gaol early in April, 1887, so that the length of time occupied in making inquiry is not causing any hardship to the men. The circumstances under which the men were imprisoned have been investigated by a Consular officer specially sent to the spot to make inquiries; and as I only received the Report of that officer yesterday, I can, of course, as yet give no final answer.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1867—SEC TION 4—SUPPLY OF LIME JUICE.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the issue of lime juice on board merchant ships, as directed by section 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1867, is frequently neglected; and, if that be so, if he will take steps to insure the carrying out of the provisions of that Act relating to this matter?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have no
  750
  reason to suppose that the provisions referred to are frequently neglected. Whenever a case is reported to the Board proceedings are at once taken either to inquire into the master's conduct in the matter or to sue for the penalties recoverable, if the circumstances justify it and if proceedings are possible.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE CARRIAGE TAX.
  VISCOUNT NEWARKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under the new scale of duties, carriages with pair-horse fittings will be liable to the duty of £2 2s., although those carriages are only used in the course of the year with one horse?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, Sir. It is impossible to draw a distinction as to whether these carriages are used with one or two horses.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—GROCERS' LICENCES —COMPENSATION.
  VISCOUNT NEWARKasked the President of the Local Government Board, How grocers' licences will be dealt with, as regards compensation, under the Local Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Licensing Committee will have power to refuse renewal of all licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Grocers will be entitled to claim compensation under the Bill; and the measure of the compensation will be the difference of the value of the premises with and without the licence.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE CLERK OF THE PEACE FOR MIDDLESEX.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is intended by the Local Government Bill to treat the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex differently to all other Clerks of the Peace affected by the Bill, and to make him the first Clerk of the Peace for the County of London; whether he is aware that the Clerk of the Peace for Middle-

  751
  sex is also the present Clerk of the Peace for Hertfordshire; and, whether, in the interests of the public, he will provide in the Bill against two such offices being held by the same person?
  MR. BRADLAUGHinquired, whether the Clerk of the Peace for the County of Hertford was a solicitor; and whether he was also the solicitor to the Prime Minister?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I think that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bradlaugh) is probably as well aware of the fact as I am. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that, so far as existing counties are concerned, the Clerk of the Peace is to continue to act as Clerk of the Peace, in addition to being clerk to the County Council; but as the County of London will be formed out of several counties, each with a Clerk of the Peace, it is necessary that the Bill should provide who is to be the first Clerk of the Peace for the new county; and it is intended that the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex, who now fulfils the duties connected with that office for the main portion of London, shall hold that office. Under this arrangement no question of compensation to him for loss of emoluments will arise. In ordinary counties the Clerk of the Peace will be the clerk to the County Council; but, looking to the exceptional circumstances of London, and the amount of the work which the County Council there will have to perform, it is, in my opinion, very desirable that the clerk of the London County Council shall be a separate officer from the Clerk of the Peace. Provision is made for this in the Bill. I am aware that the present Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex is also Clerk of the Peace for Hertfordshire. I do not propose to provide in the Bill that two such offices shall not be held by the same person. It is a matter for the County Councils; and I can conceive that circumstances may exist which would render such an arrangement a desirable one.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—SEC. 15—MAINTE NANCE AND REPAIR OF MAIN ROADS.
  MR. ALLISONasked the President of the Local
  752
  Government Board, Whether, under Section 15 of the Local Government Bill, it is intended that the County Councils should themselves undertake the maintenance and repair of the main roads throughout the county; or, whether it will be permissible to delegate their powers in this respect to the District Committee?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Bill provides that the County Council should themselves maintain and repair the main roads, and does not enable them to delegate this power to a District Council.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED INSURANCE FRAUDS AT BELFAST.
  MR. TUITEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the prosecutions for insurance frauds in Belfast, Whether he is aware that it has been proven and admitted weeks ago that Mr. H. K. Mathews, Town Councillor, Belfast, and a Mr. Presse, are holders of £13,000 worth of policies, effected through the Equitable Assurance Company on the lives, and without the consent, of persons in whom they had no insurable interest; whether he can state if these policies have been surrendered to the Company; whether he is aware of the intense feeling of uneasiness existing in Belfast, owing to the wholesale gambling by some men on the lives of others, in whose deaths alone they have a pecuniary interest; and, whether the Government will at once take charge of the prosecutions, and have a searching inquiry made into the whole matter?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): It would be obviously impossible for me to give an answer as to the matters of fact referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, inasmuch as the Question appears on the Paper this morning for the first time. But for another and a more serious reason, I must deprecate being called on to enter into the facts of this case at present, inasmuch as the case is still under investigation. As regards the substantial portion of the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that it is not the practice to interfere in the first instance with prosecutions conducted by Public Com-

  753
  panies. When the depositions have been taken before the magistrates, they are laid before the Attorney General, who, in the exercise of his discretion, either leaves the case in the hands of the private prosecutor, or assumes the conduct of the prosecution himself, and directs such inquiries and proceedings as he may think necessary. This course will be followed in the present case.
  MR. CAREWasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the insurance frauds at Belfast, Whether he can now state on what date instructions were sent to the local Sessional Crown Solicitor to watch the prosecutions on behalf of the Crown; whether he is aware that a confession of his conduct was published by Mr. Robert Dunlop, a Town Commissioner and a Poor Law Guardian, in The Belfast Insurance Gazette; whether Mr. Dunlop was arrested under a warrant grounded on the oath of a member of the detective force at Belfast, and by special directions from Dublin Castle; whether he was charged therein with forgery and conspiracy to defraud, and was kept in gaol for two nights, during which time he was visited by the Mayor of Belfast; whether he was then admitted to bail, and whether any further steps were taken by the Executive Government in the matter; whether the prosecution is still left in the hands of the Equitable Insurance Company, which had accepted surrender of the fraudulently-obtained policies, and refunded Mr. Dunlop the premiums paid, and which Company has been charged by Mr. Young, solicitor for one of the Company's accused servants now in prison, with having condoned or compromised the offence, and with having dealt largely in issuing such policies; and, whether there is any precedent for the Crown having first caused the arrest of a person so charged, and of afterwards having handed the conduct of the prosecution over to a private party against whom such serious charges were made?
  MR. MADDEN: In reply to the first paragraph of the Question, I have to state that in consequence of a Question put in this House, and suggesting possible remissness on the part of the private prosecutors, the Attorney-General, on the 24th of this month, communicated with the Sessional Crown Solicitor with reference to the case, and
  754
  that he has been since then in communication with him on the subject.
  MR. FLYNNasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the prosecution now going on at Belfast in connection with the alleged frauds committed on the Equitable Assurance Company, Whether he is aware that Mr. Finlay M'Cance, J.P., Belfast, swore at the Belfast Police Court that the policy of insurance effected on his life in the Equitable Assurance Company by and in favour of Mr. James Henderson, proprietor of The Belfast News Letter, was not obtained with his consent; that Mr. Henderson had no insurable interest in his life; that the signature purporting to be Mr. M'Cance's was neither written by him nor with his authority, and that the policy was obtained by means of forgery; whether he is aware that Mr. M'Cance is one of the Belfast or Ulster Board of Reference or of Directors of the said Equitable Assurance Company; and, whether under these circumstances, the Government will take action in the matter?
  MR. MADDEN: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have just given. It is impossible, for the reasons I have stated, to go into the facts of the case. I have already stated the course that will be adopted.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, whether a conspiracy to defraud was not the same as a combination to protect tenants?
  MR. MADDEN: A conspiracy of this nature is, of course, a criminal conspiracy; but in cases of such conspiracy, where the complainant is a bank or a Public Company such as in the present case, it has never been the practice, as I stated, to interfere with the conduct of the proceedings in the first instance; but after a magisterial investigation has been held, and the depositions laid before the Attorney General, he will then exercise his discretion in the matter.
  In reply to a further Question by Mr. M'CARTAN,
  MR. MADDENsaid, he was not in a position to state whether the suggestion made in the Question as to Mr. Dunlop was or was not well founded. The Question had only appeared on the Paper that day.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—LENIENT SENTENCES AT SHEFFIELD.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the expression on the 16th instant by the inhabitants of Sheffield, in meeting assembled under the presidency of His Worship the Mayor, of regret at the lenient sentences recently passed upon two prisoners for unlawfully wounding; and, if it is possible to draw the attention of Magisterial and Judicial Authorities to the importance attached by the public in the interests of general safety to the treatment of offences against the person on a scale of punishment at least equal to that adopted in offences against property?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir; attention has been called to this matter. The Home Secretary has no reason to doubt that the Judicial Authoties are fully alive to the considerations urged by my hon. Friend. The right scale of punishment depends so much on the particular circumstances of each case that the authorities, with whom the duty rests of trying such cases, must be intrusted with discretion as to the amount of punishment.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACT, 1878—THE "SWEATING DENS" AT MANCHESTER.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the supervision of workshops—which under the earlier Acts of Parliament on that subject had been committed to the Corporations or Corporate Boroughs—was by "The Factories and Workshops Act, 1878," taken out of the hands of the Local Authorities and placed under the direction of the Home Secretary and of the Factory Inspectors; and, whether, if this is so, any Report from the Factory Inspector for the Manchester District has been received as to the condition of the "sweating dens" described by The Lancet Commissioner as existing in the above city?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART- WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The
  756
  Factories and Workshops Act, 1878, did not transfer any jurisdiction from the Local Authorities to the Factory Inspectors in respect to any workshops. It transferred from the Factory Inspectors to the Local Authorities the supervision of sanitary provisions in all workshops in which men only work, and in which women work with men or by themselves. A subsequent Act transferred from the Factory Inspectors to the Local Authorities the supervision of the sanitary condition of all retail bakehouses. A special Report has not been made as to the condition of the sweaters in Manchester; but several prosecutions have taken place for the overwork of women and young persons in that city.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD—MEDI CAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, ST. ALBANS.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the President of the Local Government Board, If it is true that the St. Albans Rural Sanitary Authority proceeded to the election of a Medical Officer of Health, in contravention of Articles 4 and 7 of the Local Government Board Order of the 8th of March, 1880; if so, whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to confirm such election?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The St. Alban's Rural Sanitary Authority have recently appointed a Medical Officer of Health at £100 per annum, the previous salary having been £120 per annum. As the salary was to be altered, it was necessary, under Article 7 of the Order of the 11th of March, 1880, that the assent of the Local Board should be obtained to the proposal before the appointment was made, and this was not done. The course to be taken in the matter is now under the consideration of the Board.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE HORSE TAX (IRELAND).
  MR. R. POWERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the recent efforts made by the Government to encourage the breeding of horses in Ireland, and in view of the special importance of the breeding of that class of stock to Irish farming interests, he will exempt Ireland from the operation of the Horse Tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): None of the so-called establishment licences have extended to Ireland—at least, not in late times. It is not proposed to extend this tax for local purposes to Ireland.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887, SEC. 7—FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS— NOTICES OF EVICTION.
  MR. M'CARTANasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that tenants who have applied to have fair rents fixed, and who have been subsequently served with notices of eviction, under the 7th section of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," before the hearing of their fair rent applications, are thereby deprived of their right to have fair rents fixed, unless the amount of rent and law costs due in each case has been previously paid; whether every present tenant whose gale day was the 1st of November last, and who had his fair rent application served before that day, is entitled to the benefit of the reduced rent on the rent accruing from the 1st of May last, and whether he is, nevertheless, compelled by "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," to continue paying the old rent up to the time when his fair rent is fixed by the Sub-Commission; whether, at the expiration of six months from the service of this eviction notice, and without any actual eviction, the right of the tenant to have a fair rent fixed ceases, and the holding of the tenant then becomes the property of the landlord without any compensation to the tenant; and, whether, as the law now stands, the landlord may obtain an ejectment decree for the non-payment of one year of the old rent due at the 1st of May next, although the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the reduced rent for that period, but owing to the insufficient number of Sub-Commissioners he may not know for years what the fair rent is to be?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The Question of the hon. and learned Member relates to abstract matters of law, and not to any particular case which has arisen. But I am ready to inform him that a tenant who has applied to have a fair rent fixed and who omits to avail himself of the right
  758
  given to him of applying for a stay of ejectment proceedings then pending or subsequently instituted, and who allows those proceedings to culminate in an eviction notice, necessarily loses his right to have a fair rent fixed, inasmuch as he has allowed his tenancy to be determined. He can only re-instate himself in the position of tenant by redeeming his holding on payment of rent and costs. In answer to the second paragraph, it is hardly accurate to say that a tenant is compelled by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, to continue paying the old rent up to the time of fixing the judicial rent. The Act of 1887 gave to the tenant an advantage which he did not enjoy under the Act of 1881—namely, the antedating of the judicial rent as stated in the Question, with the consequential benefit conferred on the tenant of enforcing an account against the landlord in the event of the rent being reduced. In the interval between the application of the tenant and the adjudication of the Commissioners, the rent legally payable in respect of the holding remains unaltered, with the necessary result stated in the fourth paragraph of the Question. As to the third paragraph, I have to point out that the tenant's holding does not become the property of the landlord without compensation to the tenant, after the determination of his tenancy and the expiration of the period of six months allowed for redemption, inasmuch as the tenant still retains his right to compensation for improvements under the Act of 1870.
  MR. M`CARTAN: You have not answered the last paragraph of the Question.
  MR. MADDEN: I think I did answer the last paragraph. What I stated was that between the application and the actual adjudication the old rent necessarily remained unaltered, with the consequence correctly stated by the hon. Member in the fourth paragraph of the Question.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Then I understand that the answer to my Question is, shortly, yes?
  MR. MADDEN: So far, that is the answer shortly.

  EXCISE LICENCES (IRELAND)—MR. J. HEGARTY,J.P.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

  759
  tenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that it is commonly reported in Millstreet, that the son of Mr. J. Hegarty, J.P., has left Ireland for Australia, with no intention of returning; whether he can state the name of the holder of the licence under which porter and spirits are being sold at the residence of Mr. J. Hegarty, J.P., since the departure of his son; and, what is the date of the issue or transfer of the licence to the present holder?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am not aware of the rumour in the first paragraph of the Question. The local Constabulary report that the licence is in the name of Jeremiah Hegarty, junior, and that it was transferred to him in October, 1885.
  DR. TANNER: How long will a person who holds premises be permitted to sell liquor on these premises without having obtained a transfer of a licence or a new licence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer a mere speculative Question.
  DR. TANNER: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, how long will a person be permitted to remain away, and a licence to be held by another person to sell liquor in his name? I have put the Question as plainly as possible.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I perfectly understand the character of the Question; but it is of an abstract nature, and I cannot answer it.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he should like to ask the Question of the Solicitor General for Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE TRIALS AT ENNIS—COLONEL TUR NER, D.M.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the recent trial of James Halpin at Ennis, Colonel Turner, Divisional Magistrate, on being told by Mr. Morphy, the Crown Prosecutor, that the deposition should be read to and signed by him before leaving the Court, is correctly reported to have said, "I am perfectly satisfied to sign it, and have it read afterwards;" and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)in reply, said, the report alluded to was incorrect. Colonel Turner stated that as the deposition had been read over to him bit by bit, he did not think it necessary to have it read over to him again. As a matter of fact, however, it was fully read to him again.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—TRIAL AT TRALEE—CASE OF TIMOTHY SULLIVAN.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case tried at Tralee, on Monday, before Messrs. Roche and Massey, Resident Magistrates, when a young man, named Timothy Sullivan, was charged with having a bullet in his possession; whether Sullivan said he found the bullet, and kept it as a marble; whether he was sent to gaol for three months with hard labour; and, whether, considering the somewhat light nature of the crime, he will obtain a remission of the sentence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): This man was defended by a solicitor, and was convicted and sentenced as stated in the Question, but without hard labour. The Head Constable who appeared on behalf of the Crown asked the Magistrates to impose the full term of imprisonment in the first ease, the man being a person of bad character; and, secondly, suspected of connection with crime and outrage, and it being believed that he had the bullet in his possession for the purpose of committing an outrage. If the prisoner felt aggrieved he could have, by a notice through his solicitor, appealed from the Magistrates' decision, and I may say that he can still.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether there was any evidence brought forward at the trial which would show that this man was suspected of crime?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question without Notice. I have not seen a full report of the trial.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Was there any evidence brought forward that he was a bad character?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a Question which I could not answer now. In the opinion of the police he was a bad character.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I want to find out whether it was the opinion of the Judge?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman asks that Question, I should say I think it was the opinion of the Judge, or else he would not have sentenced the man to three months' imprisonment.

  GOVERNMENT PRINTING—CONDEN SATION OF BLUE BOOK.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her Majesty's Government will consider whether economy in printing and a saving of time might not be effected by omitting or condensing more formal Correspondence and technical details in Blue Books presented to the House; and, whether it would be possible to give only the Despatches and information material to the question connected by a brief narrative, instead of printing the whole of the Correspondence and enclosures, when the greater part is of such a character that hon. Members never read it, yet are obliged laboriously to sift the material from the immaterial parts?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Member's anxiety to economize Votes of public money and the time of Members of this House has my entire sympathy. Beyond that I am sorry I am unable to go, and I cannot agree with the way in which he proposes to effect the object he has in view. To what Department would the hon. Member propose to intrust the work of making a précis of a Correspondence ordered to be laid before this House? If to the Department which is a party to the Correspondence, it requires no great gift of prophecy to state what would occur. The Government would be charged with having caused the facts of the case to be garbled or distorted; in self-defence the whole Correspondence would then be produced, and the country would be called on to pay not only for the précis, but also for the Correspondence. Under these circumstances, I see no way of relieving Members who are interested in any par-
  762
  ticular subject from the trouble of reading the whole Correspondence.

  INDIA—THE STATE OF HYDERABAD— CONCESSION OF MINING RIGHTS
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will state what facilities he will give with a view to a Motion being moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the alleged malpractices connected with the Deccan Mining Company (Limited)?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Perhaps the House will allow me to read a telegram which has been received by the Secretary of State in Council from the Viceroy on this subject. It is to this effect—
  "I consulted my Council to-day in reference to the Hyderabad Mining Concession. Government of India have no objection to the matter being fully investigated, either by Select Committee, or by any other tribunal your Lordship might approve of. Issues raised seem to lie between Abdul Huk and Hyderabad Government on one hand, and concessionaires and shareholders on the other, Government of India expressly decline all responsibility with regard to the purchase of the shares by Nizam's Government."
  Under these circumstances, the Government will certainly offer no objection whatever to the appointment of the Committee which the hon. Gentleman desires. I will confer with him as to the best method by which that Committee should be appointed, and as to the date on which the modification should be brought forward.

  CRIMINAL CASES (IRELAND)—IN CREASE OF SENTENCES ON APPEAL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question in reference to the statement which appeared in The Standard this morning as to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the additional sentences imposed on appeal in Ireland. It is stated that the Lord Lieutenant may, at his discretion, remit portion of the sentences; and, in consequence, a private intimation has been given that this power will be exercised if necessary. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true

  763
  that this private intimation has been given?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Well, Sir, I demur to a good deal that is stated in the Question. I do not think it is clear that the sentences are additional. To begin with, the sentences were modified. They may have been made longer in term, but they have been made less onerous in character. Whether this means an increase or not I do not undertake to say; but certainly no private intimation has been made by me on the subject.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any private intimation had been given? He stated that no private intimation had been given by himself. Might I ask him whether any private intimation has been given by the Authorities at headquarters?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know on what principle the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government of Ireland is carried on; but I suppose a private intimation sent by Authorities at headquarters means some private observations addressed by me to the Executive on the subject. There have been no such intimations by me, and nobody else, I presume, would have the right to make any.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no increase in the sentence on Mr. Blane, M.P., that that sentence was not increased on appeal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a matter of opinion; I should say the sentence has been diminished, but it is entirely a matter of opinion. The facts are these:—The original sentence, I believe, was four months with hard labour, and the new sentence was six months, without hard labour. [An hon. MEMBER: With hard labour.] I believe it is without hard labour. I say that that is not an increase in the sentence.
  MR. ROWNTREE: Does the statement of the right hon. Gentleman apply to the case of the three men at Ennis?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure about the facts of that case; but if the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will try to find out.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. LEA. (Londonderry, S.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill would be proceeded with on Monday, and other Irish Bills.
  MR. CHILDERSasked what Business would be taken next week?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he trusted that the Committee stage of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would he completed that afternoon. The Report would then be taken on Monday. The Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Cart Tax would follow; and then would come the Bill relating to the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill, and the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Amendment Bill. On Thursday he hoped the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be read a third time, if not before; if it were disposed of, then he would propose to take the second reading of either the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill or the Employers' Liability Bill.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked, in what order the Irish Bills would be taken on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that the Bill for the salary of the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland would be taken first.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 202.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 26 th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5 (Power to Treasury to prohibit the use of certain substances in exciseable good).
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he hoped those of the Committee who had Bills in their hands would look at Clause 5, because, unless they followed the words, they would be unable to

  765
  understand them. The clause was very wide in its scope and meaning, and provided that any substance used in the preparation of exciseable articles might be prohibited on two conditions. First, if obnoxious or detrimental. To that no one could object, but he thought it was a surplusage in the clause, as it was already provided for in the Food Adulteration Act. The second condition was that the Revenue might prohibit any article used in the preparation of exciseable articles which might injure the Revenue. That was a very large power indeed and made the clause exceedingly elastic. He did not say there might not be justification in some such power on the part of the Revenue. The Revenue ought to be an increasing product, and if anything came in and disturbed it, it might be desirable to have elbow room; but this was an absolute prohibition. There was no question, this clause really meant a power with reference to the brewing of beer, and was really aimed at saccharine. It might go further—for instance, noxious or detrimental substances might be substances used in substitution of hops which gave the bitter quality. He had nothing to say to that, but the clause gave means to prohibit many substances that were not noxious. There had been a now substance discovered called saccharine, which was got from a coal-tar derivative called Toluin. Saccharine had 300 times the sweetness of sugar. This substance not only had an intense sweetening property, but it could not be converted into alcohol, and had nothing to do with introducing more or less alcohol into beer. In addition it had what was exceedingly valuable, an antiseptic property—that was in hot weather it prevented beer becoming bad. In the strong beer, such as Burton ale, there was another kind of antiseptic which was inapplicable to light beers, and it was desirable to find an antiseptic for light beers. The researches of scientific men—he might mention Professor Dewar, Professor Tidy, and others in this country and many abroad—gave it very high antiseptic properties. This substance was an exceedingly growing industry, and, amongst other things, it was used for preserving fruits. It was an industry which it was particularly valuable to develop in this country at the present moment, when they had a
  766
  plentiful supply of the raw products for its manufacture. All the raw materials now went to Germany, this saccharine only being made in Germany. It was very expensive, being now sold at 50 s. a-pound, but it could be manufactured in this country readily at 20 s., or at most, 30 s. per pound. A Company was prepared to start in England with a subscription of £200,000 to carry on the manufacture of saccharine; but when it was known the Revenue were going to pass a prohibitory clause, the Company abandoned their intentions. The reason the Revenue was afraid of it was, he believed, on account of this—the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) would correct him if it was not the case—not only did it sweeten the beer and preserve the beer as an antiseptic, but it had a strange effect upon the palate and made light beers taste like strong beers, and porter taste like stout. Therefore, from this peculiar effect on the palate, more of the light beers might be used until the people found they did not get drunk with it, and believed they were taking strong beers, and this would be a danger, because the stronger beers paid a higher duty. He did not deny that the Revenue might be affected by the use of this product, but his Amendment did not say that the Revenue Department should not have power to tax this addition to the beer, if it was considered desirable. The saccharine could not properly be used in the brewing of the beer, because, being an antiseptic, it would interfere with the action of the other ingredients, so it was added in the priming. With the power of making concessions—and the Revenue did make concessions—this saccharine priming might be used in light beers in certain proportions extremely small to the gallon, because it would sweeten it too much if added except in almost infinitesimal quantities. He did not object to the Excise regulating this new industry relating to beer; but what he did object to was that they should prohibit it, as they would do under the clause, because they had the power to prohibit but not to regulate the use of any article. A prohibition in the eyes of the Excise was a small matter, but prohibition was a very serious matter in relation to a growing industry, and when it stopped an art was a matter

  767
  very serious indeed. Ho hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the use of the preparation upon terms, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not adopt the words he had used, he hoped some other words might be adopted which would allow them the opportunity of seeing whether the article had the good effects which those who used it said it had. If the words of the clause were retained as at present, see what position they would be in. Foreign brewers used it largely, and were erecting large works for its manufacture in Belgium. It was used all over Germany for brewing purposes, and if they prohibited it in this country and allowed the foreign brewers to use it there with the light beers, they put the brewers in this country at a terrible disadvantage. He was very anxious to persuade the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should not interfere with the progress of this industry, but should have an opportunity of watching its use, and that if it was found to be weakening the Revenue that he should come to the House and ask for a tax on saccharine priming. To that he was told the brewers would have no objection. If the right hon. Gentleman did not do so, what would follow? This substance was exceedingly difficult of detection, being used in excessive small quantities in a barrel of beer; and there was another substance, as any chemist would tell them, that would absolutely prevent its detection when put into the beer; therefore the result would be that if they did not regulate its use, there was nothing to prevent a publican taking a little pinch of the saccharine in his fingers and putting it into a barrel of light beer, and the Excise would thus be defrauded. If they regulated its use, they could easily restrict its use, because there would only be one manufactory in this country, and all the saccharine coming from abroad would be bought up by this manufactory in order to retain the monoply. The brewers, he was told, were anxious for a fair trial of this product, and that that fair trial should be under the inspection and control of the Excise. If his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would suggest other words better suggest than those he proposed, which did not prohibit but restricted the use of any
  768
  substance of this kind, he was sure the brewers would be quite ready to accept them, as they were only anxious to have a fair means of trial and not to have it prohibited, and for this they were willing to be taxed a fair price. He therefore moved his Amendment, formally, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be enabled to meet the meaning of the Amendment—namely, to prohibit what was noxious and injurious, and regulate the use of that which was not injurious, but which was of use in brewing, and so not to stop the growth of a great industry.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 29, after the word "notice," to insert words "when it is noxious or detrimental, and to regulate its use when it acts in restraint of revenue."—(Sir Lyon Playfair.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): With regard to the concluding observations of my right hon. Friend, my information with respect to the opinions of the brewers is not entirely in accord with that of my right hon. Friend. I have not heard of any anxiety on the part of the brewers whatever to use this new substance, this coal tar product, to which my right hon. Friend has been directing his attention; but, no doubt, if they were at liberty to use it they would do so to a certain extent. I cannot exaggerate the importance of either prohibiting or regulating the use of this extraordinary substance if put in the beer, a substance which has got for its scientific name—benzoyl-sulphonic ionide. [Laughter.] The introduction of the substance would be by no means a matter of laughter, because it is calculated the loss to the Revenue—if this substance was employed in the place of sugar—will be no less than £1,000,000 sterling; therefore I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will admit it is the duty of the Inland Revenue and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look most closely to the application of this substance to beer. Though I cannot contend for one moment against what my right hon. Friend says with regard to the scientific merits of this

  769
  substance. I have to look to the Revenue. I have heard something of its effect on beer, and understand something of its effects, and I have found out that it will not affect the alcohol in the slightest degree, neither making it less strong nor more strong, therefore we can put the idea of its increasing the strength out of our minds; but it will have the effect of producing upon the public the impression the beer is something different to what it really is; it will produce upon the palate the impression a man is taking strong beer instead of taking light beer. That may be in the point of view of temperance very valuable, and if it was not for that point the alcoholic question does not enter one way or the other. The right hon. Gentleman says truly this substance gives no sustenance, but sugar has sustaining qualities. This substance has no preserving or life giving qualities, therefore the result of the discussion to a layman seems to be this, that while it leads to the belief that a man is drinking something that will do him good, practically he will be taking something which is not in the slightest degree sustaining him as sugar does; therefore it is scarcely too strong a word to use to say it is a kind of fraud on the beer drinker. I allow my right hon. Friend wishes to draw a distinction between light and strong beers, and to suggest that it will increase the drinking suggest that it will increase the drink in of light beers, and I think it is for that purpose it is proposed to prohibit the use of this substance, because light beer is less remunerative to the Revenue than strong beer. The main part of the case against the introduction of this substance is this, that in measuring the beer the duty is determined by the gravity of the beer. But this substance adds nothing to the gravity of the beer, and therefore the total amount of duty to be paid when this substance is used will be less than when malt or sugar or the other substances that have been used for the same purpose are used. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts this view of the case, which is not different from his own except that he (Sir Lyon Playfair) draws a different conclusion from it. My right hon. Friend thinks it desirable, for its antiseptic qualities, to continue the use of this substance; but I think if it were a simple question as between sugar and
  770
  coal tar—and there is no other issue in the matter—my right hon. Friend might prefer to use sugar instead of coal tar. My right hon. Friend has spoken of this as a growing industry, and I understand that so marvellous is the sweetening power that 12 tons will suffice for the whole brewing industry of the country; in fact, it goes so far that a small quantity will suffice to sweeten, and to deceive the palate of almost every beer-drinker in the country. I think there is a patent which preserves all rights in this substance for some eight or 10 years to come, so that there is no general industry which will in any way be generated by the use of this substance in brewing.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: There are patents in all industries.
  Mu. GOSCHEN: We are asked here to make a gigantic experiment in regard to this industry, the results of which for a certain length of time will be confined to one Company or one body of men. I do not use that as an argument to prejudice the case, except so far that I cannot accept it as that general establishment of trade which my right hon. Friend seems to anticipate. My right hon. Friend appeals to me to allow the use of this substance in brewing.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: To restrict the use.
  MR. GOSCHEN: That is to allow the use under certain conditions and regulations. Well, I am bound to say that the Revenue does not see their way to allow the use of this substance in the brewing industry of the country. From the Revenue point of view, it will be attended with the greatest difficulty. It has been suggested that the Company who sell it shall keep a register, showing the quantities they supply to different brewers or Companies, so that there should be a restriction, as in the supply of poisons; but I do not think it will be possible to introduce into the books of the Company a system of that kind.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: What I meant was that the Excise should regulate the use of the substance, and, having found in what way it could be used, should come back to the House and ask for a Resolution to tax it.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It was distinctly suggested by those mainly interested in the industry that there should be a list or register kept, and that suggestion

  771
  was made in order to induce the Revenue Department to comply with their wishes. Such a regulation, I pointed out, would be both wrong in principle, inefficacious in practice, as well as extremely difficult to carry out; and it seems to me, as at present advised, that absolute prohibition of its use is the only method of dealing with the matter. My right hon. Friend argues that it is a matter which is exceedingly difficult to detect, and, therefore, the prohibition would probably fail; but the scientific advisers of the Inland Revenue believe that it is possible to detect the substance. They are of opinion that if they are armed with such a clause as this, they would be able to prevent its use. I do not know whether I am correct or not, but my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong. My right hon. Friend has called attention to the wide scope of the clause. It is certainly true that the words in the clause as it is drawn, "or is calculated to effect prejudicially the interests of the Revenue," give extreme power to the Revenue Department, and would probably cover wider ground than is intended. It has been pointed out by the brewers that it would prevent their using substances other than those which they use now—what I may call other ordinary grains. I would, therefore, be willing to introduce, instead of the words "affect prejudicially the interests of the Revenue," such words as these—"Or being a chemical or artificial extract or product which may be made prejudicially to affect the interests of the Revenue." I do not know how far the alteration will meet the views of my right hon. Friend. At present, I have only power to prohibit, and no power to sanction; but if hereafter new light be thrown upon the subject, I will be prepared to take power to withdraw the prohibition, so as to permit other regulations. I think that, by the introduction of these words, we shall not be departing from the principle which has animated us in proposing the clause. We have been of opinion that no other course was open to us than to prohibit the use of these materials.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: Does the prohibition mean that the substance should not be used in beers imported into this country from abroad?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The question of prohibiting substances in imported beer
  772
  coming from abroad is a very serious one; but if the beer in England does not have the advantage of this new substance it could not be fairly enjoyed by foreign beer.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEsaid, that after the remarkable scientific discovery which had been explained by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), he could not vote without saying a few words. He objected entirely to the way in which the clause had been drawn up, because it mixed up two different things which had no relation to each other, No doubt, matters that were noxious and detrimental should he prohibited; but as the clause was drawn, not only would noxious materials be prohibited, but others which were perfectly harmless; both would be equally prohibited by the clause. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) on the scientific knowledge he displayed; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had used the word "tar" in a somewhat offensive manner. This was likely to be an important modern discovery, the production of a perfectly white sweet principle, 300 times as sweet as sugar, and it was not right to treat it as the introduction of tar into beer. It was in the interest of the health and welfare of the population to assist in the consumption of light beer, and the introduction of this new material would have that effect. He thought the Authorities at Somerset House had taken up a position which was somewhat doubtful with regard to the detection of this material. He spoke with some degree of knowledge upon the matter, and he believed that, used in small quantities—and it was only in small quantities it was used—its detection, even although prohibited, would be almost impossible, and, if absolutely prohibited, it would be used under the rose. Would it not be much better to place the open use of this material under proper restrictions than to have it used in an underhanded way, as he was afraid would most likely be the case? He wished also to point out that in this clause there was no right of appeal given against the decision of the Somerset House Authorities, although in the case of the Food and Drugs Act there was an appeal from the decision of the

  773
  magistrates to the Court of Queen's Bench. He did not think that the Somerset House Authorities ought to be the sole and only judges in a matter of this kind. The prohibition of the use of saccharine for this particular purpose was a restraint upon industry which ought not to be entertained, There could be no doubt that the manufacture of these articles from coal tar was largely carried on in Germany, and to impose restrictions upon it might be to restrain what might turn out to be a very important and interesting English industry. He agreed that they ought to prohibit the introduction into beer of anything noxious, but nothing more. No doubt, certain means could be found by which the addition of saccharine could be taxed equitably under the Act of 1880. If this were done, he did not see why the Government could not determine the quantity, and, having ascertained it, place its equivalent on an equality with the quarter of malt. He cordially supported the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I will not detain the Committee at any length, I have great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) in this matter. I think the position is one of great difficulty. I should not be surprised that this might come ultimately to be a question where the interests of the Revenue are involved on the one side and the interests of the improvement of trade on the other. I think if that is the case the interests of the Revenue will ultimately have to give way. I am quite sure that this question will have the careful attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am bound to say from long experience that I have the utmost confidence in the administration of the Board of Revenue, not only in the individuals who now preside over it, but in the traditions of the Office. I have known them for many years, and I may say that, during the 35 years I have been acquainted with the Department, there has been a desire on the part of the officers to do the utmost which the public interest will permit to facilitate the improvement and development of trade by every possible means. There are two things which I wish to submit to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
  774
  the Exchequer. The first has reference to the serious question of the importation from abroad. If the interests of the Revenue are so seriously involved as to make it the duty of my right hon. Friend at this moment to take prohibitive power against the British brewer, it is also absolutely necessary, to use the phrase of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who addressed the House yesterday, that the principle of simultaneity should be introduced, and that we should have the same legislative powers for the purpose of checking the introduction from abroad of beer in which the material may be used. It would be extremely hard on the brewer at home if he were prevented from doing that which we have no legislative power to prevent his foreign competitor from doing. That is a point upon which I own that either on the present occasion, or on a future stage of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give us some assurance. The other point upon which I desire a more distinct assurance is this. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Inland Revenue, as at present advised, only see their way to prohibition. But the time may come when scientific knowledge may enable us to proceed in a different way. What I would put to the right hon. Gentleman is this—that before he asks the House finally to sanction a measure so harsh as the prohibition of a substance in itself undoubtedly harmless and having important medical recommendations, will he give an assurance, not now, but before this law is enacted and comes into operation, that the Inland Revenue will do their best to ascertain with the scientific knowledge at their command, and under a sense of their own responsibility, to what extent prohibition is available? I think we should only resort to prohibition from a sense that no other alternative is open to us.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKsaid, he thought it was only reasonable that, after having heard a debate on tea and champagne, they should now direct their attention to England's national beverage—beer. The object of the Amendment to the clause would be in effect a gigantic fraud upon beer drunk in England. They were told that, under the Amendment, light

  775
  beer would pass as strong beer. His objection to the clause itself was that he did not think it went far enough. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to frame it in somewhat more stringent terms on behalf of the beer drinkers. What he should have preferred was that the principle of the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for the Sudbury Division of Suffolk (Mr. Quilter) should have been introduced in a clause of the present Bill. If that had been done, it would certainly meet with the approval of the working classes. He believed there was a stronger desire than ever that some legislation should be passed carrying out the principle of the Pure Beer Bill. Further, he thought it was of the highest importance in regard to England's national drink that it should be above all suspicion as regarded adulteration. In his own opinion, the time had come for some amendment of the Adulteration Act. If all the adulteration which was now resorted to was to be stopped, let the House legislate in the direction of the Margarine Bill of last Session, which was a step in the right direction, and he thought in regard to beer that a similar step should be taken. With regard to Germany, the legislation of 1861 had had a great effect, and he was informed that the Bavarian Beer under that stringent Act was now the purest in the world. For offences under that Act brewers were actually sent to prison. A very important judgment was lately delivered by Mr. Justice Kay. In the course of that judgment the learned Judge said, among other things—
  "That the case had initiated them into some of the mysteries of beer manufacture. It appeared that instead of beer being made from good and wholesome malt and hops, a process had been invented for concocting a beverage from invert sugar, and this was drunk by unsuspecting persons who believed that they were drinking beer. The defendant in this case was a brewer, and believing that brewers might make invert sugar from sugar cane themselves, he took counsel with the plaintiff, an analytical chemist. This must have been a doubtful advantage to the consumers of the beer, for sulphuric acid and gypsum were employed, the feature of the insertion being the doubling of the sulphuric acid, and then neutralizing by means of gypsum, and this stuff was then sold by some brewers and called beer. No doubt these facts speak for themselves, but it is about high time when the Legislature should say plainly of what ingredients beer should be com-
  776
  proposed, under very heavy penalty, as a protection to the public. At present a lot of 'secrets' are permissible, which may be construed to mean the introduction of almost anything in the concoction of the popular beverage."
  Well, he (Sir Edward Birkbeck) thought the remarks of the learned Judge were very much to the point. He was quite sure that the Temperance Party and the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—whom he was glad to see in his place—would agree to anything that would put a stop to the adulteration of beer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who was not in his place, had spoken in favour of his hon. Friend's Pure Beer Bill, and he could foresee the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer being in difficulties in trying to keep on good terms with the brewing interest. No doubt, the brewing interest was in very high favour at Somerset House, but as far as the working man was concerned he desired to know what his beer was made of, and whether it was made of hops, barley, malt, and water, or any other compound. The motto of the beer-drinking classes would continue to be in the future as it had been in the past—a full pint and a pure pint.
  MR. CHILDERS: I quite agree with the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck), but I wish to point out one question which has not been brought before the House. Saccharine is not a deleterious substance, and its mixture with beer is perfectly innocuous. It is a substance which can do no harm, but may do some good. I speak with some experience, because within the last few months I have been told by more than one eminent medical man that saccharine which contains in a tablet weighing a quarter of a grain as much sweetening matter as is contained in one or two lumps of sugar, it might be used with perfect safety and security, so far as health was concerned. It is becoming quite customary to use saccharine as a substitute for sugar in tea or coffee. Sugar itself has a deleterious effect in certain respects, in connection with tendencies to gout and other complaints. Saccharine, however, has not that effect. It would, therefore, so far as its wholesome character is concerned,

  777
  be better to put an exceedingly small quantity of saccharine into beer than I what nine-tenths of the brewers do, a large amount of sugar. There can be no question that this remarkable invention is an advantageous one, and if my right hon. Friend comes here next year as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think he will be surprised at the speech he was led to made this evening, and be astonished why so innocuous a remedy was not adopted earlier. But I would recommend my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair; to accept the modification of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not, I think, prudent to force any sudden change on the officers of the Inland Revenue Department, who say that they do not see their way in the matter. I therefore hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but with a protest that the Government are unnecessarily suspicious of a perfectly innocuous substance, and I hope that, after experiments have been made, the restrictions will be withdrawn. On the other hand, I believe that the quantity put into a barrel of beer is so small that it is impossible to detect it after it leaves the brewer. I am, therefore, afraid that if this prohibition is maintained, it will act as a distinct premium on the importation of foreign beer.
  MR. GOSCHEN: With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend behind me the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck), I wish to call attention to the fact that the Inland Revenue is a Department for raising the Revenue, but not the proper Department for supervising the reduction of the articles which pay the duty. My hon. Friend has stated that beer, like Cæsar's wife, should be above suspicion, but I would point out that it is not the duty of the Treasury or the Inland Revenue to look to that. They look at the question purely from the point of view of revenue, and all they consider in this and similar matters is the interest of the Revenue. In regard to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) I have never contended that saccharine is a noxious article, but I am bound to say that I did not see much weight in the argument as to the difference between
  778
  sugar and saccharine, for by substituting the latter for the former, a man who looks to beer as a nourishment as well as a drink loses by the exchange. The arguments of my right hon. Friend certainly did not oppress me with much weight, although he gave us the benefit of his own experience. In the case of the bulk of the population who drink beer it is something for them to consider that the beer does not only contain alcohol, but other nourishing ingredients, and that is another reason, although I hope not the chief reason, why they drink beer. The sugar which it contains gives them something which contributes to nourishment which they could not get in any other way. I therefore hope that nothing will be done to encourage the use of saccharine instead of sugar in the face of these facts. Whatever may be said of saccharine from the point of view of my right hon. Friend, I do not think that upon its merits it can compare with sugar as an article of consumption for the people at large. An observation has been made to the effect that the Inland Revenue Department is on very good terms with the brewers. I am glad to say that the brewers are prepared to co-operate with the Board of Inland Revenue in resisting the introduction of saccharine into their breweries, at all events, at present. They have, however, not pushed their opposition to an extreme point. In regard to the important objection which has been raised in reference to beer, I am told by the Inland Revenue Department, that it is possible to detect the presence of saccharine in beer. Beer imported from abroad would be submitted to certain tests, so that there would not be the danger which had been suggested of injuring their own trade by the importation of foreign beer. I do not wish to convey any impression that there would be an absolute non possumus on the part of the Government. The matter will be carefully watched by us, and I shall be prepared to answer any questions later on in regard to any discoveries that may be made.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: The right hon. Gentleman is quite aware that the London brewers are anxious to try, and, indeed, have been trying experiments with regard to the use of saccharine. A Memorial has been presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the

  779
  London brewers asking that experiments may be tried under supervision, and I would ask that that Memorial should be acceded to. I should like to know whether it is intended to be implied in the statements which have been made that experiments will be tried, and that the prohibition may be withdrawn.
  MR. QUILTERsaid, he thought that the interesting discussion which had taken place must have awakened strange feelings in the minds of many hon. Members who were not initiated in the mysteries of making beer. It was proposed to add a new ingredient to the list of those which were already used in beer making. Personally he had ceased to be surprised at any compound which was passed off in the name of beer. He rejoiced at the discussion which had taken place, because it must have enlightened the minds of many hon. Members as to the substances which were used by various brewers in regard to beer. He believed that everyone who had had communication with the Inland Revenue Department would heartily re-echo what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), as to the invariable courtesy and ability displayed by the officials in the discharge of their arduous duties. He must, however, say that he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adhere to the clause, because, although, he thought, it did not go half far enough in its stringency, yet words were now sought to be introduced which would tend to weaken it. He found fault with the Inland Revenue on this account, that under their ægis they permitted substitutes to be advertised daily and weekly for the making of beer, thereby leading the public to believe that if they were not the Department which should have the regulation of substances used in the manufacture of beer, at any rate they were supposed to be. In illustration of that point he would read an advertisement which had reached him that morning. As the clause had only been placed in his hands that day he had not had time to look through a number of interesting communications he had received in reference to the matter, but he hoped on a future occasion to be able to do so. The ad-
  780
  vertisement to which he referred was couched in the following words:—
  "To brewers, save one-third of your hops by using —'s hop auxiliary, prepared in accordance with the Act of 25th Vict. c. 22, s. 20, approved by the Excise, and stated by the highest authority in the brewing trade to be a true hop substitute. The hop auxiliary has been in use during the past eight years, and has fully established its claim to be placed in the first position of its class. Manufactured by —, a Retired Supervisor of Inland
  Revenue."
  He (Mr. Quilter) had also received the following interesting notice:—
  "Ecumin, or foaming powder, for giving, a foaming head to ale and porter. This article puts a rich and lasting flavour to beer and porter. It imparts neither flavour nor smell, and does not impair the brightness of the liquor. Its use is permitted by the Excise, and its cost is but 2d. for each barrel of ale. It also has no tendency to acidity."
  It occurred to him that this ecumin might be useful on many occasions—for instance, if a dose had been administered to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, previous to the debate on the County Court sentence on Tuesday last, it might have removed the tendency to acidity without in any way impairing the brilliancy of the speeches delivered. This question of the adulteration of beer was considered as a serious matter by hundreds of thousands of the working men of the country. Whilst holding the opinion he had expressed, that the clause did not go nearly far enough in the interests of the consumer, he should support it in the belief that it was a step in the right direction.
  MR. NORTONsaid, he was of opinion that the adulteration of beer was a very serious matter. During the last serious blight in hops, in the year 1882, the price of quassia went up from £5 to £40 a-ton. Other substances went up in a still larger proportion, some of them from 3d. to 4s. 6d. per pound. This was an important fact, but he wished to guard himself against making any general charge against the larger brewers of using improper materials. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to make the second paragraph of the clause more clear. He should have liked to have heard from the right hon. Gentleman what steps it was proposed the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue

  781
  intended to take to ascertain the noxious character of the articles referred to.
  MR. THEODORE FRYsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) had taken up the position which he had on this question. He had argued it from two points of view; first, with reference to the effect of the employment of saccharine on the Revenue, and next with reference to its use in the manufacture of beer. In regard to the Revenue, he would point out that a Chancellor of the Exchequer would always be able to find some means of obtaining the resources he required from the hard-earned money of the people. The right hon. Gentleman had remarked that there was no demand on the part of the brewers for the use of saccharine in this country, but that, he might say, was entirely beyond the question, and he would rather look at the question from a broad manufacturing and commercial point of view. It was quite possible that some hon. Members might not have seen saccharine, and no doubt many thought it was a nasty black substance; but it was, on the contrary, as white as snow, and resembled lump sugar ground exceedingly fine, and when an hon. Member spoke of it as tar, it was in order to prejudice it in the minds of the people. It might just as well be said that the beautiful dyes now used in commerce were tar, because they were derived from that substance; but he hoped hon. Members would dismiss from their minds all idea that saccharine was deleterious in dealing with the question before them. If it was injurious, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to prohibit its use in the manufacture of marmalade and preserves. Saccharine was 300 times as sweet as sugar, but he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had miscalculated when he said that there would only be 12 tons of it used by all the brewers in the country if it were allowed to be substituted for sugar. He did not personally care much about its use in beer, but the action of the right hon. Gentleman would give great discouragement to the manufacture in this country of an article which was exceedingly useful, and was becoming a very important branch of industry. He believed he was right in saying that a German firm had paid
  782
  £40,000 for the privilege of manufacturing saccharine in Germany. The question was one which demanded the attention of the House, and he thought they should endeavour, as far as possible, to encourage all manufacturers, especially those of chemical products, in which we were being beaten by the German nation, and, in view of that fact, he could not but regret the course which the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to adopt in the present case.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to agree to some of the suggestions with regard to revenue which had been proposed. It was, of course, important that the right hon. Gentleman should protect the Revenue of the country, yet it was a bad thing that the discoveries of science should be nipped in the bud by the regulations of the Exchequer. With regard to the £1,000,000 which it was said the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might lose by allowing the use of saccharine in brewing, all he could say was that the levying of that sum was a small matter in contrast with the importance of stimulating such industries as this. The manufacture of aniline dye had grown from small beginnings into a great industry. The right hon. Gentleman had also objected that the working man ought to have sugar for his money when he purchased beer; but he thought that the working man got very little sugar in his beer, and that it would be much better for him to buy that article in the ordinary way. They ought not to be led away in this matter by a sentimental notion about pure beer, it being a scientific fact that beer made from this subject was just as good and just as pure as that made from sugar and other materials. He hoped that hon. Members on that side of the House would not show themselves to be so far enveloped in the ignorance of the dark ages as to object to the use of this discovery.
  MR. C. W. GRAYsaid, he could not see that there was anything in the clauses of this Bill which would prevent hon. Members who took an interest in science from seeing full swing given to it in this country. There were only two points involved in the clause, one being that nothing noxious

  783
  should be introduced into beer, and the other that by the introduction of any material, scientific or otherwise. the Revenue should not be defrauded. Those points, as everyone must admit, were very important. Now that the Truck Act was in operation, it was not possible for employers to give the same amount of home-brewed beer to workmen as before, and it was, therefore, most desirable that they should be protected from having their beer corrupted by the introduction of anything noxious. Upon that point there could be no difference of opinion. Good beer, such as would enable a man to do a good day's work, was generally brewed from malt and hops, and it seemed to him that science had done very little to improve upon the old system of manufacture. At any rate, ho objected strongly to any of the substituted ingredients escaping taxation; because, as an agriculturist, he knew that an enormous amount was directly, or indirectly, levied upon the barley grown by the farmers. A barrel of beer, to be properly brewed, should be produced from two bushels of barley, worth from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. a-bushel; so that the barley in a barrel of beer was taxed to the extent of 80 per cent of its value, and the farmers were, therefore, entitled to say that no other class of traders ought to be allowed to introduce into beer at any stage—at the brewery or at the public-house—articles of any description which escaped taxation; because that would be giving an advantage which was denied to the farmers. For this reason, he objected to the Amendment before the Committee.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, it was a great mistake to speak of the use of saccharine in the manufacture of beer as adulteration, for he understood the term to mean the me of something of a different nature from that which it professed to be. He had no doubt that if this substance were added to beer it would be of advantage not only to the brewer, but to the beer drinker. Anyone who had a knowledge of medical science would be aware that there were many persons who would drink beer if they were not absolutely prevented from doing so by the presence of sugar; and as one instance he had only to allude to the large class of people who suffered from dyspepsia. If that objection were removed, much more
  784
  beer would be consumed. He did not quite follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke of the sustaining and nourishing qualities of beer, and ho would like to know how many persons who drank beer did so for nourishment. As a matter of fact, beer was drunk for that sense of exhilaration which it gave, and which, carried to a certain point, became intoxication. Although a great deal was said about beer doing a man good, there was very little nourishment in it, and, as was perfectly well known to physiologists, alcohol in any form was an immense hindrance to muscular exertion. For these reasons, he thought the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to nutritive quality of beer, could not be taken into account. He had heard it said, in favour of the use of saccharine, that it possessed great antiseptic qualities, and that being so, its presence would be of advantage in beer. He had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he should like to ask why the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not so modify his regulations on the subject as to give the public the choice of using beer with or without saccharine? He thought the principle of the law with regard to margarine, which was that no one should sell it as butter, might be applied in the present case; and he could not see why they should not make it a rule that all brewers should declare whether or not they used saccharine in the manufacture of their beer. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was no insuperable difficulty in ascertaining the presence of saccharine in beer, and it would therefore be very dangerous for any brewer to make a false declaration on the subject.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid, that he would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some further explanation on one point. The right hon. Member for South Leeds had stated that the opposition of the Inland Revenue Department arose from the fact that saccharine caused light beer to taste like strong beer, and therefore feared that its introduction would make light beer to supplant strong beer, to the detriment of the Revenue. The Chan-

  785
  cellor of the Exchequer repudiated this motive; but he had admitted that the use of saccharine would result in an annual loss to the Revenue of £1,000,000. If this loss would not be caused in the manner indicated by the right hon. Member for South Leeds, he wished to know how it would be caused? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the use of saccharine would be fraud on the beer drinker; but if the statements of the right hon. Member for South Leeds were correct, every friend of temperance could be in favour of his Amendment. The complaint of fraud would amount to nothing more than that a person going into a public-house intending to get drunk would be fraudulently kept sober. A fraud of so pious a character the House might very well join in.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not complain that the discussion on this Amendment has been too long. I am glad to have an opportunity of removing from the minds of the hon. Members opposite, a fallacy which has been once more stated, and which I thought I had already cleared up. It has been said that there is a good deal more alcohol in strong beer than in light beer; but, as a matter of fact, there is the same amount in both, and that has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment (Sir Lyon Playfair). The question of temperance, therefore, does not enter at all. The one kind of beer is only strong in the sense that it has more sustaining power, and not in the sense that a person can more easily get drunk on it than on light beer. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) has suggested that the brewers should be compelled to state that they do not use the substances ordinarily, but most erroneously supposed to compose beer. If such a declaration on the part of the brewers were necessary, and if the Government were pressed by the House and were supported by hon Gentlemen opposite, I do not know that they would oppose the proposal. It has been suggested, however, that it is not the duty of the Government to proceed in that direction. Of course, brewers might declare whether they brewed with saccharine or not; but then the custom would have to be extended to other manufacturers. An hon. Member had spoken of its being in the power of the
  786
  Inland Revenue Department to deal with any noxious substance, and not with saccharine only. Of course, it would have to be proved that an article is noxious, and if it were so, it would be in the power of the Department to deal with it under the clause now before the Committee. With regard to experiments, I am prepared to admit that experiments ought to be made to the fullest extent. [An hon. MEMBER: Where?] In the laboratory; but we could not allow any individual selected by the brewers to make experiments for the purpose of saying how far we should permit the use of this ingredient in the manufacture of beer; but, short of that, facilities might be afforded for scientific experiment, and within those lines I shall be very glad of the co-operation of my right hon. Friend opposite.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he was anxious to explain the difference between the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his own Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman practically prohibited the use of an article of a now and important industry before it had been tried, and before it was shown that its use would be detrimental to the Revenue. His own Amendment gave power to the Excise to regulate the use of that article; and if they could not find the means of regulating it, they could prohibit it under the latter part of the clause. Our trade difficulties were so great that he desired to see a new industry carried on in this country, which was being carried on in other countries. He repeated that the question before the Committee was as between regulation and prohibition.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The words proposed by my right hon. Friend only gives power of regulation; and if this should prove to be insufficient, there would be no power of prohibition. We say that we are not sufficiently advanced to state whether we should allow the brewers to use saccharine. Under the clause of my right hon. Friend, the brewers could use the article to-morrow; but until we have made out our regulations, we believe that it could not come into use in all breweries without great loss to the Revenue. I propose prohibition, in the first place, because it is necessary at once to stop the enormous loss which would otherwise ensue, and to have experiments made, in the second place, to

  787
  see whether we should afterwards allow the article to be used. There is no idea of crushing a new industry; all that is desired is to proceed in a different manner, and by different stages, from that which is proposed by my right hon. Friend.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, for his part, and on the part of the brewers of London, they would be quite contented to be allowed to make experiments to show whether they could use saccharine without restraining the Revenue. But the right hon. Gentleman wanted experiments made in the Excise laboratory; and everyone knew that such experiments were not worth a half-penny to those engaged in a great industry. To be useful, experiments must be made in the industry itself; but, of course, under proper supervision. He should have to take a Division on his Amendment; but was willing temporarily to withdraw it to make way for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in line 35.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 35, to leave out the words "or is calculated," in order to insert the words "chemical or other product."
  Amendment again proposed,
  In page 3, line 29, after the word "notice," to insert the words "when it is noxious or detrimental and to regulate its use when it acts in restraint of revenue."—(Sir Lyon Playfair.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the suggestion of his right hon. Friend was only to go to the same length as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone last year in the case of the attempted growth of tobacco. It was clear that where science introduced a new element into trade or manufacture, that the people of the country would insist upon the Revenue Department placing no obstacles in the way of its use. It was notorious that many industries had been driven abroad to the disadvantage of the country, and they must take care that this did not occur again; and his right hon. Friend was determined to go to a Division in support of that principle.
  MR. GOSCHEN: We are so near in our views that I regret my right hon. Friend should think it necessary to take a Division. What we wish is to have power to prohibit; and if the experiments were purely scientific, I should be very glad to accept them. It is the wish of the Government that no particular brewer should have power to make the experiments. I think my right hon. Friend will see that I have met him very nearly indeed; and I trust, therefore, he will not insist upon a Division, which, under the circumstances, I think would be misleading.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 229: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 83.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Repeal of duties upon hawkers' licences).
  MR. C. W. GRAYsaid, he should move the Amendment, standing in his name, to the clause, because he did not think it fair to the shopkeepers in towns who paid rates and taxes, if hawkers were allowed to go quite free from all charges. He knew that there were many respectable men engaged in this occupation, and he had no wish that they should be punished. He did not propose that any new tax should be imposed upon them; but that instead of the Licence Duty for hawkers being abolished, he would move that it be reduced to £2.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 19, to leave out the words from "shall" to the end of the line, and insert the words "be reduced to two pounds."—(Mr. C. W. Gray.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman; and I am inclined to view the alteration favourably, because the charge which he has referred to was decided upon in connection with the Wheel Tax. I have received many representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House against the total abolition of the

  789
  duty, and I therefore hope hon. Members will agree to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he had on the first introduction of the measure expressed his objection to the change proposed in the Bill; and he believed that the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Gray) would fully meet the views of those who had full knowledge of this question.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that as he had the occasion to call attention to the point when the proposal was first made, he wished now to remark that the only blot on the Budget had, in his view, been removed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Charge of duties on foreign shares, certificates, and bonds, &c., transferable by delivery).
  MR. MONTAGUsaid, that from the wording of line one would infer that the stamp was imposed on foreign shares, certificates, and bonds on their first delivery in the United Kingdom. If that were so, the stamp would have to be applied upon delivery through the Post Office. The result would be that firms would hold the bonds abroad until an actual sale was effected. Such bonds were frequently sent to this country as security for advances, or as cover for bills of exchange drawn against them, and if the bonds as well as the bills had to be stamped, such transactions would be done elsewhere. There was another point which was not quite clear. It frequently occurred that small bonds were needed for exportation. Would it be the case that if large bonds were exchanged for small bonds in the hands of investors, the bonds delivered and received would also have to be stamped? He could hardly think that was the intention. He presumed the intention was that when a sale was effected between people resident in this country, the 1s. stamp must be applied. It might happen that many who left their securities at their bankers would want an advance upon them. He presumed that the
  790
  transaction would not necessitate a stamp. In any case, he thought the stamp would be largely evaded, especially at the end of the term for which the stamp was available. He could hardly believe that the revenue of £200,000 would be forthcoming, as expected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because such a yield would necessitate securities to the value of £400,000,000 being transferred annually. If they deducted the bonds already fully stamped, and also the bonds that would be held over and not delivered, he did not think the yield would be anything like as large as the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated. He did not find fault with the principle of the tax—that was, no doubt, quite just; but still the imposition would induce speculation in the way of time bargains, because those now willing and accustomed to take up their stock when purchased, would be induced to buy on delivery, so that when they had a re-sale the stamp, so far as they were concerned, would be avoided. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not had recourse to a small ad valorem duty on contracts, rather than to this tax, which would be so frequently evaded.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he quite agreed with the justice and principle of the tax, but desired to know how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to enforce its collection? At the present time, shares in foreign railways, for instance, passed from hand to hand without any stamp at all. In that case, the stamp would come upon the buyer; but the buyer would naturally be quite willing to take the certificates without a stamp at all on them, or after the period of the stamp had expired, and add a stamp only when he thought proper to do so, if at all. He thought it would be very unfortunate to impose a tax which would only be paid by those who were scrupulously honest. It seemed to him that this was a tax which could very easily be evaded by the certificates passing from hand to hand as at present.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that before the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered the points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he should like to call attention to what had seemed to him to be a mistake in the Bill as drawn. But, first of all, he would say on behalf of a

  791
  body of whom he knew something, that he did not think ill enough of the stockbrokers of the City of London to believe that for the sake of saving the sum of 1s. per cent, they would be guilty of deliberate fraud. What he wanted to call attention to was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Speech, spoke of putting an annual tax of 1s. per cent on the certificates described in the clause. He (Mr. Baring) found that, as the clause was drawn, the tax was in future years to be at the rate of 1s. per cent per annum; but that for the remainder of this year 1s. per cent would be charged. That would be at the rate of 2s. per cent per annum. He had thought that was a mistake of the draftsmen, but his right hon. Friend told him it was not—that he meant it. He did not think that was worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was content to take 1s. per cent per annum in future years, he ought to be content to take for the six months of this year 6d. per cent.
  MR. GOSCHEN,in answer to the question put to him by the hon. Member for the Whitechapel Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Montagu) said, he had to say that what was meant was the first delivery of bonds and certificates—the first legal delivery, which he believed was the proper phrase—that was the delivery from one person to another, and not the delivery through the Post Office of letters containing these securities. Supposing these securities arrived in London, they need not be stamped until they passed from hand to hand. But so soon as they did that they must be stamped, and it was not a full delivery unless they were stamped. He, therefore, presumed that if they were deposited as security they would certainly have to be stamped. They might be deposited as security many times in the year; but they would only bear an annual tax. One payment would clear the documents for the year. He had taken a great deal of pains with this tax. He had consulted many persons as to the best mode of imposing it. Many suggestions had been made, but all broke down in comparison with this, which was not a perfect system, but which he believed, on the whole, would prove to be a good working system. No doubt it could be evaded. No doubt,
  792
  to a very limited extent, it would be evaded; and he was sorry to say that in that respect it would be in the same position as nearly all Stamp Laws. There was scarcely a Stamp Law which could not be evaded. There was this subsection in the Bill—
  "Every person who delivers or transfers, or is concerned as broker or agent in delivering or transferring, any instrument chargeable with duty under this section, and not being duty stamped, shall forfeit the sum of twenty pounds."
  The Committee would see that this was a purely personal penalty. He entirely agreed with what fell from his hon. Friend (Mr. Baring)—namely, that the brokers and agents of the City of London were not men who would attempt, in the face of this distinct declaration, to defraud the Revenue. There would be isolated evasion here and there; but in the great bulk of cases the tax would be paid. He had seen a great many persons in connection with the tax, and they thought that, on the whole, it would work well. This was to be au annual tax. His hon. Friend (Mr. Baring) was quite right in describing this as an annual tax; but the question was how should the stamp be worked? The easiest way was to put the calendar year clearly on the stamp. This year the stamp would bear in large figures 1888, and next year 1889, so that it could be easily seen to what year the stamps belonged. He was sorry there had been a misunderstanding between himself and his hon. Friend. Certainly, in his Budget Speech, he did not go into detail with regard to the fraction of the time. The tax might have been made to run to the end of the financial year; but it had been thought more convenient that it should run from the 1st of January in each year. The difference was not very great; and the stamps for this year would be at once prepared. The tax was really so extremely light compared with the taxes on transfers of almost every other kind of securities—his hon. Friend knew that if he transferred any railway stock he world have to pay 10 s. for one transfer—that the payment of 1s. per cent for the six months which remained of this year was a tax which these securities might well bear. He had put the tax at the very lowest figure which was compatible with the equity of the case. He was anxious not to in-

  793
  terfere with business, but, at the same time, to secure for the Revenue a source of Stamp Duty which he thought had been generally approved.
  MR. MONTAGUasked, if he was right in understanding the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that if an importer in England had stock sent to him for an advance it need not be stamped; but that if it was delivered Stamp Duty must be paid?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the principle was clear. If stock passed from hand to hand it must pay; it was not available for passing from hand to hand without a stamp. The hon. Member might import for his own use these foreign stocks, and keep them for five years, and it would not be necessary to put a stamp on them, because there would be no delivery. But so soon as he dealt with them they must be stamped.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he thought the clause would operate harshly upon persons borrowing from their bankers. If a person went to his bankers for a temporary loan, he must pay 1s.per cent on the nominal value of the bonds deposited; although, as a rule, he would not borrow more than two-thirds of the nominal value of the bonds. This was a tax upon the poor borrower. Hitherto the duty on mortgages had been levied on the amount borrowed, not on the real or nominal value of the security.
  MR. BRISTOWEthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the confidence he had placed in the members of the Stock Exchange, of whom he (Mr. Bristowe) happened to be one. Speaking with some considerable amount of experience, he did not anticipate any of the difficulties which had been mentioned by various speakers. It was no new principle on the Stock Exchange to have stamps. It had not been the practice of stockbrokers to evade stamps, and he did not think they would try to evade them now. He assured the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the confidence he had reposed in the Stock Exchange would not be misplaced.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Duties on transfers of marketable bonds, &c., not transferable by delivery).
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSproposed to insert, after security, in line 35, "and not being a mortgage or charge on freehold or leasehold hereditaments."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 35, after the word "security," to insert the words "and not being a mortgage or charge on freehold or leasehold hereditaments."—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OR THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, it was certainly not intended to bring in any mortgages or charges which the hon. Gentleman had in his mind, neither did he think the words of the clause implied that they would be brought in.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Duty on contract notes).
  MR. POMFRETin moving the omission of the 3rd subsection, said, it was not so much a question of the amount of the charge as upon whom the tax would fall. At present the charge fell upon the broker who made the contract for the sale or purchase. He challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Member of the Committee, to point out any class of persons engaged in any profession or mercantile occupation who earned the amount which brokers on the Stock Exchange did, with so very little trouble and cost, and in so short a space of time. He was not aware whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to increase this Stamp Duty, in the hope that it might check, to a certain extent, time bargains on the Stock Exchange, but it would have that effect. He had no means of ascertaining, and he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman could inform the Committee, what was the yield at present of the Stamp Duty. He suggested that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to ascertain what the amount was, he should adopt an embossed stamp, similar to that on bank cheques. As he had said, the stockbrokers had a very profitable business, and they were the persons upon whom this increased charge should fall. The brokers paid the present Stamp Duty, and, seeing that all transactions

  795
  in shares and bonds were to pay increased taxation, he thought the increased charge should not fall on the purchaser or the seller.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7 to leave out Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Pomfret.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, it was not intended by the Bill that any particular class of persons should be singled out for taxation. It seemed to him, however, that the matter was one fairly open for discussion. He was obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. Pomfret) for the suggestion he had made as to the use of an embossed stamp.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he would point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really exempting a particular class, instead of leaving the matter to arrange itself. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was not only exempting a particular class, but he was making them a present of a penny on every contract note, in as much as at present the broker paid the penny Stamp Duty. It struck him the right hon. Gentleman would do well to leave the matter to be adjusted between the stockbrokers and their clients.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he thought a slight alteration of the words would meet the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Mover of the Amendment as well. The object desired would be attained if they left out the words "is to," and inserted "may be."
  MR. POMFRETsaid, he could not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, because it was most in accordance with the freedom of trade to leave contract open between brokers and their clients. He desired to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was taking a tax off the class who were best able to bear it.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to the omission of the sub-section. Stockbrokers got their money for a very small amount of work, and, therefore, this matter ought to be left for them-
  796
  selves and their clients to settle who should pay the duty.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge).
  MR. POMFRETsaid, there was a great principle involved in this matter, and if he could find any hon. Member to go into the Lobby with him, he would certainly divide.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that in refusing the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pomfret) was actually doing the very thing against which he objected; he wanted the House to decide who was to bear this charge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to leave the matter open between the parties.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that if they wished to leave the matter open, the best way to proceed was to omit the subsection. A stockbroker sent many telegrams; they did not say that the telegrams might be charged to the buyer or seller, but they left the people to do as they liked. The members of the Stock Exchange were perfectly well able to take care of themselves, and, if they thought proper, they would not be long in making a rule that this duty should be charged against the buyer.
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, that judging from his experience, if the word "may" were introduced, it would settle the whole question. Members of the Stock Exchange and their clients were perfectly well able to arrange the matter.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury will tell us whether there is any provision in the existing law as to who shall pay the 1d. stamp?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): No.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he did not see why the same principle should not be observed in regard to the increased duty.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought it was the general feeling of the Committee that the matter should be left with the contracting parties. That would be effected by the words "may be;" but it would also be effected precisely to the same degree by the omission of the subsection. In deference to what he considered to be the view of the majority of

  797
  the Committee, he would withdraw the sub-section. Of course, it would be understood that by that withdrawal it was not meant that either party was to bear the charge, but that the matter was to be arranged between the stockbrokers and their clients.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Sub-section struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Provisions as to the stamping of instruments).
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he begged to move the omission of Sub section (a)—namely,
  "The instrument, unless it is written upon duly stamped material, or is first executed at any place out of the United Kingdom, shall bear a date not later than the day on which it is first executed."
  That was rather a technical question; but as he spoke on behalf of an important body in the country, who had practical management of these things, it was necessary he should trespass on the attention of the Committee for a minute or two. He cordially sympathized with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his endeavours to put a stop to the practice which the Inland Revenue Authorities believed was spreading, or at all events existed, of legal instruments not being duly stamped. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was fully justified in taking precautions to ensure that when the law had imposed a stamp, that stamp should be paid; but the provision of this subsection was rather novel. Legal transactions or documents had never been subject to such a provision before, and, as a matter of fact, it could not practically be carried out. Take a sample transaction between two people. One man bought a piece of land, and another sold it, and the deed would be dated on the day that it was signed. As was well known in the case of mortgages on land and various other instruments, a large number of persons was called upon to execute a legal document, and the deed possibly did not possess its full validity until the last person had signed it. A gentleman or trustee proposed to raise a mortgage on an estate. Various persons had to give their consent to the execution of the deed; possibly five or six individuals, some of them living
  798
  abroad and some at home, might have to sign the deed before the transactions were complete, and not until the matter was complete and the money paid over was the deed dated. His experience was that the dating of a deed was the last thing done in connection with a deed. People did not advance the money until the deed was complete; and, on the other hand, no one wanted to be liable for the payment of interest until he had the money in respect to which the interest accrued. There was another transaction with which he hoped all hon. Gentlemen would be fully familiar, and that was a marriage settlement. Very many signatures were often required to a marriage settlement, and the date of the deed was not inserted until the smallest possible number of hours before the marriage, for very obvious reasons. There was no motive in dating a deed onward. No one would run the risk of putting a future date to a deed, because there was a possibility of a party to the deed not being alive when he had to sign. The Incorporated Law Society, which consisted of the most eminent solicitors in London and the Provinces, considered that the date of the document should be the date of delivery; that was the date on and from which the document was intended to take effect. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might suggest some mode of altering the sub-section; but he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) saw no possible mode of retaining the sub-section and really carrying on the legal business of the country in the ordinary way. While he was as anxious to promote the interest of the Revenue as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he bogged the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the omission of this sub-section.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, to leave out Sub-section (a).—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (a) stands part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he quite agreed that the matter was one which required to be carefully considered, and he might tell the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) at once that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite prepared to allow the sub-section to be taken out; but then it would be neces-

  799
  sary to make certain Amendments to Sub-section (b). No one would deny that in years gone by there had been a practice of not stamping deeds. As the law at present stood the penalty was a very small one, and a deed was only stamped if it was required to be produced in evidence. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that there were certain documents which must be on stamped paper, and, therefore, the idea of requiring every instrument to be written on stamped paper was not new. With regard to any special case, the case, for instance, of a deed which could not be got back in the time allowed by the Bill, the alternative was that the instrument should be put on stamped paper. Of course, they must take care that it was no longer possible for people to keep a large number of instruments back, so that they should not be stamped. While he agreed with the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and would not insist upon Sub-section (a), they must so remodel Sub-section (b) as to meet the difficulty. Perhaps he would be allowed to indicate his reasons for advising the Committee to assent to the omission of Sub-section (a). He suggested that, after the omission of Subsection (a), Sub-section (b) should be amended, so as to read—
  "An instrument, unless it is written on duly stamped material, shall be duly stamped with an ad valorem duty before the expiration of 21 days after it is first executed."
  He ventured to suggest to the Committee and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the 14 days might be extended to 21 days; 30 days, which was the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was too long. He considered that if "the date thereof" was put in, it would lead to the possibility of a large number of documents escaping the Stamp Duty. People would sign an undated paper, and then the instruments would not be stamped. Practically speaking, to allow an unexecuted paper to remain undated, would be to afford a loophole by which a large number of persons would evade the duty. He quite understood that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Ledge), who had great experience in these matters, and his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), might be able to show the Committee that there might be special
  800
  cases, as, for instance, the one mentioned, in which a deed might, in order to be signed by one of the parties, have to be sent out to a Colony. But these special cases, which could not be frequent, would be amply and sufficiently met by the regulation that if the document became inoperative the Stamp Duty would be returned. He therefore submitted that the insertion of the words "the date thereof" would inevitably allow a large number of persons who wished to evade the duty to evade it. The law should be stringent, so as to effectually ensure the stamping of instruments, leaving special cases to be dealt with by special regulations. In assenting, on behalf of the Government, to the omission of Subsection (a), he wished it to be understood that he, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would move the Amendment ho had indicated in Sub-section (b).
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEasked how, in the case of the suggested alteration, the Authorities would find out when the deed was executed? In his opinion, there was very little evasion of the Stamp Duty with regard to the transfer of land or real property. Evasion might exist with reference to stocks, but the risk in the case of real property would be far too great. He suggested, in order that the tax should not be evaded, that the penalty should be raised to £25 or £30. There were now in England two registration counties, Middlesex and Yorkshire; and when there was a system of general registration, no deed would be admitted which was not already stamped. In the case of personal property, he suggested that a short clause should be inserted preventing a settlement of personal property from having effect, unless registered within a certain number of months. That would prevent evasions of the Succession Duty, and the stamp difficulty would be solved at once. If these instruments were presented at Somerset House, and examined, it would result not only in checking the evasion of the Stamp Duty, but would bring in a large return to the Revenue on Succession Duty. He hoped to introduce clauses with that object when the Committee reached the consideration of the Succession Duty clauses.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he quite agreed with a great deal of what his hon, and learned Friend the Attorney General said, and he

  801
  was prepared to accept an alteration of Sub-section (b) very much on the lines the hon. and learned Gentleman indicated. There were two points, however, he would call the Attorney General's attention to. He had suggested 30 days, the Incorporated Law Society had suggested two months, which was the present time, and the Attorney General suggested 21 days. He (Mr. Henry II. Fowler) thought that 21 days was hardly long enough for a deed that had to circulate, and especially as they were going to make it compulsory. If they altered the period to "30 days after the date thereof," then they could appoint another period in line 4. He wished. to meet the case of a deed executed by the contracting parties in England and then sent abroad. The time would run in the case of a deed sent abroad, if it was first executed abroad. If the Government would consent to this proposal, he would not contest the point any further with them. He sympathized with them in their endeavour to bring about compulsion in the case of these deeds.
  SIR RICHARD WDBSTERsaid, he was able to say from personal experience that the Stamp Duty had been largely evaded, and that the raising of the penalty would not answer the purpose, even if it were raised to £50. Take the case of a £300 or £400 stamp. It might be worth the parties' while not to pay it, and the interest on the money in a few years would amount to as much as the penalty. It was not well to impose large penalties, as they could not always enforce them. He thought that if the deed was first stamped within 30 days after execution, instead of 21 days, it would be soon enough. The ordinary conditions of the law were that the stamps were to be used, and that the regulation so laid down was not to be evaded. Of course, exceptional cases—namely, those where the stamps were evaded—arose under the present law. There might be a difficulty in proving evasion; but, as a rule, the honourable Profession to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged would observe the condition. With reference to leaving out the words "or is first executed," he was afraid the Government could not assent to that proposal. The matter had been carefully considered, and the Government had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to adhere to the first execution of the
  802
  deed, wherever it took place. Striking out those words would not be sufficient; but even if it would, he could not consent to the omission. It seemed to him that exceptional cases, such as those referred to, could be met by using stamped paper. He ventured to say that Subsection (a) could be struck out, on the understanding that they put in 30 days instead of 21, or, rather, instead of 14.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very difficult to carry out. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not know the practice in reference to conveyancing. It was a very common practice, when a conveyance had to be signed by many parties, to engross the deed in the first instance on unstamped paper, and get it stamped afterwards, when signed by all the requisite parties. In cases like this it was very hard to require the deed to be stamped first, as some of the parties might refuse to sign, and it might never be completed; and it was very difficult afterwards to recover the money from the stamp authorities. He wished to propose what he believed would be an Amendment, which would carry out all the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished. He thought they should enact that the deed should. be operative when it was signed by all the parties to give it validity. That would, at the same time, meet the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and also carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney General. He hoped that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed his-Amendment, he would adopt the suggestion that he (Mr. Whitley) now placed before him.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he understood from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that it was sometimes a question of law, and a very doubtful question of law, as to how many persons and what persons would give the deed validity. There was considerable difficulty in the matter; and the reason they were adopting the short period of 11 days, instead of the longer one, was that they did not wish to allow it to slip out of the memory of the parties concerned that the deeds bad to be stamped. They desired that the stamp

  803
  should be put on while the matter was still fresh in their memories. The deed might be sent abroad, and the imposition of a stamp might be deferred until it had gone abroad, and they might lose the advantage contained in the present proposal, that while the matter was fresh in the minds of everybody the deed should be stamped. A deed might be partly operative with the signatures of some of the parties, and not all. He understood that a good deal of the neglect at present to impose these stamps on documents was due to negligence, a long period of time being allowed to elapse, and not through wilful evasion. He did not think they could accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Sydney Gedge), he had no hesitation in expressing the opinion that they required specific words to render a deed invalid. He did not speak on this question without authority. There had been Statutes passed, declaring that unless certain deeds were stamped at the time of execution they should be invalid. But he did not think it could be argued that the simple absence of a stamp should always render a deed invalid.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that when a deed had to be executed there was sometimes eight or ten parties to it. For instance, a customer came to a bank and mortgaged a property, and when he wanted it released the whole of the parties had to sign the document. Some of them might be in America and some in South Africa, so that it would be impossible to say when the signatures of all would be obtained. He was sure of this—that unless they could get some date fixed, and if it was to be an open question when the deed was first executed, it would make the borrowing of money and the transfer of securities a very difficult thing, and instead of increasing the facility of the transfer of land it would add another difficulty in the matter.
  Question put, and negatived; subsection struck out.
  On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Amendment made:—In Sub-section (b), page 8, line 1, after "instrument," insert the words, "unless it is written upon doubtful stamp material."
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 2, leave out "fourteen," and insert "thirty."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. KIMBERsaid, he begged to submit that all experience on this point had shown that the existing period of two months was not a bit too long, in case of a deed of any importance. As to the Revenue being defrauded by the time allowed being 60 instead of 30 days, he imagined that in a case in which a deed were allowed 30 days for being stamped and it were stamped, if 60 days were allowed in the same case, it would be stamped just the same. And if in the one case it should not be stamped, he imagined it would not be stamped in the other. He was one of those who thought that this clause was hardly required; and he confirmed the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge). He had never known a case in which the Revenue had suffered by a deed being left in blank as regarded its date in order that it might afterwards be filled in. There was no greater solicitude exercised by a solicitor than in this matter of seeing that the time did not expire in which deeds ought to be stamped. If a deed were left blank, he was at a loss to see how the Revenue would be defrauded. If the blank were filled in afterwards the stamp was paid to the Government, and he could not see where the fraud would be, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid it down that he wished to get revenue by not only the stamps, but penalties. paid if a certain period were exceeded. The time was only wanted in order to enable all the parties to put their signatures to the deed, and if the 60 days should be exceeded by circumstances over which no one could have any control, it seemed reasonable that a deed should be allowed to be stamped without penalty. He was at a loss to see why there was anything unreasonable in leaving a deed undated until it was completely executed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'thirty' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, lines 2 and 3, leave out the words "the date

  805
  thereof," and insert the words "it is first executed."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question put, "That the words 'the date thereof' stand part of the Clause;" and the great majority of Members declared for the Noes, and only one or two voices for the Ayes, whereon the Chairman declared that the Noes had it; but his decision being challenged, Mr. Courtney directed the Division Clerks to attend at the Table to take the names in conformity with the new Rule relating to Divisions frivolously or vexatiously claimed. The Chairman having again put the Question, and no further opposition appearing, the Chairman declared the Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 21, after "produced" insert "Provided that if the instrument has been prepared for signature or execution by a solicitor or writer to the signet, such solicitor or writer to the signet, and not the person executing the same, shall forfeit the personalty of ten pounds imposed by this section."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  An hon. MEMBER said, he intended to move to leave out the words rendering a solicitor liable to a penalty.
  MR. GOSCHEN: That would not be sufficient. The hon. Member would have to move an Amendment in another form, as to strike out those words would simply make nonsense of the clause.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that with regard to the objection taken by the hon. Member behind him, the point had been considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, and he had communicated with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton on the subject. They agreed that there must be some security that the stamp would be used; but they thought that where the deed was prepared by a solicitor or writer to the signet such person should forfeit the penalty. The other increased Stamp Duty only had to be paid when the deed was stamped after the proper time.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that a deed could be prepared in some cases by filling up a form. Was that being prepared by a solicitor?
  MR. QUILTERasked, if an instrument were prepared on a
  806
  form and insufficiently stamped, would the stock or sharebroker be liable to a penalty for the accidental omission?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the stock or sharebroker would not be liable, but the officer who executed the instrument. The effect of this provision would be that the person executing the deed would see that it was properly stamped. But they had thought it hard in the case of lady—in the case of a marriage settlement for instance—to call upon the person executing the deed to bear the penalty; and, therefore, it would be made the duty of the solicitor and not the contracting party to see that the settlement was duly affixed.
  MR. QUILTERsaid, that in the case he mentioned it might be that a deed was signed by a lady or someone not versed in the law, in which case the signature might be witnessed by a servant or a friend, and it seemed to him that it would be very hard that such people should be made liable to a penalty of £10, if the person making the instrument, not being properly instructed, should happen to make a mistake.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that relief was given in the Bill in case of these penalties. It was not laid down that the penalty should be enforced in all these cases, but there were words dealing with the innocent omissions.
  MR. QUILTERsaid, that was all he asked for.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, the whole of this clause was very hard. It was very hard on the parties who might be ladies, and it was just as hard on the solicitor who might happen to have prepared the document, that he should become liable, though in some cases it might be proper to make him so, in order to exonerate other parties. Take a case. A solicitor prepared a form of lease which was to be used on a large building estate, and handed it to an agent for use as the houses were let. The solicitor originally prepared the form, but did not himself prepare the instrument. It therefore might be held that he had prepared all the leases which were granted, although he had not been consulted in each particular case. He would then be held liable, under a penalty of £10, to see that the instrument was properly stamped. It might be that the contracting landowner in this case was a lady who had entrusted

  807
  the matter to her surveyor. Obviously, it would be unfair to make the solicitor liable, and it would be equally unfair to make the lady liable; but it was fairer that she should be liable than the solicitor. Let them take another case of common occurrence—mortgages and deeds of settlement. In these cases, the solicitor who prepared the document was not the man whose client had to pay for the stamp. He had recently acted for trustees who lent £100,000 on a mortgage, which he prepared. It was intended for the trustees to sell their stocks until the mortgage deed was ready for delivery to them, executed by all parties and stamped. When he had prepared and engrossed the mortgage, the deed went out of his hands to the mortgagors and solicitors. He could not tell when it was first executed, and all his control over it was gone. Therefore, in order to be safe, he must have provided the money himself, £125, and have run the risk of losing it, if the deed were lost or the mortgage went off. As ultimately the mortgagor had to pay for the stamp, it was he or his solicitor who ought to be liable, if anybody was. In the case of a marriage settlement, where a pretty penniless girl was engaged to a wealthy man, he had to pay all the costs of the settlement, but he would not pay in advance. In such a case, was the lady, who might be unable, or her solicitor, to be compelled to find the stamp? The marriage might not come off. They had frequently known the ardour of a lover's affection to cool before the execution of the deed. Why, then, should the lady's solicitor, because he had prepared the deed, be liable to a penalty because someone else did not stamp it? He hoped the House would reject the whole clause, for which there was no necessity. Where was the evidence, beyond the more statement of hon. Gentlemen, that the Stamp Duty was often evaded? Why the House should introduce the new principle of making parties liable to a penalty for non-compliance with the duty of affixing the stamp and of making the solicitor liable he failed to see, as no cause had been shown for it. He had seldom, if ever, known any evasion of the law in these cases, although he had been in practice for over 30 years.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to
  808
  offer one word in answer to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member must not assume that in this matter the Government were acting upon mere hearsay. They knew, from actual documents that had come under the notice of the Inland. Revenue Authorities, that a considerable number of deeds were not stamped, and the provision they were now proposing was recommended by numerous solicitors whom they had consulted. The hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Gedge) asked them to strike the clause out altogether; but it would be impossible to do that, for it would leave no penalty at all, and they would be in exactly the same provision in regard to this matter as they occupied at present. It was suggested to them that there might be cases of hardship where there might be ladies who would act through their solicitors, and, therefore, these words had been inserted. The Government had done what they could to meet one class of grievance; and although there might be other individual grievances, they could not be expected to go out of their way to meet them all, and they certainly could not abandon the whole clause.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he would point out, in answer to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that that was the first time in which any penalty of the kind has been thrown upon the members of his Profession. There had been no time for the Incorporated Law Society to consider the matter, and he was sure the whole Profession would be averse to it, and he did not think that it would do the Tory Party any good at the next Election.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, the following Amendments made:—In page 8, line 26, leave out "fourteen," and insert "thirty;" and in line 27, leave out "two," and insert "six."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Conditions and agreements as to Stamp Duty void).
  On the Motion of Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, the following Amendment made:—In page 8, line 31, after the word "instrument," insert the words

  809
  "executed after the passing of this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Duty on succession to real property chargeable as annuity. How to be paid).
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name to the clause. He had been asked to do so by an eminent member of his own Profession, a gentleman in extensive practice; and, as he was himself in favour of it, he had no hesitation in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Hear, hear!
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, after Sub-section (3), insert the following Sub-section:—" (4.) A successor entitled to his succession upon the death of a person dying before the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, shall have the option given by this section if no instalment of duty has become due from him, or if only one such instalment has become due from him, and has been paid before the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
  Question, "That that Sub-section be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  New Clauses—
  Page 7, after Clause 13, insert the following Clauses:—
  (As to Stamp Duty on mortgages of stock, &c.)
  "(1.) The Stamp Duty now payable upon a mortgage of any stock or marketable security is hereby repealed.
  "(2.) Every instrument under hand only (not being a promissory note or bill of exchange) given upon the occasion of the deposit of any share warrant or stock certificate to bearer, or Foreign or Colonial share certificate, or any security for money transferable by delivery by way of security for any loan, shall be deemed to be an agreement, and shall be charged with the duty of six pence accordingly.
  "(3.) Every instrument under hand only (not being a promissory note or bill of exchange) making redeemable or qualifying a duly stamped transfer, intended as a security, of any registered stock or marketable security, shall be deemed to be an agreement, and shall be charged with the duty of six pence accordingly.
  "(4.) A release or discharge of any such instrument shall not be chargeable with any ad valorem duty.
  810
  "(5.) Any deed operating as a mortgage of any stock or marketable security shall be chargeable, in respect of such operation, with the ad valorem duty chargeable upon a mortgage under 'The Stamp Act, 1870.'"
  (As to Stamp Duty on equitable mortgages.)
  "(1.) The ad valorem duty chargeable upon a mortgage under 'The Stamp Act, 1870,' shall cease to be payable upon an equitable mortgage effected by an agreement or memorandum relating to the deposit of any title deeds or instruments constituting or being evidence of the title to any property whatever (other than stock or marketable security), and in lieu of such duty every such agreement or memorandum shall be charged with the duty of one shilling for every hundred pounds, and any fractional part of one hundred pounds, of the amount secured by the equitable mortgage.
  "(2.) Where the total amount which may be at any time secured by any equitable mortgage is unascertained or unlimited in the first instance, and the ad valorem Stamp Duty impressed on the agreement or memorandum in conformity with this section is available under section one hundred and seven of 'The Stamp Act, 1870,' for such an amount only as such duty extends to cover, such agreement or memorandum shall be deemed to be a new and separate agreement or memorandum, bearing date on the day on which any advance or loan is made in excess of the amount covered by the duty impressed thereon."
  Page 8, after Clause 16, insert the following Clause:—
  (Provision as to the Stamp Duty on assignments of policies of life assurance.)
  "(1.) No assignment of a policy of life assurance shall confer on the assignee therein named, his executors, administrators, or assigns, any right to sue for the moneys assured or secured thereby, or to give a valid discharge for the same, or any part thereof, unless such assignment is duly stamped, and no payment shall be made to any person claiming under any such assignment unless the same is duly stamped."
  "(2.) If any payment shall be made in contravention of this section, the Stamp Duty not paid upon the assignment, together with the penalty payable on stamping the same, shall be a debt, due to Her Majesty from the Company or person by whom such payment is made, and shall be recoverable as such accordingly,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
  —brought up, read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, he begged to move to insert the following Clause after Clause 3—:
  (Silver and gold plate.)
  "That, on and after the passing of this Act, or at such other date subsequent thereto, as Her Majesty may fix, by an order made with the advice of Her Privy Council, the Excise Duty now payable on plate of silver and gold made or wrought in Great Britain, or in Ireland, shall cease and determine; and that the Duty of Customs now payable under the Customs Tariff Act on imports of plate of silver

  811
  gilt or ungilt, and on plates of gold, shall also, on the same date, cease to be charged, and all drawbacks now payable on plate of silver or gold on being exported from Great Britain or Ireland shall cease to be paid."
  He regretted exceedingly that he was obliged to bring in the clause at a moment so unfavourable for its due consideration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to bring in this Amendment on Report. He would find that a much better opportunity.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, he should be glad to do so, if an opportunity would be afforded him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid, he also begged to move to insert after Clause 22, as a new Clause, that—
  "Any person appealing against an assessment of Income Tax or Inhabited House Duty shall be entitled to appear by solicitor."
  A person appealing against an assessment might require the services of a specialist, as he might find it impossible to put his case without assistance. Then, again, a large number of persons in Wales did not know English, or had not sufficient command of that language to be able to conduct a case against an experienced surveyor of taxes, who knew all the points of law.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, he should not be able to assent to the Amendment; but if the hon. Gentleman wished to discuss it, he would ask him to bring it up on Report.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, this was a very important matter, and there were some points he wished to put at that stage. He was afraid that the public suffered very largely from the practice indulged in by all Chancellors of the Exchequer, and all ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer, of insisting that Revenue must be got at all cost. The case of his hon. Friend was a very important one, particularly where the difficulty as to language came in. He was bound to say, from facts which had come to his knowledge, that there were crowds of people who submitted to gross imposition on the part of income Tax Commissioners and surveyors, because they
  812
  feared being out-faced by official strength being brought against them. What difficulty could there be in accepting an Amendment of this kind, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on his side such qualified and experienced men as surveyors? What objection could there be to allow a person appealing against an assessment to be represented by a solicitor? It appeared to him (Mr. Illingworth) that it was only a matter of justice. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people who had grievances on that score. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not be able to deal with the matter just now; but he hoped the subject would be taken into consideration.
  It being ten minutes to Seven o'clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the Clock.

QUESTION.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Leader of the House with reference to the Motion he had on the Paper as to the Scotch Elementary Code of 1888, praying Her Majesty to withhold her Assent to the alteration in Article 6 (d) of the Code of the Scotch Education Department proposed for this year, which (contrary to the provisions of section 67 of "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872") would have the effect of lowering the standards of education that now existed in the public schools of Scotland. The Motion would in ordinary course have come on that evening had there not been an Afternoon Sitting, and as the Code came into operation on the 30th of April, he wanted to know if the right hon. Gentleman would give facilities for it being considered on Monday night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, so far as the Government were concerned, they would be

  813
  perfectly ready to give facilities for raising the question on Monday after 12 o'clock, if, unfortunately, it was not reached before that hour,

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDin rising to move—
  "That in the interests of technical, commercial, and agricultural instruction, as well as of general education, it is indispensable that the attention of the Government should be no longer limited to primary education and science and art teaching, but should be extended to the secondary education of the Country which remains without organization or public supervision under a responsible Minister of Education, notwithstanding the repeated recommendations of Royal Commissions and Select Committees of this House on the subject,"
  said, it was a good many years since any discussion arose on this particular subject in the House. It was not what was called a popular subject; but he hoped that interest in it was growing in the country. Many middleclass ratepayers were beginning to entertain the suspicion that they might have something more for their own children at a small increase of expense and a very little additional trouble on the part of the State. He thought many working men had a suspicion that the ladder from the primary schools to the University was not in such a good state as it ought to be. He should leave out of sight almost entirely the higher branches of secondary education with which our great public schools and the schools which prepared for them were concerned, and refer only to that education which concerned our lower middle classes, and those members of the working classes whose capacities, if properly trained, would enable them to rise to a superior position. He would ask three questions—(1) What were the defects in our present system and their results; (2) How our present needs were being met; and (3) What could the State do in the matter? As to the number of children concerned, that was a point on which they had little information; but
  814
  he reckoned, according to such figures as could be obtained, that they ought to have in their schools 20 per 1,000–12 boys and eight girls. Of the 500,000 for England and Wales that these figures would bring out, not more than 100,000 were in their endowed schools; there might be 300,000 in private schools; and that left another 100,000 who would take advantage of the privilege if they could get it. Of this 400,000, at least one-half were under no kind of check or guarantee whatever. They were not able to act in this as in other countries owing to our want of social unity. There was a large and wealthy class who could and did spend large sums in educating their children at private and public schools, and then the middle class, which could not reach this higher education, were unwilling from social reasons to avail themselves of primary education. They must recognize these social divisions. He passed from that to the great defect of all—the want of organization. That fact was so notorious that he need not dwell upon it. Many of the chief evils of secondary education were simply the result of want of organization, but to talk about re-organization by shifting endowments was to talk about a very difficult thing. This want of organization was felt most keenly in our great towns. Not only so, but the local Colleges, for which many hoped some State aid might be forthcoming, complained again and again that they were not able to do good technical and scientific work because their pupils came forward so hopelessly badly prepared, and the obvious cause of their being thus crippled was that secondary education was so ineffective. As to general organization throughout the country, it went without saying that there was no such thing. With regard to defects in schools, he would go so far as to say that if an endowed school was not in an effective state it had better not be where it was at all. He could point to places where, owing to endowed schools being ineffective, practically nothing was being done for education; whereas, if there were no such institutions, the wealthier inhabitants would put their hands to the oar and found a thoroughly good and effective modern school. Private schools could not fill up the existing gap, for as soon as a master was thoroughly successful there was everything to in-

  815
  duce him to raise his fees, and thus the need to provide good education at a moderate price remained unsupplied. In many private schools, moreover, sanitary conditions were utterly neglected, and something ought to be done in this direction, as well as in checking the large number of adventurers who still fed upon our lower middle claases. Everyone knew the kind of appeal which spoke of a
  "Select boarding school, in which only a few young gentlemen are received, on the most moderate terms, without extras, including washing and pew rents, and where the utmost attention is paid to gentlemanly deportment."
  Only the other day ho saw the following in a newspaper:—
  "To Butchers and Grocers.—Education.—A young lady can be received in a first class and old established school on the sea coast on reciprocal terms."
  He would not try to analyze the process of mind through which the butcher would go as he contemplated whether it would pay him, on the whole, to educate his daughter at a place where he would retail the meat for 9d. which he bought for 6d. This primitive method of barter in relation to education which was able to exist in England would probably startle some educationists in other civilized communities. He submitted that, without any harsh and severe method, it might be easy to form such a system of registration of teachers as, while encouraging the best teachers, would gradually leave the charlatans to die a natural death. He could not doubt that, by a certain amount of State encouragement and more public attention being called to the question, progress might be made in our secondary schools as great as the progress which had attended our system of primary education in the last 18 years. There were, he admitted, many good schools. But if every hon. Member for England and Wales were asked to mention the six best secondary schools he knew some schools would be mentioned two or three times over, and it was not with reference to the 25 per cent that might be really good, but rather for the other 75 per cent that he was now speaking. If our secondary education was in a defective state the result to the country must be bad. It might be true that children trained in elementary schools were in many in-
  816
  stances cutting out the children of the middle class; but that was not good for the country. What they wished was that every class should be able to avail themselves of a cheap public system of education, and to encourage forethought and promptitude in every class. With regard to technical education, he had taken considerable interest in the question in connection with an association of which the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale was President, and wherever he went he was told—"You must improve and organize middle-class education." When they had done all that they could by Technical Education Bills there still remained much to do in putting such education on a sound basis. Germany had for years and years been building up a sound system of general education permeating the whole of her people, and we should never have anything worthy of being called a system of technical education unless we had a sound system of general education. With regard to commercial education, that was a question of secondary education; the two things went hand in hand. The agricultural question was a much more difficult one, and there, again, he was glad to find that the Departmental Committee that had lately reported were alive to the great need that existed in many of our agricultural district for effective secondary day schools. This need, in his opinion, must be met by a system of peripatetic teachers, such as already existed in the best organized of our towns, and he hoped also that the new County Councils would take a real interest in this subject. The late Mr. Matthew Arnold, for whose irreparable loss to the country nothing could make up, speaking of the relation of secondary to primary education, had said that the organization of secondary education was desirable, no doubt, in the interest of higher instruction, but that it was indispensable in the interest of popular instruction also. He would now refer to the question of how our present needs were being met. In the first place, with regard to money, assuming there were 500,000 children in need of secondary education; and, assuming roughly that the average cost for each would be £10 a-year, that gave a sum of £5,000,000 a-year to be expended on effective secondary education. Endowments only came to about

  817
  £500,000 a-year, but there were many parents who would be willing to pay, say, £7 10s., if necessary. Organization and public supervision and, encouragement were what were wanted far more than money. It was not, therefore, wholly a question of money, and there were many parts of the country where the people were perfectly willing to find the money when wanted. The people of Wales, for instance, were willing and anxious to be enabled to put into effect the provisions of the Bills which were brought forward on both sides of the House dealing with this question. How far were our present needs being met with reference to effective tests? A good deal had been done, no doubt, to test, encourage, and stimulate secondary schools. The local examinations of Oxford and Cambridge and the work of the College of Preceptors had been most valuable, but these bodies did not touch more than one-third of the children. In all schools where public money was being used they wanted more inspection and more guarantee than existed at the present time. With regard to secondary teachers, also, more tests and more efficiency were required. Immense strides had been made by primary teachers, and same of the best of them were fit to stand the test by the side of any teachers in any schools in the country. That was brought about by a system of public training which had produced good results. They might talk about the great improvement which they desired to see brought about in education, but unless they got better teachers in the subjects to which he had referred very little progress would be made. The next question was, what could the State do? All work of this sort must be gradual, and too much State interference would do a great deal more harm than good. Two things might be done immediately. In the first place, they might obtain some information as to tile facts. Only last year Mr. Matthew Arnold expressed the opinion that it was possible to get powers to ascertain what was the actual supply of secondary education and what was its character. He was of opinion that that information could be obtained without much difficulty or expense, and there was no doubt that it would be of infinite value to public bodies interested in education. In the second place, there ought to be a
  818
  Minister of Education, and not a mere duplicate of the President of the Council, who would be able to bring the whole subject within his ken, and have by his side some sort of effective council. In addition to this, more effective inspection of public schools was also wanted, and private schools should be encouraged to pay attention to this matter. In the fourth place, there ought to be registration of teachers; and, lastly, Local Bodies should have power to deal with this question by way of rating if they chose. He felt that he had given but an imperfect sketch of a great subject, and urged but little that was new, or that had not again and again been placed before Commissions and Committees. He was glad, however, that there was not now so much tall talk about our great middle classes and State interference as there used to be 20 years ago, but rather a growing opinion on the part of teachers and parents alike that there was something wanting in this particular department of our national life. He hoped that the Government would not invent an answer just sufficient to prevent his taking a Division. This was not a Party question, but one which interested all parties. Ho believed there were large numbers among the working classes who could be helped to rise to most important positions in the industrial world, and we ought to beware of stifling talent among them. If anything could be done by the State it ought to be done, and encouragement and help ought to be afforded wherever there was a real demand. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYin seconding the Resolution, said: My hon. Friend need not, I am sure, apologize to the House for anything at all inadequate in the statement which he has laid before the House, and I think he must have felt that he received from both sides of the House in an almost equal degree interest, sympathy, and approval. It is very agreeable to find that wo are now upon ground upon which both sides of the House have a common interest and. common views. I only differ the least in the world from my hon. Friend in one point. I thought my hon. Friend referred more than I should be inclined to do to the fact that the improvement

  819
  of secondary education is to be carried on with a view to the special interests and technical instruction of the wage-earning and working classes. I am second to no man in this House in my conviction that the wage-earning classes have the first claim upon the regard and attention of the House for this reason if for no other—that they are more numerous than all the other classes of the community put together. But, at the same time, in dealing with this question, we have to think also of those who are called in France the directing classes, whose interests in education are at least as great, and in secondary education greater, than those of the wage-earning classes. My hon. Friend has presented to the House a most interesting picture of the present condition of middle-class education. I shall not follow him into any details, but I will rest my view of the case upon authority. I will take three kinds of authority—the man of science, the man of business, and the man of letters. The man of science is Professor Huxley, who is not only a man of science, but a man who is well acquainted, who is specially acquainted by long experience, with the whole of the methods and all the necessities of secondary education in this country. What Professor Huxley says is this—
  "The organization of industrial and commercial education is not the least of the great problems which await the future. That this problem has to be solved under penalty of national ruin proves to be no longer a mere alarmist fancy."
  That is the opinion of the man of science. The man of business to whom I shall refer is a gentleman well known to all Members who take an interest in technical and advanced education—Mr. Swire Smith, of Keighley. He is a Commissioner of Technical Instruction, and has travelled through the United States, Germany, Austria, and France. He is, therefore, well qualified. What he says is this—
  "In a large proportion of the Northern manufacturing towns there are no really secondary schools at all. Such middle-class schools as exist are graded, not according to educational standards, but according to the social grades of the scholars; the result being that, instead of all the children, as in every other country, receiving their elementary education in the public schools, the larger ratepayers, for fear of contact with those below, send their children to private schools, where
  820
  they obtain inferior elementary instruction at a higher price, supplemented by extras which in too many instances do not represent any solid teaching. The boarding and grammar schools, where the education of many is 'finished,' with some commendable exceptions, 'neglect that knowledge in which there is progress, and devote attention to those branches in which we are scarcely, if at all, superior to our ancestors.' The result upon the student is about what might be expected."
  MR. P. S. POWELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman from what document he is quoting, as I am well informed as to the opinions of my friend Mr. Swire Smith?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: From an article written in The Westminster Review about two months ago, to which Mr. Swire Smith's name is appended. Now, Sir, finally, the man of letters is Mr. Matthew Arnold. I hope the House will not think it unbecoming if at this moment, so soon after the loss, after the disappearance of that bright ornament of his time, I express for many on both sides of the House our sense of the loss of one who was a man of letters of the first eminence and distinction, who, besides that, was a public servant of the greatest usefulness, and who, finally, constantly showed a very keen and luminous insight into some of the most urgent social, intellectual, and political needs of his generation and his country. What Mr. Arnold said upon the subject is conveyed in sentences of which I will read three or four to the House. They are pithy and pregnant—
  "Our middle classes are among the worst educated in the world. The education of the mass of the middle classes is vulgar and unsound. Our body of secondary schools is the most imperfect and unserviceable in civilized Europe. Our middle class is the worst-schooled in civilized Europe."
  Mr. Arnold was very competent to speak of the state of education in Germany and France, and fully competent to speak of education in England. I do not think that, after this consensus from so many different sources, we need longer time to convince ourselves of the existence of the want which we have to remedy. The question is, what is to be done? I am only going to dwell upon two points, of which the first is the necessity of creating a real Minister of Public Instruction. Everybody admits the necessity for the organization of secondary education. It is not too much to say that everything in our edu-

  821
  cational system between the elementary schools and the Universities is in a state of neither more nor less than chaos. I am speaking in the presence of Gentlemen well acquainted with the state of education in this country. Every person who watches as to secondary education is only too familiar with the confusion of wasted and misapplied endowments, distracted trustees, and bewildered parents—a very Babel of abounding conflict and misdirected criticism. Education must come into contact with the wide range of our most important interests. We have University extension lectures, Oxford and Cambridge examinations; we have conferences of Head Masters, International Conferences on Education. What we want is a Minister round whom, as a nucleus of activity, all this mass of information, so variously collected, all the various points and interests raised in these controversies, may be brought into a clear and definite form. Now, Sir, I hope the House will not suppose that I, at least, am advocating any imitation of the French system, under which, according to the well-known story of the French Minister of Instruction, at a certain hour every boy in France was doing the same lesson. I agree with my friend Mr. Huxley that even the present chaos would be better than that mechanical system. I do not believe that anyone on either side of the House has any desire to transform English boys into the kind of boys whom we see on the Continent. We have no desire to see the Minister of Education, when he is created, unnecessarily meddling or making himself unnecessarily busy. What the Minister of Education would do would be to keep up a constant pressure in the direction of instructed public opinion. The friends of such a proposal think we should find in a Minister of that kind the most simple way of focussing the information on educational subjects. It should be the business of the Minister of Education to judge the direction in which the educational indications of the time are tending, and by degrees to force on those bodies which did not take voluntary action a modification of their system in the desired direction. My hon. Friend who brought forward this Motion referred to the creation of Colleges in great towns, and it is a remarkable fact that
  822
  in England—I believe in every large town—they have found it necessary to start these Colleges; but they are finding they could only keep their heads above water by making them what are called "bread and butter Colleges"—by making them into mere schools of technical instruction. That is most indispensable; but some of us who are going to support this Motion—most of us—feel that we want to make those Colleges into something more—we want to make them great, broad, and general educational agents. What will he the relations of the Minister of Education to it? I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will give us something to look forward to in that respect. We do not ask that those relations should be the cast-iron relations of the War Office to the Army or the Admiralty to the Navy. What our view points to, I believe, is this—that the Minister should be a great intelligence department for the collection of all possible information from the best sources, and in turn diffusing that information to all those Colleges. It is the same with the endowed schools. What happens in their case is that the Charity Commissioners frame a scheme which lies on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, but the schemes once passed we hear no more of them, whether they turn out well or ill, and whether their operation is or is not what the Charity Commissioners intended it should be. The Minister of Education and the Department would have a constant stream of light shed on those schools, and it would be poured out on the whole education system of the country. It is said that the Charity Commissioners have legal powers to make trustees do their duty. I know they have; but that is a very different thing from having powers to ascertain the educational efficiency of the school, and for this the Charity Commissioners have no apparatus. What we want is that the most experienced officers of the Education Department and the Charity Commissioners should become an authority and be represented in Parliament by a head who would be responsible to and able to satisfy Parliament as to the continued efficiency of those institutions. There is no more excellent authority in all matters of education than Mr. Fitch, and he said in his evidence before the

  823
  Select Committee of two years ago that—
  "A responsible Minister of Education would be valuable in relation to endowed schools."
  I ask the attention of the House to this, in order that they may know definitely what it is that a Minister of Instruction would be. He would
  "Not, of course, have to administer a grant in aid, because they ought all to be practically self-supporting, nor to lay down any code of regulations so as to require secondary education to be always of one type or follow the same course; but to inform parents and the public of the nature of the existing provisions and of the state of efficiency of all the endowed schools."
  The plain truth is that we want a Minister of Instruction to prevent endowed schools from falling back into a condition analogous to that in which they were before the Endowed Schools Act. My hon. Friend has referred to the Endowed Schools Act. My hon. Friend has referred to the probability that within a short time the County Councils will have to deal with educational funds and important educational interest. I am not to-night going to touch the financial aspect of this question. I can only make this remark—that in Germany the State begins its contribution to education at the opposite end to that at which we begin. It gives no grant, I am informed, to primary education, though it sends Inspectors to test the work done. What it does is to reserve its grants for the higher education. And here I should like to read a few lines from the last Report that Mr. Arnold ever wrote—
  "We are misled if we are merely told that the schools for the lower classes in Berlin are free, while those for the middle and upper classes charge school fees. What would the schools for those classes be in Berlin or anywhere else in Germany if they had merely the school fees to depend upon The schools are built and maintained, their teachers are paid by the State or the municipality; the school fees of the pupils, always very moderate according to their notions, are merely a contribution in aid of the expense of admirable schools provided really like the elementary schools by the public."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very zealous and a very competent friend of higher education in this country, and I do not know how he will reconcile his undoubted zeal for secondary education with demands which will necessarily and speedily be made upon the Exchequer for secondary education. It
  824
  is too late to ask whether we should not have done better to have begun at the same end as the Germans, because nobody denies that part of the funds contributed to primary education in this country are little better than wasted in giving a thin veneer of education, which is very rapidly worn off by the friction of daily life. But though it is too late to ask whether we would not have done better to have begun at the other end, it is not too late to ask whether, if you admit the principle that it is the duty of the State to share the burden of primary education with the localities, it is not the duty of the State to share the burden of higher education too. When this is done it will be one reason the more for having a Minister of Public Instruction. The County Councils will undoubtedly be called upon to take charge of education, but they will need guidance and they will need light, and their efficiency from an educational point of view will depend upon their having access, through some natural and self-working machine such as an Educational Minister would be, to information in the ever-advancing science of education. What Parliament will want is that there shall be a responsible Department to see that the country is getting money's worth for its money. I will detain the House only for a moment or two upon the attitude of this House towards a Minister of Public Instruction. The School Inquiry Commission of 1868 recommended in their Report that there should be a great central educational authority, and suggested that this central authority should be got by enlarging the powers of the Charity Commission; but they pointed out that the Minister of Education is the proper head of the Commission, because the Minister would be supported by the whole strength of the Government. There is a further and stronger reason from the point of view of the Commission of 1868 why there should be a Minister of Instruction—it is the only way in which you would get real responsibility to Parliament. In 1868 the Duke of Marlborough, then President of the Council in the Administration of Mr. Disraeli, introduced in the House of Lords a Bill to create a Secretary of State to deal with educational matters. When Mr. Disraeli was challenged in a debate in 1874 by the right

  825
  hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) with having gone back on the proposal in the Duke of Marlborough's Bill, Mr. Disraeli said that he had found out in the course of the six years which had elapsed that the proposal was premature. The next step was taken in 1883, when my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) brought the subject before the House, and the end of his action was a Committee which reported in 1884. That Committee was presided over by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). The Report was to the effect that (1) a Board of Education should be appointed under a President who should be real as well as nominal Minister, in this respect holding a position like that of the President of the Board of Trade, and that the duties of this Minister should be recognized. as not less important than those of some of the Secretaries of State. (2) That the Minister should have authority over the endowed schools to the extent of calling on the Governing Bodies to furnish him with such Reports and information as he may require, and to direct any inquiries or inspection which he may deem necessary. (3) In the case of public schools that he should be authorized to call for information, but they were not of opinion that his powers should extend to inspection. It is on the Report of the Committee of 1884 that we base our strong desire that now to-night, if it be possible, we should receive an assurance from the Government that they seriously contemplate carrying out that recommendation as to a Minister of Education. I know it may be said by the right hon. Gentleman that he or the President of the Council is a Minister of Education. But whether it is the President or the Vice President of the Council who is the actual head of that Department, I submit that at present he is not a Minister of Public Instruction at all, but simply a giant school-manager—a manager of elementary schools. What we want, what the Resolution points to, is a man who will survey the whole field of public instruction, who will keep his eyes open all round, who will find out at every point the defects of the secondary system, and will, wherever it is necessary, constantly come before Parliament to apply for powers to remedy
  826
  these defects. Mr. Lowe, in 1874, said that there was not in the Education Department material enough to occupy a Minister of the first class. It may be so or it may not; but if the functions of the Minister were enlarged in the sense I have indicated they would undoubtedly be worthy in England, as they have long been thought worthy in France, of the whole energies of a Minister of the highest dignity and position. There is only one other point to which I will refer before I sit down. Neither the Mover of the Resolution nor I are here to frame a Bill; but there is one point to which I would refer namely, the registration of secondary schools and of teachers. I do not know how far opinion is yet ripe for the proposition I am going to lay down; but I feel confident that the time will come, if it has not come already, when England, like some other countries, will insist that no schools shall be opened by any man or woman without the properly recognized qualifications. That is a counsel of perfection I dare say, but I think it is one of those aims which we ought to keep before our view. As things are now, any man broken down in any other calling of life thinks he is good enough for a schoolmaster. Parliament has passed many Registration Acts. It has even passed a Veterinary Surgeons' Registration Act, and I think the time has come when we may expect a Teachers' Registration Act to pass, and that by-and-bye measures should be taken to prevent any persons opening a secondary school unless they possess some title to qualify them for registration. That is not a new point; Mr. Forster brought forward what was called No, 2 Bill, and it contained a clause for registration; and in 1881 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Mayfair) brought in his Teachers' Registration Bill. Both of those Bills had what appeared to many of us the defect of being voluntary. I hope the time will come when this House will not be afraid of a Teachers' Registration Bill which shall be not voluntary, but compulsory. I know the objection to it is that if you make it compulsory, then the State will appear to be giving a guarantee as to the competency of the person so registered. We must take that objection for what it is worth, bit it has not been

  827
  held valid against the Medical Registration Act. We may go so far as to say that you can have no guarantee of the efficiency of a school unless it is annually examined; and if the right hon. Gentleman should say that such annual examination is impossible, I shall only remind him that in Scotland the Government does examine and inspect all the endowed schools, and, I think, all the higher schools.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Private adventure?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: If it can be done in Scotland, I do not see why our higher schools in England should not also be examined.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Only such as applied.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Oh, I beg pardon.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think they examine all, but I will leave my right hon. Friends to settle that between themselves. The Lord Advocate does not contradict me.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Only those which apply are examined.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Our difficulties with respect to private adventure schools in the future are lessened, and will be progressively lessened, by this very interesting fact, which I am told is true by the best educational authorities—that since 1868 the principal educational movement in this country has been in the direction of establishing secondary schools on a public basis and of a public character. Mr. Fitch said in 1886—
  "If it was the duty of the Education Department to present to Parliament a list of all efficient secondary schools in a given district, all really good schools, whether private or proprietary, would be glad to be included in that list, and would volunteer to ask for inspection and examination, in order that parents might have greater confidence in them and their work."
  I have endeavoured to put before the House one or two points with regard to a Minister of Education and with regard to registration. The want is admitted—the necessity for this serious step is admitted on both sides—without reference to political Parties. All our present education that is good is intolerably dear, while the moderately cheap is exceedingly bad. My contention is that
  828
  by imprinting the stamp of publicity and the stamp of the State upon these secondary schools we shall not only be exalting the professional spirit of the teachers, which in itself would be an immense again, but we should do more than anything else we can do to enlarge, to quicken, and to vivify the minds of the learners, and without impairing the native boldness or virility of the British stock we shall be stimulating that intellectual alertness and strengthening that moral force which are the only solid foundations of national greatness.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the interests of technical, commercial, and agricultural instruction, as well as of general education, it is indispensable that the attention of the Government should be no longer limited to primary education and science and art teaching, but should be extended to the secondary education of the Country, which remains without organization or public supervision under a responsible Minister of Education, notwithstanding the repeated recommendations of Royal Commissions and Select Committees of this House on the subject,"—(Mr. Arthur Acland,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. KENYONsaid, he hoped he should not be considered presumptuous in intervening at this somewhat early period of this exceedingly interesting debate. His reason for so doing was that he desired to treat the subject from a particular point of view—because he wished to speak solely on the question of intermediate and technical education in the Principality of Wales. The subject was one which demanded some consideration from the Front Benches, because they had from time to time given pledges to Members interested in it. What was its history? Why this—so long ago as the year 1880 a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the subject, and a strong Royal Commission represented by men who had the confidence of the whole of the Principality. That Commission was appointed with the consent of both the political Parties in the House, and its President was a man whose name, without doubt, commanded the assent and confidence of every Welshman—he meant Lord Aberdare. Well, that Commission

  829
  visited every part of Wales; it took evidence all over the Principality; and the conclusions it arrived at, after a most searching investigation of the whole subject, were given in a somewhat lengthy volume, which he would not inflict upon the House. The effect, however, of the conclusions they arrived at as to the dearth or want of intermediate and technical education in the whole of the Principality he would read. These were the principal points they referred to—
  "The very inferior aggregate number of scholars attending intermediate or technical schools in Wales as compared with the remainder of the United Kingdom. The whole number of scholars attending intermediate schools in Wales only amounted to the small number of 4,006, and of those the proportion in town schools was only 1,540, the rest being in private country schools."
  That one point showed the small number of scholars educated by the intermediate schools in the Principality. He did not wish to weary the House with figures, but he should like to ask them to compare the statistics relating to Wales with those showing the number of scholars educated by these schools in other parts of the United Kingdom—
  "In Ireland the comparison of children between 10 and 11 years of age who are educated is as one to 3,121; in Scotland it is as one to 840; whereas in Wales the comparison is as one to 8,000."
  Could it for a moment be contended that the intermediate education system was doing its work in Wales when only one child was educated where the number ought to be 8,000, and when one in 840 were educated in Scotland? It seemed to him that this proved almost to demonstration that there must be something radically wrong in the system. Another point he would like just to allude to was this. It was asked why different rules and different laws should be applied to Wales to those which were applied to other parts of the United Kingdom? The answer to that was fairly given in the Report of the Royal Commission. The first point was the isolation—the comparative isolation—of Wales, partly owing to its geographical features, and partly owing to its Cymric language. Then, again, there was the poverty of the Principality, and with regard to that point he should like to mention one or two facts. People said—"Why is Wales a poor country?"
  830
  They said—"It is a great industrial country." So it was a great industrial country, but all the same it was an extremely poor country. He should like to call attention to a few figures which he thought were thoroughly trustworthy, and which threw some light on this question of prosperity. It had been proved conclusively from the Income Tax Returns that whereas in England the Income Tax averaged £15 per head in the English counties, in the Welsh counties it only averaged £12 per head, and in one particular county—probably the poorest in Wales—namely, Cardiganshire—only £8 per head. In the English boroughs, it was shown, the Income Tax averaged £24 per head, whereas in the Welsh boroughs it only averaged £13 per head. This seemed to him a very fair comparison of the wealth and prosperity of Wales and England. Now, he wanted to point out a few of the specific grievances which he thought the Welsh people suffered under, and these he took mainly from the Report of the Royal Commission, to which he had already alluded. Wales, as the House knew, had a very mixed population. It had a population a great portion of which was agricultural, but it also had mining industries. He did not suppose there was any part of the United Kingdom where there were so many mixed industries as there were in Wales. They had in the Principality lead mines and iron mines; they had or had had copper mines; they had coal mines; they had very large slate quarries, a large industry in pottery and terra cotta; and, last of all, they had the great industry coming to the front, gold mines. [Laughter.] This last industry might be looked upon as somewhat of an ignis fatuus; but, at any rate, they had lately seen the proprietor of these mines coming up to London with three bars of gold in his possession, valued at £3,000, taken from his mines, and when that was the case it was not for the House of Commons to laugh. What he wanted to say on these points was this. There they had all these various industries, and what had they got in the shape of technical or intermediate education to train the people and fit them to make the best of them? Those industries must require great knowledge of metallurgy, engineering, and all those technical subjects which the

  831
  hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) would say they were interested in. And had not the Welsh industries been injured by the fact that there were no good technical or intermediate schools for the education of the children? He would give the House a small illustration of what he meant, and it might not, perhaps, be a very unhappy one. When the Liverpool Corporation were borrowing water from Wales by means of a great aqueduct, and works involving the employment of a large number of persons and requiring a large amount of engineering skill and technical knowledge were in progress, amongst the great body of men engaged there were, comparatively speaking, no Welshmen on skilled work. And why? He did not believe himself that it was from any congenital want of intellectual power in Welshmen in acquiring engineering skill, but because they had not had the opportunity given them of studying these matters. The work Welshmen ought to have had was given to others. He thought that was an argument in favour of what was advocated—namely, the giving of more power and assistance to intermediate schools in Wales. And there was another point. Wales was a great watershed. If they wanted water in London, where would they go for it? They would have to go to the watershed of Merionethshire. Then give the Welsh the opportunity meanwhile of educating their people, and give them the chance of knowing something technical as to the method of making use of their natural advantages. Do not let them handicap the poor Welsh people unfairly in these matters. They were naturally of an engineering disposition. It might not be known to Englishmen that the first water brought to London—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is treating the broad Question before the House in a very special manner.
  MR. KENYONsaid, he felt it his duty to make an appeal to the Front Bench on this question of educating the people which had been so long before them. He should like to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), and he trusted that in so doing he should not be trespassing against the Rules of
  832
  the House. The Marquess of Salisbury visited Wales the other day, and delivered a great speech to the people. There was only one fault he had to find with the speech. It was a great disappointment to find that intermediate education was not dealt with in it. The Welsh Liberal papers, after the noble Lord's visit, said this—which he was afraid represented to a great extent the feeling of the Welsh people on this sub-ject—
  "Wales will get nothing from him or his Party. We expect the effect of his visit will he to rid North Wales of every Tory who now misrepresents it."
  He (Mr. Kenyon) would make a pathetic appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to avoid, if possible, so terrible a catastrophe. In all sorrowful earnestness, he said, the Conservative Party now had the chance of dealing with the matter of doing something for Wales. Wales had been neglected in the matter of education, and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether some place could not be given to Wales in connection with this burning question—for it was a burning question—of intermediate and technical education. If he would do so, he would, he (Mr. Kenyon) was sure, earn the gratitude not only of Welshmen sitting on that (the Conservative) side of the House, but of his Welsh Friends sitting opposite, who were fully prepared, he thought, to accept a reasonable and conciliatory measure, from whatever quarter it might come.
  MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he rose to ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments, to allow him to consider this Motion from the point of view of Scotland. He was afraid he could not hope to treat the matter in the pathetic style in which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had treated the case of Wales. But he desired to ask how far this Motion was applicable to the case of Scotland, and to express his opinion that in its general purport this Motion was applicable to Scotland as well as to England. The defect which had been pointed out—that was to say, the want of efficient schools—existed in Scotland as well as in England; and the remedy which was pointed at—the aid of the State in organizing, supervising, and assisting those schools—was a remedy highly necessary, he

  833
  thought, in that country also. At the same time, there were very marked differences between the educational arrangements in Scotland and those which prevailed in England. For example, he was struck by the frequent references made by the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Motion (Mr. A. Dyke Acland) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) to the middle class. They treated this question as if it was almost exclusively a matter for the middle class. Now, he (Mr. Preston Bruce) thought that the people of Scotland had never been accustomed to regard their educational institutions as class institutions. Their old parochial schools were not schools of a particular class; the present board schools were not schools of a particular class; and the Universities of Scotland were not the Universities of a class; and the sort of secondary schools which were wanted in Scotland would not be the schools of one class, or for a particular class, but schools for the benefit of all classes. Well, it had also been an honourable tradition of their old parochial schools that children should get there; not only elementary education, but a good deal of higher education, and he gladly acknowledged that many of the board schools now existing had carried on that tradition, and did supply a great deal more than merely elementary education. At the same time, while that was true, he believed that no educationist would deny that an intermediate class of schools between the National Board Schools and the Universities was a necessity in Scotland. Well, then there was one other point with regard to Scotland which he should like to mention. Their schools there were essentially day schools. In England boarding schools, he believed, had been very successful, but the boarding school had never taken root in Scotland. The day school system was what they were accustomed to there, and the result of that peculiarity was that what they required in regard to secondary schools was a very extended system of secondary schools. It was not enough that they should have secondary schools in a few of their largest towns, but they must have thorn in every considerable centre of population, in order that the children might come in from the surrounding districts and attend them as day scholars, returning to their
  834
  homes in the evening. That being so, he thought the only question was, could they get a sufficient supply of secondary schools without asking the aid of the State in the matter? A few years ago many people in Scotland were inclined to say—"You should not go to the State for this. These schools ought to be supplied out of your educational endowments." He (Mr. Preston Bruce) wished to say, under correction from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Glasgow University (Mr. J. A. Campbell) whom he saw opposite, one of the Education Endowments Commissioners, that he believed he was correct in saying that that Commission had now had through its hands practically all the educational endowments of Scotland. They therefore knew how far the want of secondary schools could be supplied out of educational endowments, and the result which they had from the Chairman of the Commission was that these endowments were not sufficient to supply what was wanted in the matter of secondary education. He would ask leave to quote just one sentence from the speech of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, delivered at Glasgow in September last. The noble Lord said—
  "I am most anxious that the public should not suppose that when the Commission has done all its work that all that it is necessary to do for higher education in Scotland will have been done. I look forward to the time—and I hope it is not far distant—when higher education will come more within the sphere of Parliamentary action, and more within the sphere of assistance from the rates, than it is at the present time."
  And he went on to say afterwards—
  "Parliament has acknowledged its duty to the elementary schools and to the Universities, and both are aided from the public funds. Why is secondary education alone to be left out in the cold to be starved and neglected?"
  Now, Lord Balfour of Burleigh held Office under the present Government. He was a great supporter of the Conservative cause in Scotland, and he (Mr. Preston Bruce) called on the Government not to be behind this supporter of theirs in the matter of their educational policy. If the Government adopted the views of Lord Balfour of Burleigh on this point, they would be very nearly adopting the views of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Motion. Now, he must just quote one other authority on this subject, and he would do so from

  835
  the last Report of the Scotch Education Department. They had during the last two years begun a system of inspecting the higher schools, which system had been referred to to-night already, and they said—
  "In view of the fears which have been expressed as to the decadence of secondary education in Scotland, we have naturally looked with great interest to the reports which have as yet reached us. We regret to find that these do, to a considerable extent, confirm the fears to which we allude."
  And in the special Report of Professor Chrystal, who was employed by the Department, and who inspected 12 of these schools, there occurs this remark—
  "The time has arrived for plain speaking regarding our system of secondary education. Year by year since the re-organization of the English schools under the Charity Commission, my experience as an Examiner in Scotland has forced more and more on me the unwelcome conclusion that, with a few exceptions here and there, we have been falling behind in higher education properly so-called."
  Well, now, he (Mr. Preston Bruce) thought he had sufficiently shown that this want, already referred to in the Motion before the House, existed in Scotland. Ho would not venture to detain the House by any special remarks on the question of technical education, or evening schools, or special points of that kind. What he wished to show was this—that this want equally existed in Scotland, and he agreed with the hon. Gentlemen the Mover and Seconder of the Motion that organization was the main thing required. They wanted assistance in the shape of funds, but organization was even more important than money in this matter. He did not think it could be said that there was as yet any formed public opinion in Scotland as to exactly in what shape and in what degree the State should interfere in this matter; but, on the other hand, his experience was that there was in that country a great enthusiasm for the cause of education looked at broadly. He believed that any Government that appealed boldly to that feeling and brought in a broad and comprehensive measure for the advancement of secondary education, would find a very hearty response among the people of Scotland, and a very warm support of such a measure. There was just one other point to which he would allude before he sat down. The Motion before the House
  836
  mentioned the subject of a Minister of Education, and a great part of the speech of the Seconder of that Motion was devoted to that matter. Now, it would be in the recollection of those who took any interest in Scotch affairs that two or three years ago Scotch education was handed over to the Scotch Office, being transferred from the English Department, and connected with the Scotch Department, and that it was now practically, although not in theory, under the Secretary for Scotland. He did not wish it to be supposed that he, in supporting this Motion, as he very heartily did, wished to intimate an opinion in favour of going back upon that arrangement. He did not think it would be at all wise, having regard to the tendency of public opinion in this matter, to attempt to go back on that and replace Scotch education under the same Office as English education; nor did he believe that that would be desirable in itself. Much as he thought education required assistance and organization by aid of a central authority, on the other hand he was of opinion that nothing was less to be desired in education than excessive centralization. Surely it was much better that Scotland and Wales and other parts of the Kingdom should be allowed to develop their education on their own lines, rather than that any attempt should be made to drive them into one mould. The higher the education with which they were dealing, the more objectionable it seemed to him to attempt anything like similarity or uniformity in it. Subject to this one remark with regard to a Minister of Education, he gave his most cordial support to the Motion. He earnestly hoped that it would not be long, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh had said in the speech he had quoted, before there was some movement and some action taken in this direction, and there was an effective organization of our secondary education introduced throughout Scotland and England alike.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Sir, I think, at all events Her Majesty's Government cannot pretend to have any ground for complaint at a question of this importance having been raised in this House with reference to educational matters, and still less can they have any cause for com-

  837
  plaint in regard to the manner and matter of the speeches addressed to us from the other side of the House. Although I am afraid I cannot agree with all that may be urged as to this Resolution, at the same time I can join most heartily in the suggestions that have come from the other side in reference to these matters of education being no longer matters of Party controversy in this House. I think I may urge with some justice that this Resolution, from the very form of it, is one that it is very difficult to deal with. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rotherham Division of York (Mr. A. Dyke Acland), who so ably brought it before your notice to-night, is the actual author of it; but I think I may venture to say that whoever has drafted this Resolution has reduced to something like a fine art the system of mystical and hazy draftsmanship. I will refer to the terms of the Resolution. In the first place it urges—
  "That, in the interests of technical, commercial, and agricultural instruction, as well as of general education, it is indispensable that the attention of the Government should be no longer limited to primary education and science and art teaching."
  Well, I do not think, with reference to a matter of this importance, that there could be a much more vague and hazy term than this word "attention." If the Resolution had urged upon the House some proposition of this kind, that the time had arrived for immediately dealing with the question of secondary education, that would have been a matter upon which the House would have had to pronounce a clear decision, and with regard to which the Government would have had to give some definite announcement of policy. And if, as I have said, this Resolution bo somewhat vague in its character, I think I may also venture to urge that the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder of it, if not entirely vague, yet are wanting, at all events, in this respect—that though they indicate that changes are necessary, and though they indicate, and rightly indicate, that as regards our system of secondary education in this country it is not altogether in a satisfactory state, yet, what I do complain of is that they do not come to close quarters and indicate any clear policy that might be pursued. The right hon. Gentleman
  838
  the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) has stated that in regard to this question of secondary education it is in a complete state of chaos at this moment. When the right hon. Gentleman makes that statement, and supports it by the evidence which he has adduced from very authentic sources, I cannot help asking myself—it is natural that I should ask myself, and it is also natural that many of my hon. Friends sitting behind me should also ask themselves—if this state of chaos really existed to-day, what happened during the five years from 1880 to 1885, when right hon. Gentlemen sitting beside the right hon. Member for Newcastle were in Office? It seems to mo that if anything like a state of confusion existed in 1880 it was the duty of those the right hon. Gentleman was then acting with to have taken up the matter and dealt with it.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I was not in the House in 1880.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: Now, I should like, if the House will bear with me, to deal with one or two points connected with this Motion. In the first place, I should like to deal with that portion of the Motion with reference to the question of technical, commercial, and agricultural instruction. So far as that part of the Motion has regard to the attention of the Government being called to these subjects, I think it is fair that I should, at all events, point out that very shortly after Her Majesty's Government entered Office they broke through what I may call the old official régime observed in these matters, and did give their attention to this branch of education. I remember that I was rash enough—having held the Office I now hold only a few months—to endeavour to frame a Bill dealing with technical, commercial, and agricultural instruction. I think it is fair that Her Majesty's Government should claim some credit in that regard, because, although they were unable to carry a Bill in reference to England, yet they were successful in carrying a measure through in regard to Scotland last Session; and as the House is aware they are pledged in the Speech from the Throne to deal practically with this question this Session. Therefore, as regards the "attention" of Her Majesty's Government being extended to these particular subjects, I think we can claim some credit

  839
  in that regard. As to another matter that arises in connection with this part of the Resolution—namely, the subject of University Colleges—the highest class of secondary instruction—that, again, has been particularly alluded to in the course of this debate, and there again, whether rightly or wrongly, or whether within our province or not, the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed during the present Session. I have received a deputation, and so has the Lord President of the Council (Viscount Cranbrook) on behalf of the University Colleges, and we are now daily engaged in getting information with regard to their financial position and the whole system of the training pursued at them. Although, of course, it would be wrong for me to pledge Her Majesty Government for one moment in regard to this question, I think it is only fair and right, on this occasion at all events, to say that we are gathering this information with the view of discussing the question whether we should not grant State aid in some way or other. I should now like to proceed to what, after all, is the more important part of this Resolution. Of course, I need hardly urge that it is that part of the Resolution which refers generally to the position of secondary education in this country. I notice that the Mover of this Resolution seemed rather to slur over, or to slight, the work which has been done up to this date by the Charity Commissioners in respect to the Endowed Schools; but I was glad to observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) did not take the same view on that point. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider that the operation of the Charity Commissioners, at all events in respect to Endowed Schools, had some very important bearing upon the question of secondary education.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: I did not intend any slur whatever upon the work of the Charity Commissioners. I approve most highly of the work the Charity Commissioners have done in the last few years.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I was referring more particularly to that portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he referred to endowments; and I think he stated he had known cases where endowments had done more harm than good. I am bound to say
  840
  that, although there may be cases possibly where the existence of endowments has done harm, still there are hundreds of eases where the existence of a very small endowment has led to much voluntary effort, resulting in the establishment of a most excellent school. I should like to point out that, up to the end of 1887, 826 schemes have received the Royal Assent. Many of those schemes provide for exhibitions tenable at places of technical and scientific instruction, 159 provide for technical and scientific instruction connected with local industries, while others provide for instruction in land surveying, and other useful occupations. Certainly, I think, there is no section in the House who will assert that the work the Charity Commission has done since the Act of 1869 was passed has been in any sense thrown away. I will refer a little later on to the remarks which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to inspection and other matters. Well, Sir, I, for one, think that there is some danger of the future operation of this Commission being impeded by the course taken by certain Gentlemen in this House. I see opposite to me the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair) who was the Chairman of a Committee on Endowed Schools, which reported in 1887. My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, give me his attention when I allude to a point which he feels deeply upon, and which is, I believe, a matter of serious importance in regard to the good results in the future of schemes which may be framed by this Commission. I refer more particularly to what is called the ladder system. Now-a-days, it is very easy to get up the cry in democratic constituencies of the robbery of the poor; and although, of course, we are all most anxious that so far as the poorer classes are concerned, they should have ample and full justice done them, and that all these schemes should be most jealously watched and safeguarded, there is some danger still that this cry of the robbery of the poor may have this result, that all schemes dealing with the ladder system may possibly be opposed in this House, and that it will be difficult in the future to carry out the policy of the Commission to the end. It is only fair that this should be mentioned. I have heard hon. Members say that they do not believe in the ladder

  841
  system, and they do not think it right, or just, or fair, that in any possible case where a child has received free elementary instruction, that free instruction should be taken away for the sake of giving a chance to that child to rise through the different grades possibly up to the University. They do not think that is any adequate compensation at all. This subject was gone into most carefully by a Committee of this House upstairs; most valuable and important evidence was given in regard to it, and not only was that evidence most conclusive that this ladder system of the Commissioners was included within the four corners of the Act, but that it ought to he persevered with to the end. I need hardly weary the House by quoting from the Report; but hon. Members who take the trouble to refer to that Report will see that that policy is most emphatically endorsed by the Committee. I merely mention this subject now because I know it is so easy in popular democratic constituencies to get up a cry that such and such a scheme is simply robbery of the poor, and for Motions to be brought forward in the House seriously interfering with the success of schemes. Now, I should like to deal more specifically with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Morley). I noticed that so long as the right hon. Gentleman was, so to speak, firing at long range, he said much with which one must agree; but when he came to close quarters, I think we have some reason to complain that he was not more specific in his language. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions upon the subject of secondary education. I observed that the right hon. Gentleman did not exactly advocate an inspection of schools, but only prophesised that the time might come when an inspection of private adventure schools would take place in this country. I should like to know, supposing the labours of the Charity Commission are concluded, and that gap as to secondary education which the right hon. Gentleman regrets still remains, how he would propose to fill up that gap; because it seemed to me that in his speech he indicated no policy with respect to this point. He asks the Government to accept this vague Resolution, a Resolution which is so worded that it may mean a
  842
  great deal, or it may mean but very little; and it is the language of the Resolution, coupled with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which makes it difficult indeed for Her Majesty's Government to accept it as it stands. But, Sir, we had no indication from the right hon. Gentleman how he would fill up the gap of which he complains; he did not indicate to us whether he would like to see this done upon the lines of the Education Act of 1870—whether he would like to see the existing education supplemented by State aid locally applied, or State aid in the shape of Imperial grants. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has sufficiently considered the grave difficulties which must confront any Government in dealing with secondary education. I am not here to-day to say it can never be dealt with, and I am not here to-day to say that the system which now exists is altogether satisfactory. But, when the right hon. Gentleman quotes Germany and other countries, and tells us with such facility of diction that that which exists now should be immediately improved, I do not think he dealt quite fairly with the question. Take the case of private adventure schools. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell us that he is prepared to-morrow to inaugurate a system of examination, and generally to interfere with the private adventure schools in this country? I confess that, in my opinion, that would be a very hazardous step for us to take. At present we have no power of interference of that nature even with regard to primary schools. So far as I understand the Act of 1870, or the position of the Education Department, we have no right to interfere with any primary school in the country where teaching is going on; and I think it would be a very strong measure to take, with all your centralized force at Whitehall, if you were to inaugurate this new policy of interference with private adventure schools either as regards examination or registration. Now, the Government do not wish to enter any strong non possumus in regard to the matter urged upon them. With respect, for instance, to the schemes which are now in existence under the Charity Commission, I hold a strong opinion that the inspection and the examination of the schools is not that which

  843
  it ought to be, and that some further system of inspection ought to be adopted. It is true that a system of inspection now exists, but it is of a very partial character. I think I stated the other day, in answer to a Question, that it is well known that the staff of the Charity Commission is pretty well occupied at present in the formation of schemes. [An hon. MEMBER: The inspection is not educational.] I am coming to that directly. I was saying that the staff of the Commission is now pretty well occupied in the formation of schemes, and that if they are to inspect the operation of schemes, it would be necessary for them to very largely increase their staff. There are two branches of this subject. The inspection of schemes is undoubtedly distinct from the examination of the quality of the teaching given in the schools. The question of examination is a matter which requires very serious consideration, and I can only say, on behalf of the Government, that in principle I approve that examination. I will say, however, that I will give the matter further consideration with the view, if possible, of establishing something of the kind; but with regard to the former branch of the subject, I would not like to make the same pledge. I think, however, that the House has every claim upon the Government, both as regards the inspection of schemes and the examination of the actual work, good or ill from an educational point of view, which is being carried out. I am quite willing, in that spirit at all events, to accept the remarks which have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then it may be said it is all very well to go so far, but why not go a little farther and deal with the private adventure and other schools? But that is a matter which requires the very gravest and widest consideration. I, personally, am not prepared to adopt any such system as active interference with these schools; I believe you will promote the strongest hostility if you endeavour to carry out such a system. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That is, however, my opinion; but I am open, of course, to conviction. With regard to the very schemes which are from day to day being framed, there is an intense local jealousy in the dealing with endowments. That is the great practical difficulty you have to deal with in this matter. Take the scheme
  844
  concerning which Motions were put down week after week not long ago—namely, the Hitchin scheme. That scheme is a sample of the difficulties which meet any Government which attempts to deal with secondary education in the sense of utilizing, to the utmost extent, all local funds and capabilities, for, after all, that is the practical way of approaching the subject. We are not going to throw over the labours of the Commission, and still less are we going to snub or check voluntary effort with regard to secondary education. We must bring all our forces to bear upon the work. Now, what was this Hitchin scheme which I have mentioned? If ever there was a scheme framed by the Charity Commission which was to be supported on grounds of equity and common sense, and which could be said to be strictly within the four corners of the Endowed Schools Act, it was this Hitchin scheme. What did it propose to do? Among other things, it dealt with a small charity in a small village outside Hitchin. This village had 187 inhabitants in all, it had a good elementary school, and was well endowed both as regards charities, and, I think, there was also a payment to the vicar. The village was certainly more handsomely dealt with than any other village in the Kingdom. The scheme proposed to deal with the surplus fund, the fund which could not be utilised in the village, the endowment was so rich. When it was proposed that in aid of a large scheme for an excellent grammar school in the town of Hitchin close by, where the inhabitants had subscribed £3,000, £100 per annum should be appropriated as a scholarship fund for competition among the elementary school children, as a matter of fact, the scheme was opposed in the House of Lords, and no less than three hostile Amendments have been at different times placed on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons. I merely point this out as an instance, and I think it is a very fair and just instance, to show the huge difficulty any Government will have if it attempts to deal, in a practical way, with the great question of education. I do not propose to detain the House much longer; but I must say a few words in regard to a matter which has been dealt with at length very eloquently by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

  845
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), and that is the question of the appointment of a Minister of Education. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested the appointment of a Minister of Education, who would supervize the whole of our educational machinery; but I did not gather from his remarks what the precise functions of this Minister were to be as regards our primary instruction, secondary instruction, and University instruction. It does strike one that this is a retrograde step in the present day. The whole of our present legislation is tending surely rather in a decentralizing than in a centralizing direction. All the Bills in regard to technical, commercial, and other instruction which we have been discussing have been essentially permissive in their character, and their object has been to allow localities to deal with this question with as much freedom and as little State interference as possible. The evidence which was given before the Committee of 1884, in regard to the appointment of a Minister of Education, was not at all conclusive. It is perfectly true that, in the Report, a strong recommendation was made in the direction of the appointment of a Minister of Education; but I can quote a witness whom hon. Members opposite will be prepared to listen to, I am sure, with great respect. Lord Granville, speaking, after eight years' experience as Lord President of the Council, once said he thought the present arrangement was a very good one, and that he did not know of any other arrangement which would give more weight to the Department in the Cabinet or in the Houses of Parliament. It seems to me that the time has practically gone by for any such step as that now proposed. I should like to ask the House whether, if this Minister is appointed, his functions are to extend over Ireland and Scotland? The strongest evidence was given before the Committee of 1884, by the late Mr. Forster, against any interference by such a Minister with Irish education; and, as regards Scotland, we have already had to-night an earnest protest from the hon. Member for West Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce) against any interference by such a Minister with Scotch education. Is it proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) that this Minister of Education should be appointed for England? If that be
  846
  the proposal, surely it is perfectly natural that a claim and demand must at once be made for such a Minister for Ireland and for Scotland. It certainly does not appear to me that the proposal is one which can be entertained in the present day; indeed, so far as I am concerned, I would rather fall back upon the opinion of Lord Granville. I believe honestly that, on the whole, the present system is the best system that can be adopted to meet the educational wants of the country. In the Committee of 1884 Mr. Forster was again and again asked whether, when he carried the Act of 1870, he could have carried a better Act if he had been Minister of Education only, or whether the present system was not the best? The highest evidence was given that when the Bill of 1870 was carried the constant communication with the Lord President of the Council, and the system then adopted, and continued now, was the best, on the whole, that could be adopted in regard to the interests of education. I am afraid that I have not altogether satisfied hon. Members in regard to the Motion. My chief complaint against the Motion is on account of its indefinite character; it might bind the Government very little, or it might bind them a great deal. It is vague in its terms, and, while it contains much with which I personally sympathize, yet, on behalf of the Government, I feel bound to say that we cannot give our assent to the Motion.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman did not suppose that the mover and seconder of the Motion complained in any way of Her Majesty's Government in their speeches, or that there was any intention to make such a complaint in the Resolution placed before the House—[Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE: Oh, no!]—because the right hon. Gentleman asked his right hon. Friend why something was not done by the last Government, or why they did not make more progress with the subject. Now, as he (Mr. Mundella) was the responsible Minister for educational matters from the year 1880 to 1885, he might frankly say that he held the views then that he held now, and he so urged his views on the then Government that every year some considerable progress was made. Advances were made that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to

  847
  recognise in his speech. He had no desire to make comparisons between what had been done by this Government or that—it was a question of too much national importance, and should be dealt with apart from any Party recriminations. Still, he might say that he succeeded in securing from his Colleagues as much, or more, than any Minister of the Educational Department. A great Bill was passed dealing with the endowed schools for Scotland, and a system for dealing with, not only the public and endowed schools of Scotland, but private schools was arranged before he left Office. He held an inquiry into the position of Intermediate Education in Wales, and introduced a Bill which, if the Government had not been turned out of Office, they would have carried, and for which a promise of £14,000 was made by the Treasury, and he trusted that Treasury promise still stood good to this day, and would stand good until a scheme of Intermediate Education for Wales came into operation. Much more was done, of which he did not wish to talk, but would keep to what the House had before it at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman made a strange and new protest against the appointment of a Minister of Education. He said the day had gone by for the appointment of such an official; he said he did not at all see why such a Minister should be appointed for England or Scotland, or what he would find to do. Setting Scotland apart, there was a population of 27,000,000 in England and Wales, and the lamentable defects that existed in the educational system for this population would supply ample occupation for such a Minister. Was not the right hon. Gentleman Vice President of the Council for England and Wales? Was there not a Secretary and Vice President for Scotland; and was not the Lord President the Minister over both and final resort in both cases? What would be the difference in the position of a Minister of Education, except that, instead of being President of the Council, President of the Department of Agriculture, with work increasing year by year, President of the Endowments Commission, besides all the duties in connection with the Court of Council, you would have a real Minister of Education to take his place in the Cabinet and see that Education was dealt with in a proper manner. The
  848
  right hon. Gentleman quoted the late Mr. Forster; but he seemed to have forgotten that Mr. Forster gave evidence before a Committee in favour of a Minister of Education, and in 1874 he seconded the Motion of the right hon. Member for Leeds for the appointment of a Minister of Education, and to his dying day Mr. Forster was a strong advocate for a Minister of Education, as he (Mr. Mundella) had good reason to know. It was a little surprising that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Hart Dyke) should make the statement he did make, for did he not, on April 21, 1887, agree with the unanimous Report of the Commission of which he was a Member, part of which ran in these terms—
  "The responsibilities of the Commission (that is the Charity Commission) should be clearly defined and made complete. This might be readily accomplished by carrying into effect the recommendations of the Commission of 1884, that a responsible Minister of Education should be appointed, and should be charged with the general supervision of endowed schools."
  He thought the right hon. Gentleman was the first Vice President of the Council who was not in favour of a Minister of Education. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) who sat near him had always been strongly in favour of it, and advocated it very effectively in his evidence before the Commission. The question what such a Minister would find to do might be dismissed, for it was only necessary to look around at the condition of education in England and Wales and find that there was work enough. He agreed with the excellent speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce), and always welcomed an educational speech from him; they were always of value, and went straight to the point, and the hon. Member had put good work on the Statute Book in respect to Scotland. He agreed with the hon. Member that there ought to be no attempt on the part of any Minister of Education to produce uniformity in the educational system throughout the country. Scotland should have its own system under the control of its own Minister, and he would go further, and say that Wales should have its own system adapted to its requirements. There was no reason why Wales should not be put in an equally good position, and the Bill he

  849
  introduced provided for the appointment of a Council for the supervision of Endowed schools, placing them under Local Authority. He rejoiced that the Local Government Bill would afford facilities for dealing with this question through and by means of local authorities. The local Councils should be brought more in touch with the education question, and should take a really active part in the intermediate education of the counties. He would like to see them exercising much more control over endowments, not that this control should be entirely centralized. His right hon. Friend (Mr. John Morley) spoke strongly against the French system as a bad drill and barrack system, and he spoke strongly in favour of the development of national life in our country districts. In that there would be general agreement. He was very glad indeed to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council agreed that there ought to be some inspection of Endowed schools. For years the Charity Commissioners had made reports again and again in that direction. The Commissioners framed schemes; those schemes passed from their hands, and practically they did not know what became of the schemes afterwards. They were now sending some Sub-Commissioners to ascertain if certain schemes were being carried out, but he had before him the Report of the Commissioners for 1882, which had impressed itself strongly on his mind. The Commissioners spoke of having dealt with schemes amounting in the aggregate to £471,000 a-year, and that 22 years ago it was estimated that the amount they had to deal with was £660,000. Then they went on to say—
  "Judging from occasional opportunities of observation afforded to us in the course of ordinary business under the Charitable Trusts Act, we are led to believe that in many instances they are disregarded (that is the schemes). We know of no means for securing their due execution except by the creation of some system of periodical inspection of Endowed schools as we have already advocated in previous reports."
  They went on again to advocate the inspection of Endowed schools, for they had too much reason to fear that schemes were not being carried out. What had happened in regard to that? He framed a Bill to carry out a system of inspection, but afterwards attention was called to the subject in the House of Lords,
  850
  and on that occasion the noble Marquess the present Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury) denounced—with all that force of sarcasm and invective of which he was such a master, the audacity of—the men who dared to propose to interfere with the working of Endowed schools. After hearing that speech of the Marquess of Salisbury, he met the then Chief Charity Commissioner, Sir Seymour Fitzgerald, who also had heard the speech, and remembered his expression of regret at it. After that he (Mr. Mundella) knew it would be impossible to carry through the House of Lords any measure for the inspection of Endowed schools, and was obliged to drop it. He was glad, however, to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President speak in favour of such an inspection. On those schools mainly rested middle class education in the country. Enormous progress had been made under the Endowed Schools Act since 1885, and that in the face of great difficulties and the fiercest opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) would forgive him if he referred to one scheme which at the outset of the Act nearly wrecked the Commission and the Government too; he referred to the Emanuel School at Westminster. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the strongest opponents of that scheme, but he could now appeal to him and ask could there have been a more beneficent change? Every Governor of that school had told him that the opposition to the scheme was one of the greatest mistakes, and to-day the school was doing noble work in the City the right hon. Gentleman so worthily represented. Elsewhere the same thing had happened. There was the Hitchin scheme, which had passed through both Houses, opposition to it in the other House being defeated, and it only awaited the Royal assent to become law. But then there was a great scheme like that for dealing with Christ's Hospital, for years on the anvil, and was now tossed to and fro and pulled to pieces again and again and again. And whence came the opposition to it? From vested interests, local prejudice, and stupid obscurantism. There was money enough to educate three or four times as many students as now attended the schools and to do the work better, but the scheme was delayed

  851
  because there was a want of force behind the Charity Commission to carry it through. Associated as he had been with those Commissioners, he could testify to the admirable work they had done. Often he had heard them criticized and abused, and often he had defended them, and, take them for all in all, no public body in the country had done better service to the cause of education than the Charity Commissioners. But let not the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President suppose that when a system of inspection of Endowed schools was established, then all would be done that could be done. Inspection would have the very best effect on schools at work, but it would not plant new schools where now there were none. Manchester, Birmingham, and Bristol were the only three provincial towns that had anything approaching a fair supply of secondary education; and he believed the hon. Members for Birmingham would say that that town had not enough, but there were great towns in the North, numbers of them, with scarcely any endowments or any means of secondary education. Inspection would not fill up these gaps. Many parts of London, too, were as badly off. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President complained that the speeches in support of the Motion were vague, but he (Mr. Mundella) did not think so. He thought his hon. Friend was specific in his language. He quoted the German system, and he said where there were vacancies, provision must be made to fill them. He said money would be wanted as well as inspection, and no Government would be fulfilling its duty that did not make an attempt to meet the wants of the community with respect to secondary education. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Surely you would not venture to propose to inspect voluntary schools, private adventure schools."
  But did he not know that in Scotland that was being done to-day?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: Where it is asked for.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The demand was made, and the schools could not live without it.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think for a moment that he was opposed to such inspection where it
  852
  was asked for. He was speaking of cases where it might be objected to.
  MR. MUNDELLAwas glad to find the right hon. Gentleman had advanced thus far. In Scotland there was a very different state of things to that in England and Wales—["Hear, hear!"]. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) acknowledged that with a cheer. In this country we wanted that legislation that had been promised to put the country on an equality with Scotland, nor would he be content until that was obtained. Was it not a fact that all over Scotland there were what were called public schools—they were not called elementary schools—Scotchmen would resent that—they were public schools for education at the public expense, with grants from the National Exchequer, and whence young men were sent up to the Universities direct in hundreds every year? There were some 25 or 26 High Schools throughout Scotland—at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and elsewhere—all under the School Board, all maintained by the aid of rates, and all inspected at the expense of the National Exchequer. Was not an Endowments Act for Scotland passed, and in six years the Commission had dealt with all the endowments in Scotland, and splendid work they had done? A clause was inserted in that Act that every Endowed school should be inspected, and every such. school was being inspected annually. And with what result? He wished there was time to go into that question. Professor Crystal, in reference to the first examination, put the facts clearly, indicating the mischiefs that came from long neglect of inspection, and the good that would come from the system. That was what was wanted in England. England had vast educational endowments—estimated 20 years ago at £660,000 a year—applicable to secondary education, and which to-day would be worth £1,000,000 sterling, and this £1,000,000 should be turned to the very best possible account. There should be no longer such opposition as was offered to the Christ's Hospital scheme, and other great schemes; they should all be brought under public control. Where ever there was a gap in the supply, that should be filled up. Let it be obligatory upon the new County Councils to fill up such deficiencies, and complete the edu-

  853
  cational system connecting elementary with secondary education. But the blackest spot in our whole educational system was Wales. It was a scandal and disgrace, and words could not adequately describe how bad things were there. Instead of 16,000 youths attending secondary schools in Wales, Lord Aberdare and his Colleagues pointed out there were not more than 1,600 scholars attending secondary schools there. This was from no want of appreciation of the advantages of education on the part of Welsh parents. The Welsh people had made great efforts, and subscriptions among all classes, including quarrymen, miners, and others, varying in amount from 2s. 6d. to £5, had established three University Colleges. But they could not establish a system of Intermediate Education; they must wait for the Government to do that, and they had waited for three years. The Government need not ask what plan was proposed; the scheme was in the Council Office, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President came into Office, it was on the Table of the House, and the Treasury had promised the money. All that was required was for the Government to reproduce that plan and send it to a Committee Upstairs to work out the details. It was to be regretted that a debate of this kind should be relegated to the fag end of the last day of the week, and he deplored that only four hours should be devoted to it. He had trespassed so often on the House with this subject, and should probably often ask the indulgence again, that he would now make way for someone else. But, before sitting down, he would ask hon. Members not to sneer at the German system. When the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington stood up and described the German military system, the House listened with breathless attention. Attention was always paid to the German military system, why not to their educational system? Not long since he (Mr. Mundella) had the pleasure of a conversation with that most distinguished man, Professor Hoffman, to whom the afflicted German Emperor sent a patent of nobility on his birthday. Professor Hoffman said—
  "Whatever we Germans are in arms, in arts, or in commerce, we have accomplished it all by our educational system."
  854
  He further said, in answer to questions, that he sent his four sons to a school in the town, and their education cost 25 marks a-quarter, or £5 a-year each. With a smile and shrug of the shoulders, the Professor added that their education was a great deal better than that given at English public schools. The Germans had by their system made education good and cheap and acceptable to all classes of the community. One of the noblest State documents of modern times was that letter the Emperor, on ascending the Throne, addressed to Prince Bismarck, in which he said—
  "After all we have done, we must still do more for higher education. We must make higher education accessible to the whole population."
  Why should the English people stand lower in this respect than the Germans, or any other nation? The quality of English brains was as good, if not better, than that of any nation in the world. It was only opportunity that was wanting, and that we should never have without organization. Voluntary effort was of no use in this case; organization was required, that the work might be taken up by local authorities on the best and most useful lines laid down by the State.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that though the hour was late he hoped he might be allowed to make a few observations on the subject to which he had given much attention, though he had not had the opportunity of speaking upon it in the House. A debt of gratitude was due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), who seconded the Resolution, for the manner in which he had imparted a higher tone to the subject than that in which it had been often treated. He (Mr. F. S. Powell) confessed he was somewhat weary of what might be described as the bread and butter view of the subject, looking at it simply from the breadwinners' point of view. Such had been the view in the United States; but the United States had not ceased fighting with the wilderness, and were not in the position to give their people that higher culture and more elevated tone to which our own people ought to rise. He desired to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) to the want of

  855
  information which existed in regard to middle-class education. There was a Report of the Schools' Enquiry Commission nearly 20 years ago, but since that time the public had had no information of a reliable character on the subject. He had endeavoured, in connection with clerical movements, and also in reference to efforts of a more strictly secular character, to obtain information, but all those endeavours had failed, because those schools which most required examination entirely declined to submit to inspection. Where inspection was most wanted it was not conceded. He hoped the Government would cause some further inquiries to be made, because, until the House had the facts before it, it could not deal with the circumstances or apply the remedy which ought to be applied. In the course of the debate he had been struck with the fact that hon. Members had referred somewhat too much to past events. Progress had been made in the course of the last 10 years, and he did not think that sufficient attention was given to the advance which had taken place. Some reference had been made to the want of inspection by the Endowed Schools Commissioners; but he did not think it had been sufficiently borne in mind that all the schemes of the Endowed School Commissioners now imposed upon the Government bodies the duty of holding an examination every year, and of sending to the Commissioners a Report of the result of that examination. Such being the case, it was in the power of Parliament to require from every school an annual statement respecting the results of the examinations. He had been glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Seconder of the Resolution, and also the hon. Gentleman the Mover, speak of the essential importance, with a view to technical education, of elementary education. There seemed to be an opinion in some quarters that technical education could be given to a young person who was ignorant of the rudiments of learning. The only possible method of giving technical education which was to be of any real use, was to lay the superstructure of technical education upon the sound foundation of elementary knowledge. He had intended to address the House upon some other points; but he feared that the hour was very late, and
  856
  would therefore refrain from making any further observations, and on that occasion would not do more than thank the House for the patience with which they had listened to the remarks which he had made.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he had been sorry not to hear anything more encouraging from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke), but hoped he had rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Her Majesty's Government would grant certain assistance to the University Colleges. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of Universities, but he (Sir John Lubbock) supposed that was merely a lapsus linguæ, and that he meant University Colleges.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: Yes. Colleges.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that since 1880 a great deal had happened, and the Committee which sat in 1883 went into the whole question at considerable length, and gave many reasons why it would be extremely desirable to appoint a Minister of Education. When the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council said the Committee of 1883 merely gave an indication of a wish for the appointment of a Minister for Education, he must have forgotten the words of the Report, for the recommendation was as plain and distinct as anything could be. It was clear the Committee were strongly in favour of the appointment of such a Minister, and the Report even went the length of pointing out what his duties should be. The Committee said that a Minister of Education should be authorized, with respect to public schools, to call for Reports and information from time to time, and that with regard to Endowed Schools, it was desirable not only to have good schemes, but to see that those schemes were kept in good working order. This did not necessarily mean that the Minister for Education was to interfere with the working of the schools. The Committee also thought that with regard to the Universities which received grants, information might be given annually to Parliament, and that the miscellaneous grants for science and art should be under the control of some responsible Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Member

  857
  for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had remarked that the great progress of Germany in commerce was very much owing to the education which the people received. He (Sir John Lubbock) might point out that recently the Chambers of Commerce considered the question of appointment of a Minister for Education, and passed a unanimous Resolution in support of the proposal. He hoped the Government would give the question their attention from a commercial point of view, as well as from the other standpoints which had been put before the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he did not desire to occupy the attention of the House long. In the first place, he wished to return thanks to the hon. Member the Mover, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Seconder, of the Motion, for the very kindly manner in which they had dealt with the subject. They had both entirely divested it of anything approaching a Party character, while at the same time insisting upon the primary importance of education to all Parties in the country. The Government most cordially approved of, and concurred in, the spirit of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, in every sense of the word. It must, however, be remembered that the Resolution was of a somewhat abstract character, and the Government, therefore, desired to reserve a certain amount of liberty in interpreting it. Ministers, of course, felt that they had a responsibility to the House and to the country which was greater than that of Gentlemen who introduced propositions of this kind for the consideration of the House. His right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) had stated, on behalf of the Government, that they did recognize the importance of at least one of the propositions contained in the Resolution, and the speeches which had been delivered in support of it. They recognized the importance and the necessity for the inspection of Endowed schools after the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners had been laid on the Table of that House and had taken effect. The Government felt that the course which had been pursued in Scotland was one which might with very great
  858
  advantage be followed in England, and that steps ought to be taken for securing that the intentions with which those schemes were drawn up should be properly observed and carried out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) went somewhat beyond that, and insisted upon the necessity for the appointment of a Minister of Education. Well, it might be said that at the present moment there were two Ministers for Education, the Lord President of the Council and his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) did not contend that the present system was by any means perfect. He did not exclude the matter from the consideration of the Government; but he might be allowed, perhaps, to be somewhat sceptical as to the important advantages which it was supposed were always to be derived from the action of a Minister. He had noticed, both in that House and in the country, that if there was any body of gentlemen who were much in earnest in promoting any reform, they generally wanted to obtain official assistance. He regarded as of much greater value than official assistance, the effect of public opinion and that self-reliance for which Englishmen had usually been distinguished, and as being much more likely to furnish the force which was necessary to impel and move forward affairs in regard to education, as well as with reference to many other matters of the same character. He acknowledged, however, that it was the duty of the Government to ascertain for themselves whether the system at present existing was one which was, on the whole, the best calculated to secure the result which all desired to see attained. He was perfectly willing on behalf of the Government to undertake that the matter should be carefully reconsidered, with a view to seeing whether they could better arrange the supervision of education so as to preserve the characteristics of English education—namely, that independence which they all prided themselves upon, and the absence of that cast-iron system which prevailed in some countries, and which pressed all children into the same mould, apparently with the object of producing the same results. He thought this country had much to be proud of

  859
  in the system of education now prevailing in it, and in the very valuable results produced. With respect to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), he thought it would be a very great misfortune if any attempt were made to distribute endowments, as the distribution of endowments would give the greatest possible discouragement to those who, even in the present day, were willing to bestow their wealth in the endowment of objects in which they took geat interest. If Parliament insisted upon distributing endowments in a manner altogether foreign to the intention of the donors, he thought no greater discouragement could be given to the proper application of endowments. He wished to draw attention to the fact that there had been a certain amount of discrepancy between the speeches of some hon. Gentlemen who had, he believed, precisely the same object in view. He believed his right hon. Friend opposite was of opinion that it was not necessary to call on the State for any large contribution towards secondary education. He thought that also was probably the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. This did not, however, appear to be the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) should be very reluctant to find that there was any desire on the part of that House or of the country that the Government should give a large contribution towards secondary education. He did not believe it was necessary. He believed, also, that it would tend directly to check that liberty which prevailed among private individuals at the present time, and who could be relied upon to supply the necessary support to secondary schools wherever such schools were wanted. The Government admitted the expediency and the duty on the part of the State of providing for the extension of Endowed schools. They admitted that the benefits conferred by those schools should be extended, if the managers of such schools were willing to teach other secondary schools which were ready to avail themselves of them. The Government were willing that the system which prevailed in Scotland should be extended to England, and they were also willing
  860
  to consider whether they could place the administration of the Education Department in a position which was more in conformity with the views of those who were called educational reformers than that which it at present occupied. He could not, however, enter into an engagement with the House that a so-called Minister of Education should replace the President of the Council and the Vice President of the Council for Education; all he could say was that the Government were thoroughly in sympathy with all those who desired that the education of the country should be supervised and directed in the best possible way, but at the same time in such a manner as to leave the most complete liberty to the managers of schools to conduct their own affairs as they might think best, and to secure the education which was regarded as most suitable for their children, Under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Motion would not think it necessary to press it to a Division.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that as his hon. Friend the Member for the Rotherham Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. A. Dyke Acland) had to a certain extent brought forward his Motion in connection with an Association for the promotion of secondary education with which he (The Marquess of Hartington) was connected, and as he took great interest in the object of that Association, he thought he might be allowed to say a few words. He believed that his hon. Friend might be extremely satisfied with the character of the discussion which he had originated. No doubt his hon. Friend had not obtained from the Government all the assurances and all the encouragement which might be desired; but it was tolerably evident, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) that the particular aspects of the question which had been brought forward that evening had not recently engaged the very serious attention of the Government. This was not at all to be wondered at, considering the very arduous duties which the Government had to undertake in other directions; but whatever the reason, it was pretty clear that Ministers had not recently been deeply considering the question of

  861
  secondary education in this country. The important discussion which had taken place this evening must, however, have the effect of turning their attention to the subject; and he thought the House might rely upon the promise which had just been given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the views which had been brought forward would receive serious attention. He thought, also, it might be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to take some practical action in the direction indicated. He (the Marquess of Hartington) did not profess to be, in the smallest degree, an authority on educational questions. His attention had been solely directed to the subject in connection with that of technical education, and he had never attempted to look at the question from a high intellectual or moral standpoint. He had, however, been immensely impressed with the great importance of securing a good system of secondary education in connection with the necessity which, he believed, existed of keeping ourselves abreast of foreign countries in industry and commerce. He did not believe any Member of the Government would undertake to say that our secondary education at present was in a satisfactory position. It was not the business of any Member of the Government to do so; and any Member of the Government who ventured to make such a declaration would be exceeding the limit of his duty. What had been contended on that—the Opposition—side of the House was not only that a more efficient administration of the Educational Department might be secured by the appointment of a Minister, who should be more directly responsible to Parliament, but that it should be the duty of such a Minister to have regard to the efficiency of the system of education, both secondary and primary, than was at present the case. He did not say that secondary education should not be provided by private enterprize; but he did say that some responsible Minister of Her Majesty's Government ought to be able to give to the House information as to the position in which such education stood, and to advise Parliament as to what ought to be done in regard to the matter. That was the view he and his Friends took on the subject; and it was not merely the appointment of a new
  862
  Minister of State and the re-organization of the Office that they asked for. He hoped the Government would consider the question from this point of view. After what had been said, he trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire would not think it necessary to place the Government in any apparent position of opposition to himself, when they themselves did not desire to take up such a position. He, therefore, hoped that the Motion would not be pressed to a Division.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he thought he was expressing the views generally of those who sat on the Opposition side of the House, when he declared that the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on behalf of the Government had been thoroughly unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentlemen had refused point blank to accede to the demand for the appointment of a Minister of Education. All the Government had promised was that the Technical Education Bill of last Session was to be introduced again. In his opinion, the Bill of last Session was unsatisfactory, as it met very few of the views advocated by hon. Members of the Opposition. He had another complaint to make respecting the statements of the two right hon. Gentlemen. Not a single word had the right hon. Gentlemen opposite spoken on the question of intermediate education in Wales. The Government had promised to deal with the question, and now that they had a chance of giving practical application to the generous and benevolent views they were supposed to entertain, they simply shelved the subject. The House was told that there was no time to deal with the larger question respecting England, that it was impossible to interfere with private schools, and that the time of the Government was so taken up with Imperial Business that they could not devote much attention to the question of intermediate education in Wales. But there was really not a shred of excuse for the neglect of this subject by the Government, because there was a Bill now in the Education Department which met the wants of Wales on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the last Government gave his assent to the spending of a certain

  863
  amount of Imperial money in order to meet the expense of increasing intermediate education in Wales; and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had, therefore, a golden opportunity to give practical effect to his sentiments respecting education. The demand was made by the Welsh Members on no Party grounds whatever. They simply asked the Government to bring the Bill forward as an experiment in the direction of the re-organization of secondary education. Wales was a comparatively small part of the Kingdom, and it was distinct in its needs and circumstances and conditions. It was a part of the country which was sincerely anxious to deal with the question of education, and which had made many sacrifices in order to obtain education. There was a Bill on the subject ready to bring before Parliament. That Bill had been fully considered by the country, and its main principles had had the attention of Welsh Members on both sides of the House. Under those circumstances, he asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to give the House a definite and specific undertaking that the Bill should be introduced without delay.
  It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Poor Law Relief, The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury disch.: Earl of Jersey, The Lord Bishop of Rochester, Lord Sandhurst added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Augmentation of Benefices Act Amendment * (78); Duration of Speeches in Parliament * (79); Municipal Franchise Extension (Ireland) * (80).
Committee—Copyhold Acts Amendment (6–77).
Third Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works Commission * (62), and passed.
Royal Assent—Army (Annual) [51 Vict. c. 4]; East India (Purchase and Construction of Railways) [51 Vict. c. 5].

RAILWAYS—EMPLOYES' HOURS OF DUTY.
OBSERVATIONS QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to call attention to the recent Return of railway servants' hours of duty; and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether there is any objection to have a periodical Return to the Board of Trade of exceptional cases of overtime employment, said, that an analysis of the Return of railway employés' a hours of duty in the months of June and July last showed that there were 252,209 instances of being on duty 13 hours; 160,132 instances of being on duty 14 hours; 110,160 for 15 hours; 57,835 for 16 hours; 27,066 for 17 hours; and 25,525 for 18 hours and upwards. These included passenger and goods guards, drivers and firemen, and signalmen. On the Great Eastern Railway the percentage of passenger guards on duty more than 12 hours at a time during the month of January, 1887, was 4½ per cent; of goods guards 91½ per cent; of drivers and firemen 83½ per cent; and of signalmen 45¾ per cent. During the same time the figures for the Great Northern Railway were—Passenger guards, 26¾ per cent; goods guards, 87½ per cent; drivers and firemen, 92¾ per cent; and signalmen, 16⅓ per

721
cent. On the Great Western, for the same time, the percentage of passenger guards was ¾; goods guards, 73⅔; drivers and firemen, 91; and signalmen 5¾. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway—Passenger guards, 54½1 goods guards, 98 drivers and firemen, 96⅓;signalmen, 47 per cent. London and North-Western—Passenger guards, 9½ per cent; goods guards, 67⅓ per cent; drivers and firemen, 89¾; signalmen, 8½ per cent. London, Brighton, and South Coast—Passenger guards, 2 per cent; goods guards, nil; drivers and firemen, 98½; and signalmen, nil. On the Loudon and South-Western no passenger guards were on duty over 12 hours, and no signalmen. The percentage of goods guards was 19¾ and of drivers and firemen 15⅓. From a Return of the North-Eastern Railway, it appeared that of the signalmen employed on the 136 signal-boxes between Edinburgh and Darlington 45 were on duty for not more than 10 hours, the limit that ought not to be exceeded to secure safety; while 91 were on duty over that period each day.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, he was not going to ask their Lordships to offer any opposition to the Return which had been moved for by the noble Earl, but he desired to point out that the Return which had already been presented was not a satisfactory one. The noble Earl, who had moved for a Return of overtime during the months of January and July, could hardly have chosen two months which gave a more erroneous impression as to the average number of hours during which railway servants were at work. In January the traffic was frequently obstructed by snow-blocks, there was a constantly recurring danger caused by fogs, and men who were experienced in signalling had often to be on fog duty for a number of hours at a stretch. Besides, men were occasionally taken ill, and other men of tried ability for signalling had to take their places, and probably work a little longer than ordinary. Again, July was a month when the excursion traffic was at its height, and it was necessary to bear in mind that when men were sent out with excursion trains they had charge only of one train, and that a considerable portion of the time returned as "on duty"
722
was spent it might be at the seaside or at race meetings. The men were not working from the time they left until they returned, but were paid for the whole time. Therefore, he thought that a Return for overtime during these two months only would be apt to produce a very erroneous impression. In the case of engine-drivers, the Companies did all they could to prevent them from being too long on duty. For instance, on the London and North-Western there was an order that when a driver had been 15 hours at work he should report the fact to a stationmaster, who would telegraph to the nearest available station in order that the driver might be relieved on his arrival there. The drivers were fined if that order was not obeyed. If the Returns asked for were not accurate, they were worse than useless; he, therefore, hoped that the noble Earl would confer with him in order to settle the best way in which the real truth as to overtime could be ascertained, and also to settle the form in which the Return ought to be laid on the Table.
LORD STALBRIDGEsaid, the noble Earl had given a correct account of how Railway Companies acted in regard to their men. They paid for overtime at the rate of time and a-quarter on the London and North-Western line, of which he was a Director, and he believed it was also paid for on all other lines. Therefore it was obvious that it was not the interest of the Companies to encourage overtime. The noble Earl who represented the Board of Trade had mentioned that there was an order on the London and North-Western that all men who found themselves on duty for 15 hours should immediately report the circumstance to the stationmaster of the first station at which they stopped, in order that relief might be ready for them at the next available station. He might inform their Lordships that that order had been in existence for many years past. There was this reason why in some cases there must be overtime. The two most unfavourable months in the year for the Railway Companies—namely, January and July—had been selected by the noble Earl for the proposed Return. It would be in the memory of most noble Lords that in the month of January there had been extraordinary fogs, which lasted in some instances for

723
six days; and those who were acquainted with railway working would agree with him that it was astonishing that the traffic was so well conducted during the prevalence of the fog. There was hardly any accident, and on the London and North-Western hardly any train was late. Those facts told greatly in favour of the managers of the railways, and of the devotion of their employés. Overtime was an absolute necessity in this country, and for the following reason. If any Railway Company were to keep a sufficiently large number of men, engines, and brakesmen to meet the maximum traffic, the result obviously would be that the men would necessarily be on short time for a large part of the year. What the Companies wanted were loyal, devoted, and experienced men. They must have such men to work the trains, and if they had to work a few hours' overtime at certain times of the year they got the benefit of it on other occasions. On the London and North-Western Line and on other lines the men had every opportunity of making their grievances known to their superiors. He knew very well that the Directors of every well-regulated line did their best to diminish this overtime. In some cases, however, there was a difficulty in preventing men from working overtime, because they naturally liked the extra wages. Sometimes, when a man was entered on the list as having worked for 16 or 18 hours, perhaps he might have been resting or standing idle for from eight to 10 hours, and consequently he was well able to go on and to continue his duties after that time. In spite of what the noble Earl had said, he thought the figures showed that the passenger guards, the signalmen, and the passenger drivers had been kept within well-controlled time. There was another point in regard to the engine-drivers on the London and North-Western. What the Company did was this. At every place where they had a large number of engines and enginemen they had lodging-houses kept on purpose for them. The houses were fitted up with bedrooms, and had every accommodation for cooking, so that immediately a man had finished his journey he could go into one of these houses and take his rest. He got his lodging for nothing, and was ready for the return journey. He did not wish to weary the
724
Lord with an enumeration of particular cases, but he could show in almost every instance that some special reason existed for the overtime. There were 23 instances of men working 16 hours a-day. In one case, however, there were but few trains, and the man was on duty only five days a-week. In another case a man had to wait for a single train; and these were typical instances of overtime with signalmen. On the North-Eastern Railway the guard of an excursion train was on duty for 20¼ hours, but 10½, hours of that he was at rest in the terminal station. It was impossible on a great line of railway to avoid occasional irregularities, and in these cases no physical suffering was endured. In one case a Member of Parliament required a special train on a branch line early in the morning. A number of signalmen were thus made to appear as having worked eight hours' overtime and having had to resume work after four hours' rest, though they only had this one train to wait for. Again, on the Midland there were four goods guards, each of whom was on duty between 21 and 22 hours. This was caused by the delay of trains in consequence of a landslip. On the previous day there had been a dense fog, which utterly disorganized work; but most of the time the men were sitting in their brakes smoking their pipes. In the Erewash Valley, again, five guards were on duty for exceptionally long hours in consequence of a fog. Without these explanations entirely wrong impressions were likely to get abroad on the question of overtime. In these exceptional cases it was obvious that it would not be safe to trust to any but the most experienced men. On the London and North-Western Railway the total number of passenger guards was 439, and in the month of July only 44 worked more than 12 hours—that was 3·18 per cent; and out of the 2,165 signalmen the number was 14, or 0·64 per cent. No doubt the enginemen worked rather longer overtime than the other men. The total engine mileage of the London and North Western Railway was over 54,000,000, and of this 12 per cent was special mileage—that was, when trains were called out for special purposes, sometimes at a moment's notice, in the case of goods trains, for urgent or perishable goods, such as fish, &c. The re-

725
turns of the London and North-Western Railway reflected great credit on the locomotive department, and it was a great mistake to suppose that no effort was taken to prevent or reduce overtime. The Directors knew that the men were not dissatisfied, and that the public were not dissatisfied. He could appeal to the list of accidents for 1885–6, in which only two cases were to be found in which there was any question of any of the men concerned working unduly long hours. He was not arguing against the Return, but lie hoped that for the purposes of the next Return fair working months would be chosen, say April and September. These Returns, however, were a source of great expense to the Railway Companies and to the country, and he hoped they would not be moved for year after year.
EARL DELA WARRsaid, he was quite ready to accept what had been offered by the noble Earl. He wished also to say that the months were not chosen by himself, and that no one more highly appreciated than himself the admirable way in which our railways were managed.

LIGHTHOUSES AND LIGHTSHIPS— TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE SHORE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the desirability of electrical communication between light vessels and outlying lighthouses and the shore. An interesting discussion on this important question had been recently held at a meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and at a meeting of the Plymouth Chamber, of which he was a member, there had been a discussion on the question which was well worth attention. The Committee had dealt mainly with lightships and lighthouses near the mouth of the Thames, though the recommendations of some Chambers of Commerce went so far as to urge that cables all round the coast should connect all the lighthouses with the General Post Office system, That, however, would involve great expense. He hoped that the Bill—which, he believed, was shortly to be intro-
  726
  duced—would enable Lloyd's to purchase sites for their signal stations. He desired to call attention to the subject, particularly in connection with saving life at sea. At present the only means of communicating information of wrecks from lightships or lighthouses was by rockets and guns; but these signals were not wholly satisfactory. The guns often were not heard, and in fogs the rockets were not seen; and, in many cases, they did not indicate the position of the wreck—a matter of the highest importance—nor did they give any information as to its size, or the number of passengers to be saved; whereas the telegraph could at once communicate all these particulars. He need not dwell on the enormous importance of time in these cases. A few hours, often a few minutes, made all the difference between absolute disaster and the saving of life. He might quote from the experience of the coxswain of the lifeboat at Ramsgate to show the inestimable value of telegraphic communication, and that, under the present system of rockets, a wreck might lie for many hours in great peril without those on land, 20 miles away, knowing anything about it. He particularly mentioned the case of the Indian Chief, which got aground early in the morning. In this instance, telegraphic communication would have been of the greatest importance. He thought it would be sufficient to read one paragraph from the evidence of Captain Glover, who mentioned that telegraphic communication would have been the means of saving hundreds of lives. The superintendent of the telegraph department of Lloyd's gave a number of instances in which telegraphic communication would have saved lives. In the case of the Schiller, lost about 15 years ago, 331 lives were sacrificed, and the Coroner's jury gave it as their opinion that if there had been electric communication the vessel would have been saved. He would also mention a case off the coast of his own county, where a vessel which was wrecked might I have been saved if her state had been known in time. This system had been adopted in Canada, where telegraphic communication was used for commercial purposes, as well as in North Germany, where the lighthouses were connected with the shore, in Denmark, and, ho thought, in Sweden and Norway. He

  727
  was not anxious now to urge on the Government a great expenditure; but he wished to insist that the question should not be lost sight of. He hoped that they would hear that there would be a gradual extension of the system. The country at large was interested to an extraordinary extent, a year or two ago, in the subject of the saving of life at sea; and he ventured to think that, without incurring very large expense, communications might be established between certain prominent lightships, and also outlying lighthouses, and the shore by means of the appliances of modern science. He hoped the subject would be seriously considered by the Board of Trade, and that gradually and cautiously the system would be extended.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OE TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, that the subject to which the noble Earl had called attention was one which interested a very large and important body in this country—namely, the Mercantile Marine. At the outset it was important to call attention to the terms of reference of the Committee. It was appointed with the special object of facilitating the saving of life at sea, and the reason for that reference was that the funds which the Government were enabled to devote to that purpose could only be derived from one source, and that source was the Mercantile Marine Fund. Now, by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, it was provided that the Mercantile Marine Fund should be applied to the Local Marine Board and purposes connected with it, the expenses of surveyors of steamships, expenses of Lighthouse Authorities, lastage and ballastage of the Thames, expenses of Wreck Receivers, the preservation of life and property from and in case of shipwreck, any expenses specially charged by Act of Parliament, and "for no other purpose whatever." Therefore it was quite impossible to apply any portion of the Mercantile Marine Fund for the purpose of establishing electrical communication around our shores for commercial purposes. If it was desired to do anything in that way in the interests of commerce, the fund must be provided by shipowners themselves or by the Post Office, who were bound by Treasury regulations to incur no expenditure which would not either prove
  728
  remunerative or be guaranteed by those deriving benefit from it. Apart, however, from the question of cost, there was a question of danger to the lightships themselves, because if masters were able to make communications with the shore through the lightships, the number of vessels which would approach to the lightships would largely increase, with the consequent risk that the lightships might be run down and a dangerous shoal or sandbank left absolutely unprotected. It was the duty of the Board of Trade and the Lighthouse Authorities to see that expenditure for this purpose was devoted, in the first place, to the prevention of wrecks, and not to offering temptations for lightships being approached for signalling purposes. A few years ago the lighthouse dues were very largely reduced, and the bad trade had caused a further falling-off. The consequence was that in 1886 it was found necessary to borrow for the purposes of the Mercantile Marine Fund the sum of £250,000 from the funds of Greenwich Hospital. In 1886–7 £100,000 of that sum had to be expended in order to make up a deficiency between receipts and expenditure. Taking the accounts for 1886–7, the last completed, as representing the annual expenditure and as a basis of comparison, the deficiency for the year 1887–8 might be taken at £160,000, being £68,000 in excess of dues for maintenance of lighthouses and new works, and £92,000 in excess of income upon other branches of the service—namely, Mercantile Marine offices, surveys of ships, expenses of saving life on the coast, and relief of distressed seamen abroad. But inasmuch as the receipts from light dues had increased by £12,000, and as the accounts of the Lighthouse Boards for only six months for the last year, 1887–8, had been as yet received, he had obtained from those Boards an estimate of their expenditure for the succeeding three months to December 31, 1887. This information led to the conclusion that the deficiency for the whole year 1887–8 might possibly not exceed £110,000. During the last 10 years there had been an average of about £50,000 expended on new works. In the unfortunate state of the Mercantile Marine Fund the Board of Trade had done all they could to reduce the expenditure on new works, but they had not

  729
  been able to reduce it below £85,800. The reason of this was that in these days shipowners and perhaps shipmasters were tempted to drive their ships by lights, instead of, as in times past, navigating them by the lead. Consequently, demands would continue to be made for illuminants of higher powers, for fog signals emitting increased volumes of sound, and other appliances which inventors were not slow to urge the Board of Trade to adopt. As things were, the means of signalling ships coming to our ports were very considerable, and shipowners had no great difficulty in obtaining early information regarding the approach of their vessels. It was a difficult and expensive task to establish communication between isolated rocks and the mainland, but experiments were now being carried out by Lloyd's without actual metallic contact in this direction, and if those experiments were successful there was reason to hope that the system of communication between outlying rocks and the land might be very largely made use of. For vessels coming up the east end of the Channel there were ample means of communication, as there were stations at Dungeness, Beachy Head, two at Dover, and one at Deal, while it was under consideration whether there should not be another at the North Foreland. Vessels approaching the Thames from the North were reported at Southend Pier, and it was contemplated to establish a station at Orfordness, which vessels approaching the Thames could hardly miss. For the East Coast north of the Thames there were Flamborough, Yarmouth, Grimsby, and Aldborough. With regard to the experiments which had been made at the Sunk lightship, they had been very costly. The ship cost £7,000 without the fog signals; but for the purposes proposed this vessel would be too small, and it would be necessary to expend £8,000 on any other ship for like purposes, while the cost of maintenance would amount to £2,420 a-year, exclusive of £4,000 for the cable. What had been the practical results of the Sunk experiments? Since its establishment the ship had only called the lifeboat out seven times by telegraph, and on every one of those occasions the lifeboat had been apprised earlier by the rocket signals. It must be remembered that it was
  730
  not possible always to have a man watching the shore end of the cable; he might be in bed, and only be called up by the ringing of the bell, and then he would have to go out to give the message. It was true that there was one advantage of communication by cable—namely, that it might prevent the lifeboat from going out on a futile errand after the wreck had been got off; but he must point out that the lifeboat men were paid for every time they went out 10 s. in the day and £1 at night. It had been argued that by having cable communication those on shore were able to know the exact locality of the wreck; but it must be remembered that rockets were fired in the direction of the wreck, and consequently the lifeboat men were able to form an accurate idea as to where the wreck was lying. It might be the case that cable communication would have been of advantage in the case of the Deutschland and the Indian Chief, but there the want had been not so much of communication between lightship and shore as that there was no ship at all at the most important point. Since that time a ship had been placed at the Long Sand, and only one casualty had occurred since. To establish cable communication was a very expensive matter. A light cable chafed, while with a heavy one there was the risk of the ship's anchor fouling it and the ship sheering on to the lightship and causing it considerable damage. The experiments, therefore, at the Sunk hardly justified further expenditure in the same direction. The Mercantile Marine Fund was in a state approaching bankruptcy and could not be saddled with further burdens, while shipowners were not ready to come forward themselves. Lloyd's and The Shipping Gazette had done much to prevent loss of life at sea by supplying early information, and he trusted that the Bill shortly to be introduced by Lloyd's might pass through Parliament that Session; at all events, it would meet with no opposition on the part of the Government. He held that it was the duty of the Government with respect to this question rather to prevent wrecks than to give information after they had taken place, to spend their funds upon maintaining the efficiency of our existing lightships, and then, if anything further was possible, to increase the number of those ships. He

  731
  could not, therefore, hold out to the noble Earl that there was any chance of the Government taking up this question at present.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, he was sorry to hear the answer just given by the noble Earl. He had been disappointed in the Report which had been sent to the Board of Trade by the Committee appointed to consider the question of saving life at sea, and he had himself desired to send a fuller Report, recommending that further experiments should be carried on, but in a different manner. He was, however, bound to be guided by the opinion of the remainder of the Committee, and he had, therefore, been unable to give effect to his views. He was all the more pleased., therefore, that their Lordships' attention should be called to this subject. He agreed with the noble Earl opposite that the Committee had been rather too guarded in the expression of their views. There had been several matters which they had wished to recommend; but they had been informed that the present state of the funds at the disposal of the disposal of the Board of Trade prevented any possibility of carrying out such suggestions. He believed that much would be done by the Bill which Lloyd's had promoted last Session, in which they engaged to transmit information of wrecks to the nearest lifeboat station. He was happy to say that the experiments which had been tried showed that it had been found possible to maintain electric communication between the shore and the lightships, and that the ordinary work of maintaining or repairing the cables, if broken, was carried out by the men on board the "Sunk" lightship in a most satisfactory manner. Those experiments had been continued throughout the winter with the most satisfactory results. The noble Earl had said that the cost of maintaining that communication was very great; but, on the other hand, the value of the service rendered by means of that communication ought not to be overlooked. He thought that it would be in the interests of the lightships themselves that they should be of a larger type. It had been found that, while the men on board the lightships off the coast could see for miles around them, at night the coast was hidden by fog, and no signals made
  732
  on the ships could be seen from the shore. In these circumstances telephonic communication between the ships and the shore would be of the utmost value. He did not advise that lightships should be made the medium of communicating between passing vessels and the shore, because that might lead a vessel into too close proximity to the lightship, and thus cause danger to both. Lightships were placed in their positions for the purpose of warning vessels to keep away, and not for the purpose of attracting them into positions of danger. He hoped that provision would be made for giving special duty pay to those seamen who, by learning the technical details of cable maintenance, wore thus saving for the Department the wages of a professional electrician.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that there had been too many objections, good, bad, and indifferent, offered by the noble Earl (the Earl of Onslow) in his reply to the observations of his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley). He was aware that it was the duty of the Government to exercise the strongest possible supervision over the expenditure of the country; but, at the same time, in the matter of saving life at sea, ho thought, even if the Mercantile Marine Fund was, as had been alleged, almost insolvent, the difficulty of want of funds for that purpose might be overcome by making an application to Parliament. It was stated on behalf of the Government that experiments had been tried with regard to electric communication between the shore and lightships, and that it had been found impossible to keep the cables in continuous I good working condition. He understood, however, that the noble Earl who had last spoken took exactly the opposite view of the matter, and that the experiments had proved successful. However that might be, the experiments ought not to be dropped, and he hoped that the Government would give the House an assurance that both in the interest of commerce and life-saving they would consider the subject further, instead of finally putting it one side.

  COPYHOLD ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (The Lord Hobhouse.)
  (NO. 6.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Memorandum of enfranchisement to be enrolled and take effect as award) agreed to.
  LORD HOBHOUSE,in moving the insertion of a new clause, said, the object of the Bill was to enable parties to enter memorandums upon Court Rolls when they had agreed upon the compensation to be made, and to give such memorandums the effect of an award; but by the Act of last year power was given to get rid of quit rents, and it had been found that in some manors which were now extinct there was no Court to go to, and therefore memorandums could not be entered. In such cases, a receipt would, by the new clause, have the same effect. There could be no objection to that course except by the Treasury, on the ground that it would interfere with the Stamp Duties; and the consent of the Treasury had been obtained.
  Moved, after Clause 1, insert as a new Clause—
  "In every case where the compensation to be paid for the extinguishment of the rights or incidents mentioned in the seventh section of the Copyhold Act, 1887, has been ascertained under the Copyhold Acts without reference to the Commissioners, and such compensation has been duly paid or secured to the lord or the owner of such rights and incidents, and there is no existing manor, or no court roll on which a memorandum can be entered, a receipt for such compensation, signed by such lord or owner, shall be as effectual as an award of enfranchisement for extinguishing such rights and incidents, and for releasing and enfranchising the land subject thereto."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  New Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Stamp Duty).
  On the Motion of Lord HOBHOUSE, the following Amendments made:—At the end of line 27 add ("and every such receipt"); after Clause 2, insert a new Clause which, after some conversation, was agreed to, as follows:—
  "The second schedule to this Act shall be substituted for the schedule to the Copyhold Act, 1837, and section twenty-seven of that Act shall be read as referring to the second schedule to this Act."
  Clause 3 (Provision for mortgages where enfranchisement effected by memorandum).
  On the Motion of Lord HOBHOUSE, the following Amendments made:—In line 1, leave out ("it shall appear that"); lines 3 and 4, leave out ("for the purpose of securing any sum of
  734
  money"); lines 4 and 5, leave out ("shall state the purport of such surrender or customary mortgage and.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Boundaries of land enfranchised by memorandum).
  On the Motion of Lord HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment made:—At end of Clause add—
  ("Subject to any agreement between the parties such plan shall be made at the cost of the party requiring it.")
  On the Motion of The Earl of MILLTOWN, the following new Clause was inserted after Clause 4:—
  (Power to agree with regard to minerals, &c.)
  "In any agreement under the third section of the Copyhold Act, 1887, any lord or any tenant may provide for the reservation or grant to the lord of any rights, casements, or liberties over the surface of the land to be enfranchised, whether in relation to the minerals under or upon the same or any other matter."
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that the new clauses he was about to propose were unanimously agreed to by the Select Committee of their Lordships' House last Session; but they were afterwards dropped in "another place," because it was understood that they would be opposed by some hon. Members who took an extreme view of the rights of the tenants. He thought that it was not fair to their Lordships' Committee, which had given great care and consideration to the subject, nor respectful to their Lordships' House, that this important clause, the object of which was to enable minerals to be worked when the lord and the tenant could not agree should be rejected without discussion.
  Moved, to insert the following Clauses:—
  (Provisions as to minerals where existing rights have been reserved on enfranchisement.)
  "Whereas in many manors the freehold ownership of minerals contained in copyhold tenements is vested in the lord, but subject to the copyhold or possessory interests of the tenant, so that neither party can work such minerals without the consent of the other: and whereas in many cases of enfranchisement such rights have been left unaffected: Be it enacted, that in all such cases, and in similar cases, occurring upon enfranchisements effected after the passing of this Act, the following provisions shall apply:—
  (a.) The lord may give to the tenant notice in writing that he desires to work for and get any of such minerals, and for that purpose to purchase from the tenant such rights of way, of sinking shafts, or working by out-stroke, or otherwise, as the lord shall specify in his notice.

  735
  (b.) Agreements may be made by or on behalf of the lord and the tenant as to the amount and nature of the compensation to be paid for the acquisition of such rights as fully and effectually as similar agreements may be made with respect to compensation for land to be enfranchised.
  (c.) If no such agreement is made within six months after service of the notice, the matter may be referred by either party to the Land Commissioners, including the question whether the compensation is to be by a capital sum or a rentcharge or a royalty, and the Commissioners shall determine the same.
  (d.) The lord may exercise the rights specified in his notice when, and not before, the compensation, if by way of gross sum, has been paid, or, if by way of rent or royalty, has been finally ascertained.
  (e.) Any compensation payable by way of gross sum shall be paid over, held, and dealt with for the benefit of the persons interested therein in the same manner, mutatis mutandis, as compensation payable to the lord in a gross sum would be dealt with under the Copyhold Acts, or as near thereto as the circumstances of the case will admit.
  "Nothing in this section shall derogate from any special interest in, or right or power over, minerals which may have been acquired by express and special agreement between lord and tenant, whether at the date of the enfranchisement or otherwise.
  (Preceding section to apply to successors in title.)
  "The preceding section shall apply to the successors in title of the persons who were lord and tenant respectively at the date of the enfranchisement as fully as if the copyhold tenure of the minerals contained in the enfranchised land had been kept on foot to all intents and purposes, and as if the copyhold tenure in the land enfranchised had been kept on foot to all intents and purposes, and as if the owner for the time being of the enfranchised land were still the copyhold tenant thereof."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, these clauses were most important, and he would be glad if they could be passed into law. They were in the Bill of last year, and were dropped in the House of Commons, and he feared that the placing of them in this Bill would endanger its passing through the other House. They were opposed on their merits, and also on the ground that they did not apply to copyhold tenements.
  New Clauses agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he would call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that the words just inserted did not seem to have sufficient regard to special
  736
  customs in Derbyshire and Devonshire as to the payment of compensation in certain cases, and hoped that the question would be dealt with on the Report.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Schedules agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday the 3rd of May next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 77.)

  AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES ACT AMEND MENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend an Act for the augmentation of certain benefices, the right of presentation to which is vested in the Lord Chancellor—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 78.)
  DURATION OF SPEECHES IN PARLIAMENT BILL [H.L.] (NO. 79.)
  A Bill to ascertain and limit the duration of speeches in Parliament And

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE EXTENSION (IRE LAND) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 80.)
  A Bill to enable women to vote in municipal elections throughout Ireland: Were presented by The Lord Denman; read 1a.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Four o'clock.