Sitting of 5 August 1889

QUESTIONS.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the statement, contained in the correspondence between the managers of the Luton National School and the Education Department, to the effect that Her Majesty's Inspector adopted "the 10 square feet per child basis" in calculating the accommodation now provided in the Luton National Boys' School, and to the fact that such basis has been approved by the Department; and, whether, having regard to Article 9fraud Note of the Code, which directs that "8 square feet of internal area for each unit of average attendance" shall be the basis adopted, and having regard to the principle hitherto acted upon by the Department that voluntary schools shall not be touched by the 10 square feet basis, and that in case of schools which have been passed by the Department for a certain number of children the arrangement shall not be disturbed, he will say what the Department hold to be the future basis to be used in reckoning the amount of accommodation in voluntary schools.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: My attention has been called to this statement. There is no interference with voluntary schools as to space, so far as the Code and the grant are concerned. The rule laid down in the Luton case is the same which has been acted upon since the passing of the Act of 1870—namely, that a School

  323
  Board may calculate the deficiency in school places on the assumption that 10 square feet is a reasonable allowance for each child.
  MR. S. LEIGHTON: I beg to give notice that on the Education Estimates I will call attention to this new departure in treating the voluntary schools upon a different footing to the Board Schools.

  IRELAND—DRAPERS' COMPANY'S ESTATES.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to Mr. Commissioner Lynch's remarks on certain preceedings connected with the Drapers' Company's estates in Ireland, made on the 26th July and 1st August, whether the Government intend to take criminal proceedings for the purpose of protecting the Exchequer against injury from irregular and improper action in connection with the Land Purchase Act; and whether the conduct of the Justice of the Peace who passed the agreement has been brought before the notice of the Lord Chancellor?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The Land Commissioners Report that there is a Motion listed before Mr. Commissioner Lynch for to-day on behalf of the Messrs. Glover, solicitors, to rescind the Order made against them, and that, pending the hearing of that Motion, it would be premature to offer any opinion as to what further steps, if any, should be taken in the matter. Mr. Commissioner Lynch has transmitted the Papers to the Lord Chancellor having regard to the manner in which two affidavits were sworn before a Justice of the Peace.

  THE ROYAL ARTILLERY AND ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to complaints that a restrictive limit of compensation was withheld from the knowledge of Officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers when they were invited to retire under the Royal Warrants of 1881 and 1884; whether the principle of actuarial calculation has been applied to all cases of
  324
  Regimental full Colonels of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, and also to the cases of Lieutenant Colonels, Royal Engineers, subsequent to that of Lieutenant Colonel E. M. Lloyd; whether a Treasury Minute, or a Departmental Ruling, of September, 1882, has been applied to the cases of those Lieutenant Colonels, Royal Engineers, who retired under the above Warrant, from Lieutenant Colonel E. R. James to the case of Lieutenant E. B. Mainguy, thereby reducing their life annuities for loss sustained under Warrants of a later date than 1872, to £150 a year, instead of granting them the compensation they were entitled to on actuarial calculations, as stipulated by the Warrant; and, whether he will lay such Minute or Ruling upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information he desires upon this particular point.

  IMPORTATION OF SHEEP AND CATTLE.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the Vice Chamberlain whether the increased imports of mutton into this country since the stoppage of the German sheep are much greater than any loss due to the discontinuance of live sheep from that country; whether it is a fact that, while 176,000 fewer sheep have been landed in England in the first six months of 1889 than in those of 1888, the receipts of fresh mutton have been greater by 135,000 cwt. or, roughly, the equivalent in mutton of 270,000 sheep; and, whether, considering that the entire import of cattle from Schleswig-Holstein has ranged from 8,000 to 15,000 head annually, any loss to our meat supplies from the non-importation of cattle from that country this summer is far more than made up by the fact that the live imports of cattle generally in the first half of 1889 have exceeded those of 1888 by over 50,000 head?
  MR. BEAUFOY: I wish also to ask whether, taking into consideration the hardship inflicted on the working classes in London by the present high price of meat, especially of mutton and lamb, he will consider the desirability of removing the present restriction on the importation of

  325
  cattle and sheep from the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein?
  THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (Viscount LEWISHAM,: Since the discontinuance of the imports of live sheep from Germany it is true that the receipts of fresh mutton have largely increased. It is also the case that though sheep "on the hoof" from Germany have been and are prohibited, the imports of fresh mutton from that country have been largely augmented, so that nearly an equivalent of live sheep has been received as fresh mutton. The receipts of live sheep into the United Kingdom from all foreign countries were in the six months ended June 30, 1889, 174,975 less than in the corresponding period of last year and 234,871 less than in 1887. On the other hand, the imports of fresh mutton were in the same periods 135,034 cwt. in excess of 1888 and 265,346 cwt. over 1887. The receipts of cattle from all foreign countries and British possessions were in the six months of 1889 233,442, as compared with 181,317 in 1888, and 132,585 in 1887; while of fresh beef the quantity was 622,370 cwt. in the six months of this year, against 409,358 cwt. in 1888 and but 337,556 cwt. in 1887. The present high prices of mutton and lamb are due to the better state of trade generally, and consequent greater spending power of the consuming classes, and not to any diminished receipt of foreign meat, since the figures given show that the receipts of meat of foreign origin have been far in excess of those in previous years. According to the latest Returns received from the German Government, foot-and-mouth disease existed in Schleswig-Holstein up to July 16.

  CAB-OWNERS AND THE EXCISE LICENCE.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has been able to make arrangements with the Board of Inland Revenue, which will afford any alleviation to cab-owners in respect to the Excise Licence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I have been in communication with the Board of Inland Revenue, and they inform me that the present practice under the existing law could not be altered, and that
  326
  any change in the law would present some practical difficulties. Hackney carriage licences are on the same footing as the other establishment licences (ordinary carriages, servants, and armorial bearings) and the dog licences.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Upon the 3rd of June the right hon. Gentleman held out some hope that an arrangement might be come to between the Home Office and the Board of Inland Revenue. Does he see any chance of that arrangement being arrived at?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I stated that I would communicate with the Board of Inland Revenue in order to see whether anything could be done, and the answer I have given to the question of the hon. Gentleman gives the result of that communication.

  THE SHANNON DRAINAGE BILL AND THE IRISH FISHERIES.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries gave public notice of their intention to hold inquiries at Athlone, Killaloe, and Limerick, as to what effect the works proposed under the Shannon Drainage Bill would have on the Shannon fisheries; that the Board of Works, in a letter dated 9th July ultimo, promised to have one of their engineer present at the inquiry to explain the nature and extent of the proposed works, of which the Shannon Fishery Conservators were left in ignorance; and that on the faith of this promised information a large number of landed and riparian proprietors, conservators, professional gentlemen, and fishermen had come long distances, at great personal inconvenience, to attend the first of these inquiries at Athlone on Wednesday, 31st ultimo; whether the Board of Works were represented at this meeting; and, if not, in face of their summons, to explain absence; whether the meeting proved abortive in the absence of the information which could be supplied only by the Board of Works; and, whether he would direct the Board of Works to give reasonable compensation to the professional gentlemen and other witnesses who attended the inquiry, for personal expenses and loss of time occasioned by a breach of faith on the part of the Board.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: The absence of the Board of Works representative was, I am informed, due to the fact that the date of the inquiry had been altered to the 31st ultimo, and the notification of the alteration miscarried owing to the absence of the Chief Engineer in London on a Parliamentary Committee. The Fishery Commissioners had, however, already been furnished with all plans and available information; and, under these circumstances, I cannot admit any liability on the part of the Board of Works for the expense caused by the adjournment.

  IRELAND—PRISON TREATMENT— WHITEWASHED CELLS.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland what is the result of his promised inquiry as to the condition of Francis Tully, prisoner in Limerick Gaol for a term of 12 months' imprisonment, and who has been certified by the District Prison Surgeon to be suffering from catarrhal ophthalmia; and if he can state the nature of his offence, by what Magistrate tried, and what period he has been in gaol?
  MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board inform me that the Medical "Officer of the prison reports that the prisoner, Francis Tully, had been treated for slight catarrhal ophthalmia, but that he is now well and his general health good. The prisoner is undergoing sentences of two terms of imprisonment of six months each—one for assaulting a bailiff, the other for resisting and obstructing the Sub-sheriff. The committing Magistrates were Mr. Hickson, R.M., and Mr. Brady, R.M. He has now been 10 months in prison.
  MR. SEXTON: Considering the numerous cases which have been brought to the notice of the Government of ophthalmia arising from imprisonment in Irish gaols, have they any objection to order an inquiry to be made in order to ascertain whether whitewashed walls have any injurious effect upon the eyesight?
  MR. MADDEN: As questions upon that subject have already been put to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, I think it would be better that the question should be repeated when he is in his place.

  THE BAND OF THE DUBLIN WORKMEN'S CLUB.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the Irish Board of Works have refused to permit the band of the Dublin Workmen's Club to play a selection of music in St. Stephen's Green Public Park on Sunday evenings during the present summer?
  MR. JACKSON: St. Stephen's Green Park is a square in the city surrounded by private residences, places of public worship, and a hospital. The Board of Works have not felt justified, under the circumstances, in permitting bands to play in it on Sundays.
  MR. SEXTON: Is not this a very large square indeed, and cannot some arrangement be made by which the band can be allowed to perform without interfering with the arrangements for divine service? I may remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the band of the Board of Works is allowed to play in the Phoenix Park.
  MR. JACKSON: I shall be glad to make further inquiry, but I think it is hardly fair to compare this square to the Phœnix Park.

  EVICTIONS ON LORD CLANRICARDE'S ESTATE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what particulars he can give of the recent evictions on Lord Clanricarde's estate in the Portumna district; whether any further evictions there are in contemplation; what offers of settlement, if any, were made on the part of the landlord and of the tenants respectively; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of any Correspondence between any member or officer of the Irish Government and any persons acting in the interest of the landlord, or of the tenants, with respect to this estate?
  MR. MADDEN: On behalf of my right hon. Friend I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the question until to-morrow.

  SLAVE TRADE CONFERENCE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further steps have been taken to bring about the promised Conference on the Slave Trade?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The Belgian Government have been in communication with the Powers concerned. From the latest information received from Brussels it appears that the Conference cannot assemble before the middle or end of October.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government intend to persevere with the Irish Drainage Bills?
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: And is it intended to proceed with the London County Council (Money) Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: It is certainly not intended to stop all the operations of the London County Council, and therefore it is intended to proceed with the London County Council (Money) Bill; but it may not be possible to take it this evening. With regard to the Drainage Bills, I must ask the hon. Member to put the question to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to-morrow.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the Committee stage of the Infectious Diseases Notification Bill be taken this evening?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: No, Sir.

  THE DEFEAT OF THE DERVISHES.
  COLONEL EYRE: Has the Secretary of State for War any further news from Sir Francis Grenfell?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir Francis Grenfell telegraphed to me last night that the loss amongst his force was 17 killed, including one English private soldier, and 131 wounded, of whom six were Englishmen. The House will, I am sure, be gratified to find that so stubborn a contest and so complete a success, showing great gallantry on the part of all the troops engaged, has resulted in no greater loss to our force. He adds:—
  "I reconnoitred with mounted troops at day-light this morning; found Dervish force completely broken up; cavalry following up the few
  330
  fighting men that remain. I have now over 1,000 prisoners and wounded Dervishes here, and refugees are coming in fast. Gunboats patrolling. I have sent Wodehouse's column south to Abu Simbel to head retreating Dervishes."
  As various questions have been asked in this House with regard to the state of the Dervishes who have fallen into our hands, I think hon. Members may like to hear an extract from a private letter written to me by Sir Francis Grenfell on this subject, dated 22nd ultimo:—
  "I think you may be glad to know that all my officers are doing their very best to alleviate distress. All who come in are rationed and well treated. I have sent up five large sailing boats full of food and medical comforts, with a doctor, to pick up and feed starving Dervishes. We have now (July 22) relieved not less than 1,200, and above 400 I have sent straight down to Cairo."
  SIR W. LAWSON: Does General Grenfell state the estimated number of the enemy slain?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; he does not say that in his last Despatch.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, with the exception of the 20th Hussars, any British troops were employed? It is stated that there were five or six British soldiers wounded.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Some of the British officers belonged to the Egyptian Army. The 20th Hussars was the only British force engaged. A portion of the force was composed, not of black troops, but of fellaheen.

  THE DONEGAL BATTERING RAM.
  MR. MAC NEILL: On the 16th of April, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division (Mr. H. Wilson), the Chief Secretary stated that the cost of the Donegal battering ram was £48 18s. 3½d. If that cost is charged upon the public, the amount should appear somewhere on the Estimates, and we ought to be able to find out from what public fund it comes. Having regard to the fact that the Constabulary Estimate is to be taken to-morrow, will the Solicitor General for Ireland state where this item is to be found?
  MR. MADDEN: I am not responsible; but if the hon. Member will give notice, I will make inquiry.
  MR. MAC NEILL: May I, then, ask the Secretary to the Treasury under what head of the Estimates the battering ram is charged?
  MR. JACKSON: I am unable to answer the question. The accounts do not come before the Treasury.
  MR. MAC NEILL: May I ask you, Sir, to whom I am to apply? I have already asked three Officers of the Crown, without effect.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is certainly not for me to answer that question.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Then, on my own responsibility, I will put the question to the fountain of all knowledge, the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of the question.

  TRINITY COLLEGE (DUBLIN).
  Ordered—
  "Return showing the gross and net revenues of the College for the year 1888, the total amount of the incomes of the Provost and of the Senior Fellows, and the total amount of the incomes of the Junior Fellows, the salary attached to each Professional Chair, and whether the Chair is held by a Fellow or not; the number of Undergraduates on the College books on the 31st day of December, 1888, and how many belong to each religious denomination classified as (a) Protestant Episcopalians; (b) Presbyterians; (c) Roman Catholics; and (d) all other denominations."—(Mr. W. A. Macdonald.)

  POLICE (COST.)
  Ordered—
  "Address for Return of the Cost of the Police in each of the Boroughs of Great Britain having, according to the Census of 1881, a population of over 100,000 inhabitants, for the year ended the 30th day of September 1888, and in the City of London, the Metropolitan Police District, and the Dublin Metropolitan Police District for the year ended 31st day of March 1889, giving in each case the following items, in Columns numbered as below:—

  1. Name of place.

  2. Estimated population in 1888.

  3. Rateable value.

  4. Acreage.

  5. Estimated number of inhabited houses.

  6. Length of streets, squares, &c, in miles.

  7. Strength of Police Force, viz.: (a) Average daily number employed at private cost; (b) Estimated daily number employed in ordinary Police duties, including all detectives, Court duties, &c.

  8. Gross total cost of Police, exclusive of amounts charged against loans.

  332

  9. Sums received for special services of both (a) and (b) of Column 7, and from the Treasury for the conveyance of prisoners.

  10. Sums paid for rent, rates and taxes, and and in erection or purchase of buildings or purchase of ground, exclusive of the amounts charged against loans.

  11. Cost of Police, less the two preceding items.

  12. Superannuations and gratuities other than those paid out of the Superannuation Fund.

  13. Amount of Government Grant towards pay and clothing.

  14. Number of Police employed in ordinary Police duties per £10,000 rateable value.

  15. Number of population to each officer in Column 7 (b).

  16. Number of acres to each officer in Column 7 (b).

  17. Number of inhabited houses to each officer in Column 7 (b).

  18. Number of miles to each officer in Column 7 (b).

  19. Cost of Police in Column 11 per pound rateable value.

  20. Cost of Police in Column 11 per inhabitant.

  21. Cost of Police in Column 11 per acre.

  22. Cost of Police in Column 11 per inhabited house.

  23. Cost of Police in Column 11 per mile.

  24. Cost of Police in Column 11 per constable employed in ordinary Police duties.

  25. Cost of Police in Column 11 per constable employed in ordinary Police duties, less the cost of superannuation deficiency (Column 12).

  26. Cost of Police to the Local Rates, being the difference between the amounts in Columns 11 and 13.

  27. Cost of Police in Column 26 per pound rateable value.

  And, in the case of Dublin only, giving particulars of any local or incidental charge paid over to the Exchequer as an extra receipt beyond the amount of the Police Rate given in Column 26."—(Mr. Murphy.)

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 365.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRINCE OF WALES'S CHILDREN BILL. (No. 358.)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(Mr. W. R. Smith.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: We have now reached the last stage of this Bill, and it is very obvious that it will be carried. We have been unable to make those alterations in Committee which we thought might have, to a certain extent, mitigated the objections to it. Although the reasons we have urged against the Bill have not convinced the House, they have, notwithstanding, remained unanswerable and unanswered. I do not propose to go through those reasons again. Through some accident a Division was not taken on the Second Reading stage, and it is only proper, therefore, that a Division should be taken now, because this is one of those Bills in which it is most desirable to establish no precedent that can be used to the disadvantage of the taxpayers in subsequent years. But there are two misconceptions which have arisen from the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. G. O. Morgan) that I am anxious to correct. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Her Majesty does not possess the means of providing for all her grandchildren in a manner befitting their station and dignity.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I said, as the House would desire.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I, for my part, deny that there is any particular station and dignity enjoyed by the grandchild of the first Magistrate of this country. I consider that a grandchild ought to lapse into the general community. But, apart from this, I absolutely deny the hard statistical, arithmetical fact that Her Majesty has not enough to provide for those of her grandchildren who need provision thereof what the House would deem an amount befitting their station and dignity. It seems to me the Chancellor of the Exchequer was playing upon the word "all." Her Majesty has 33 grandchildren, but some of these grandchildren are the sons and daughters of the children of Her Majesty, who have married the Sovereigns of foreign States or those who will be the Sovereigns of foreign States. These ought to be eliminated, because they do not require to be provided for. We, therefore have to deal with 12 grandchildren
  334
  and no more. When we were in Committee upstairs, a sum was stated which; represented the interest-producing investments of Her Majesty. We are not at liberty to mention this sum, but as regards realty, it is unquestionable that Her Majesty's three estates of Osborne, Claremont, and Balmoral would sell for a large sum if cut up into small lots. Of course, I am not claiming that Her Majesty ought to sell them during her lifetime, but there can be no question that if she did so to-morrow, and if she were to add to the amount realised her present personalty, she would have sufficient to make such provision for these 12 grandchildren as would maintain them in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls their station and dignity. I estimate that these three estates of Balmoral, Osborne, and Claremont, would realise at least £600,000. I would undertake to find persons who would give more than that for them to-morrow, so that I am in reality undervaluing them. Taking it that double the amount that on an average the younger son of a Duke generally gets would be a befitting state and dignity to the child of a younger child of the Queen, during Her Majesty's life, which I hope will be long preserved, Her Majesty can, if she pleases, give to her younger children the interest that she receives from the investments which it is admitted that she has made, for there is no kind of necessity for her to make further economies, and to put by further sums in order to enable her to give her grandchildren what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that they ought ultimately to have. This leaves untouched the Privy Purse, and the revenues derived from the Duchy of Lancaster. The Duchy of Lancaster produces £38,000 more than at the commencement of her reign, and she has £16,000 from excesses on Classes 2 and 3—which is annually transferred to her private account. She has therefore £54,000 per annum more than was estimated as her private allowance when the Civil List was fixed; and surely out of this she might allow the £36,000 to the Prince of Wales for his children, instead of asking us to vote it out of the Consolidated Fund. I am taking, in these calculations, the figures as they were given to the Committee, but I never yet understood whether they include the legacies received from

  335
  the late Prince Consort and from Mr. Nield. When I asked upstairs, I was told we must not pry into the private affairs of the Queen. I never asked the First Lord of the Treasury to give us any figures, but when they were given to me, I thought that I was entitled to ask for some explanation of them in order to ascertain what they did and what they did not include. I do not know even now whether they include these legacies.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: They do.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman says they do. The second misconception to which I would refer arose from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Denbighshire, who said that the Queen cannot be expected to discharge her old servants. Now, there never was a question of discharging old servants. I do not know what my right hon. Friend means by "old servants." The servants I had in my mind cannot be called old servants. They are the political gentlemen who go out with one Ministry and come in with another. They cannot in any sense be called old servants of Her Majesty. They are nominally appointed by Her Majesty, but they are practically appointed by the the Minister of the day for the services they have rendered to their Party.
  MR. G. O. MORGAN: May I explain? What I said was that it would be rather hard to call upon Her Majesty, at her present age, to revise her whole establishment, with the necessary result of turning away old servants.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It would not be necessary to ask Her Majesty to re vise her whole establishment, because the gentlemen in question are not permanently on Her Majesty's establishment. They are Peers and others who want to get a good thing, and do get a good thing, whenever a change of Ministry occurs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, in the autumn of her life, Her Majesty ought not to be called upon to make changes which is tantamount to what my right hon. Friend said just now. Does the right hon. Member for Denbighshire know that last year certain gentlemen, amongst others the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir R. Welby, Earl Sydney, and Sir H. Ponsonby, actually met to see
  336
  whether any economical changes could be effected? It is perfectly obvious those gentlemen did not meet in opposition to the desire of Her Majesty. On the contrary, they undoubtedly met together by the express desire of Her Majesty to see whether her establishment could be revised. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the question of the Buckhounds was gone into, and the suggestion was made that money might be saved by putting an end to that silly and foolish absurdity. The Buck-hounds cost, I suppose, about £12,000 a year.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I say yes: but call it £10,000.
  MR. W. H.SMITH: No.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then call it £6,000 if you like. The right hon. Gentleman is more of a Nimrod than I am and possibly knows more about these matters than I do, but the right hon. Gentlemen will hardly contend that the honour and dignity of the Crown is involved in having a number of tame dogs to run after a tame stag to the ridicule of all true sportsmen, and in giving a Peer £1,700 per annum to gallop after these animals. No member of the Royal Family ever thinks of going out with them. It was, I believe, suggested by this Committee that many honorary officials should be got rid of. But the very suggestion caused a flutter in the dovecote, and I believe that Lord Salisbury himself, as the provider of booty for the gentlemen I have alluded to, objected to have the the amount of the booty at his disposal diminished. Therefore it is clear that in making the suggestion for economies in Her Majesty's establishment, I was only supporting the action of Her Majesty. In conclusion I wish to record my protest against the idea that the Radical Party has devoted an undue amount of time to the discussion of the Royal Grants. It must be remembered that in this matter we are giving Grants to the third generation. I fully admit that we have no right to alter the total of the Civil List granted to Her Majesty at the commencement of her reign. But when we are asked to add to it, it is well to point out that the public are sick and tired of all the nonsense and tomfoolery involved in the

  337
  Civil List. It is said that we should compare its amount with that of Russia or Germany, but this would be an improper comparison, because, although, theoretically, a Monarchy, this country is practically a Republic with a hereditary President at the head of it. The fairer thing would be to compare it with the expenditure of the President of the United States, or of President Carnot in France. For my part I think that in future the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster ought to provide for the Sovereign and the Sovereign's Family, amounting as the Revenues of those Duchies do to something like £110,000 a year. My main objection to the course we are taking is that we are prejudicing the question of the Civil List of the next reign. I also protest against the idea that in this opposition to the Royal Grants there is any insidious design against the Monarchy, as has been asserted by the President of the Board of Trade and others, or that there is any discourtesy to the Queen. I have had no idea of anything in the nature of discourtesy. While I do not think that I am open to the charge of being desirous to curry favour with Royalty by lip-service in this House, I repeat that I admire and respect Her Majesty personally on account of her conduct as a woman and her conduct as a Constitutional Sovereign, and that the last thing that I should dream of would be any discourtesy towards her. I believe that in opposing these Grants I am only fulfilling my duty to my constituents, and that I am acting in the best interests, not only of the people, but also of the Sovereign. In conclusion I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time on this day three months.
  MR. STOREYseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Although I have not had the advantage of being present during the whole of these Debates, I hope the House will allow me to state in a few words the reasons which impel me to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. Let me
  338
  recall the attention of the House to the circumstances under which the Bill has grown. It is founded on the Report of a Committee appointed by this House, and I desire to call attention to the conduct of the Government in relation to that Committee, and especially to the action of the First Lord of the Treasury in regard to it. For three years I have again and again called upon the right hon. Gentleman to fulfil the undertaking given in the last Parliament that a Committee should be appointed to consider the system under which these Grants have been made to members of the Royal Family. I will not trouble the House with the history of the long series of admissions and evasions made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject of the appointment of this Committee, but I contend that the appointment of the Committee, on the Report of which the present Bill is founded, was no fulfilment by the right hon. Gentleman of the pledges which he had given to this House. Both this Government and its predecessor were committed to the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole system of Royal Grants independently of and before any new application. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) did not promise it in order that it might consider any new application, but he promised to appoint it the next Session if he remained in office. The right hon. Gentleman did not remain in office, but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has since promised repeatedly that a Committee should be appointed to consider the whole question without any reference to a particular application. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman admits that that is a correct statement.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I will not go back to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, but I will remind him that in 1887 he distinctly pledged himself that a Committee should be appointed after Whitsuntide, independently of any new application being made, and even this year, on the 18th of March, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would place on the Paper the terms of the Reference as soon as the condition of business afforded a reasonable chance of the recommendations of

  339
  the Committee being proceeded with. In fact, for the last three years the whole reason why the Committee had not been appointed was, that the pressure of the business of the House would not enable the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with it as expeditiously as he desired. More than that, the right hon. Gentleman gave me a personal promise that he would give me full notice of the terms of the Reference, but I have received no notice whatever, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman in proposing this Committee on such short notice broke his promise to me and, what is still more important, his engagement to the House. For my own part, in opposing this Bill, I hold that we ought to have regard to the whole endowments of the Royal Family, those arising from the Civil List, from the Crown Lands, the Royal Grants now in existence, the large sums granted for the maintenance of the dignity of the Royal Family and Household, and also the salaries paid to members of the Royal Family for services in the Army and Navy. The aggregate of these sums is sufficient without new claims being made, and what is required is a subdivision and redistribution, such as would take place in the case of the owner of a large estate. We should follow the example of every family in the country, and have a resettlement of the family property as the children come of age. I do not find from the Report of the Committee that even now we know the total sum paid to the Royal Family, but it cannot be far short of three-quarters of a million sterling, and I certainly think that that ought to be sufficient for Her Majesty and the different members of her family. I certainly cannot go back to my constituents and say that it is not, and therefore I cannot vote for this addition of £36,000 per annum for the maintenance of the children of the Prince of Wales. I would congratulate the Government upon having at last informed the House of the total amount of savings in the various branches of the Civil List, but until 30 or 40 years ago this information was given annually to the House. Owing to the action of Lord Brougham the Government withdrew the information which had been previously given; and since that time each successive Government has been guilty of a breach
  340
  of duty towards the House in concealing the real facts of the case. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) favoured the House the other day with a legal' opinion upon the matter, but this is a mere question of the intentions of Parliament, and I should attach just as much value to the opinion of any hon. Member of this House, or to that of a boy who sweeps out a lawyer's office as I do to that of the right hon. and learned Member. I maintain that in withholding the information each successive' Government has been guilty of a breach of duty. During all these years we have paid for the audit of the Civil List, and yet the information has been refused. It is only now in order that this Bill may be passed that we are favoured with the information. With regard to the hereditary revenues of the Crown, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury contends that there is some kind of private ownership belonging to the Crown in these estates which justifies its making a bargain with the country, but I would point out that this was denied by Mr. Ilbert, a gentleman who has been promoted and favoured by all the Governments, and who was at one time legal adviser to the Government of India. The question is not merely a legal one, butit is an historical question as well, and in this connection Mr. Freeman also denies the view put forward on behalf of the Government. For these reasons I intend to vote against the Bill. I wish to protest against some of the comments which I have read upon the action of the Liberal section of the House. Odium most unprincipled in its origin and its character has been cast upon those Members in this House who constitute the majority of the Liberal Party, who have opposed this Bill. I am glad that I have been able to come to the House in time to share in the odium. I fully endorse the conduct of those who have taken that part, and I protest against the language which has been used both on this side of the House and the other. When I reflect on the source of this language, I cannot help wondering at the audacity of the persons who have used it. It has come from two of the most notorious demagogues in this House; one of them an ex-Tory apparently in process of conversion to the

  341
  Radical section of the House, the other an ex-Radical apparently in process of conversion to the other side. Criticism from such persons falls lightly upon our shoulders; we know how unscrupulously they are bidding for popular support and we treat it with contempt and indifference. I regret that any reference has been made to the personal savings of the Sovereign in this Debate; in my opinion, that is a matter into which no Member of the House has a right to inquire, and I think that the Government have lowered the dignity of the Crown in making any reference to the subject. In opposing this Bill I feel bound to say that I do so through no want of appreciation of the character and services of Her Majesty the Queen; on the contrary, I hold that Her Majesty is the best and probably the greatest Sovereign that this country has ever seen. Her place in history will be beside Queen Elizabeth and probably Cromwell; but I decline to vote money for the purpose simply of enabling Royal personages to compete with vulgar plutocrats. We all admit that if we are to have a Monarchy we must pay for it. We are perfectly willing to pay for it and to maintain it in all reasonable dignity and splendour, but we decline to pay a single farthing more than is just and reasonable. I maintain that we have an abundant margin in the existing Royal Grants, and I dare not and will not undertake to support more. If this question attracts more attention than any other, if it should be productive of consequences injurious and disastrous to the Crown, the responsibility will not be upon us but upon you. I cannot conceive anything more injurious to the Crown, and more likely to be disastrous to the Monarchical Constitution under which we live, than that in the present circumstances of the country you should insist, merely because two new Royal personages have come on the scene, on adding £40,000 per annum to the enormous burdens of the country.
  MR. PHILIPPS: The hon. Member for Northampton said, amongst other things, that the discussion on this Grant had made it more difficult for any Minister to propose Grants in future. I think the voting on this Grant has made it absolutely impossible for any similar Bill to pass in the future. When the last
  342
  Royal Grant was proposed only 13 Members voted against it, but in the first Division against the present Grant 116 Members went into the Lobby against the proposed Grant. I believe that means that Royal Grants are over. These discussions have convinced me that we in this House are nothing like so advanced on this question as the people out of doors. However hon. Members may vote here, I am certain that if a poll of the constituencies were taken not half-a-dozen constituencies would vote for further Grants. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I will take as an illustration the case of the hon. Member who so well represents the miners of the Rhondda Division. That hon. Member fell foul of the prevailing opinion in this House, but afterwards when he went down to his constituents he was reproved because his language had not been stronger and more violent than it really was. I am glad to see from the newspapers that other constituencies are waking up, and are demanding from their Representatives a statement of the reasons which induced them to vote for this Grant. We in this quarter of the House have been reproached because on topics like this we pose as advocates of economy, while on other questions, the payment of Members for instance, we pose, as it is said, as the advocates of extravagance. There is one thing certain, and that is, that everyone in the House knows very well that if we had paid Members it would be absolutely impossible to get a Royal Grant Bill through the House. Such a fact proves most clearly that the payment of Members would be one of the greatest economies we could possibly advocate. We have heard a great deal about maintaining the dignity of the Crown, and I have never as yet heard anyone explain what is meant by the dignity of the Crown. If it means footmen, and gold lace, and carriages, I do not want to see the dignity of the Crown maintained. Then, again, it is said the Crown must be rich, that the Crown would not be respected if it were not rich. That, also, I absolutely and entirely deny. There is one thing we may bless ourselves for, and that is that riches in themselves are not as much respected as they were a generation or two ago. There is nowadays a wholesome tendency to go behind wealth to its causes. When

  343
  people are told that a man is rich, they do not go straightway and worship him, but they ask how his wealth was got, whether it was made in a praiseworthy way. We have now in London a great many more millionaires than ever before, and more probably than there ever were in any other country. We have the millionaires of all countries amongst us. I think this is largely due to the fact of there being no Court in Paris to which the French millionaires can resort. We have here, too, any number of American and other millionaires. All these people come to London to enjoy themselves. The splendour of the Crown, as it is called, leads to these millionaires coming to London. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, I quite admit it, but I dislike their coming here. I admit they are very useful to a certain number of trades-people in Bond Street, but they create a tendency to extravagance and luxurious living which is bad for the people of the country as a whole. I deny that these cosmopolitan millionaries in London are good for Great Britain at large.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is dealing in a very discursive manner with the subject.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I should like to go on to show, if I may, that the Crown could not anyhow be as rich as some of the richest millionaires in London, and that no Grant this House is likely to pass could enable the Crown to compete with these men in splendour. It is disputed what the Crown really costs. Some Members have put the figure at £700,000 or £800,000 a year. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) asserted that the Crown costs us almost £120,000 a year. The noble Lord did not go quite so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), but endeavoured to make it out that the Crown costs us nothing, and that we got something thrown in. But I maintain that the less you put the cost down at, the more you make it impossible for the Crown to compete in splendour with the rich men who now live in London. The Crown of this country must, therefore, rely for dignity and respect upon something very different to money and Grants from this House. We have had lately in this country a foreign potentate who is said to possess diamonds to the value of
  344
  seven millions sterling. I have never heard it suggested that the man who possesses the most diamonds is the man to be most respected. I should like some authoritative definition of the word dignity. It is often said that the poorest labouring man in the country has a dignity of his own. Is it disputed that a man cannot maintain his dignity unless he has £30,000 or £40,000 a year? I look at the Crown as something very much more than a merely rich institution. When I consider that the Crown is the head not merely of this Kingdom and Empire, but the head of the British speaking peoples inside and outside the Empire; when I consider that as regards ourselves it is the personification of our national unity, and that its pedigree represents our history, I am very sorry to see the tendency to maintain the dignity of the Crown merely by lavish votes of this House. Our royalty is descended from great Kings who have built up our history, who have repelled foreign invasion, and made laws under which we still live, and I maintain that Royalty in that sense will always be, and ought to be, respected in this country. I do not wish to be considered as exalting the pedigree of the Crown, although I maintain that a pedigree is a much more honourable thing than money. It is a much more honourable circumstance for a man to be descended from one who has done great work for his country than for a man to have had a large amount of money left him.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is forgetting what this Bill is. It is a Bill to make provision for the Prince of Wales' children. It has nothing whatever to do with the Crown in the general sense in which he is now speaking of.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I will merely say I protest against this Bill because it seems to hold wealth as one of the items of the respect of the country. When I think how easily wealth can be obtained by people who are not respected, and deservedly so—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. PHILIPPS: I think it is bad that we should lay it before the people that wealth is a necessary ingredient of the respect properly paid to the Crown.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Although I have been present during the Debates upon the Grant, I

  345
  have not hitherto sought an opportunity of expressing any opinion thereon; and it is with no desire to protract the Debate that I venture to offer a few observations as to the reasons which actuate me in recording the vote I have given and shall give. I think it is clearly understood by the country that we Liberal Members would be disloyal to the position we occupy, and to the promises we have made, if we were induced to abandon our duty of watching most rigorously and jealously the appropriation of any public funds by the insinuation that we are guilty of adopting a cheese-paring policy. I do not think that charge proceeded with the most exquisite taste from the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington who has taken up a very worthy and a very proper position in endeavouring to check departmental extravagance in various branches of our Civil and Military life. And again, I feel it is my duty to protest in the strongest possible manner against the suggestion that we are attempting to penalise the Sovereign in respect to the accumulations of funds which are the outward manifestation of the decorum and dignity with which she has maintained the Crown. But while I take that view I am bound to enter into an examination as to whether we are guilty of the charge which is levelled against us. We have been even accused of disloyalty. It is somewhat instructive to find that in the Debates in 1837 on this very subject, by Lord Melbourne and the other Members of his Government, the same charge was levelled against the Whig Opposition. The Opposition of that day were twitted in wishing to substitute a Republic for the Monarchy. I think I am entitled to say that these charges are as unfounded now as they were ridiculous then. Now, while I support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, I conceive that it is a constitutional doctrine of the first importance that the Sovereign ought to be absolutely dependent upon Parliament for its maintenance, and I can conceive no more dangerous state of things than that the time should arrive when the Crown and the Royal Family should have revenues independent of Parliament. That is a Constitutional doctrine not of yesterday's birth, but which was propounded on the authority of the great statesman of 1837. What-
  346
  ever deductions may be made from the value of his speech on the ground of Party spirit, Lord Brougham expressed the opinion of a large section of the House of that day, when he protested against the granting for an almost unlimited period of colossal revenues for the Crown. Lord Brougham also pointed out that it would be impossible for Parliament to come to the Crown and demand an account of the surplus of those incomes which had been found more than sufficient for the purposes of the Throne. I entirely disagree with what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) when he said he had nothing to do with the private savings of the Crown. The raison d'etre of our position is that the private savings of the Crown are funds which were allocated to particular purposes. I agree with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we have no right to touch those funds for the purpose of appropriating them to the support of the children of the Prince of Wales; but I hold that the spirit of the enactments of 1837 and 1841—the spirit of the original settlement of the Civil List—was that these funds were effected with a trust; that trust was that the funds should be employed for the particular purposes to which they were allocated; that if there was a surplus, that surplus should be used in the reduction of debt on other classes. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that if there is no deficit in other classes, any surplus should be applied to the general benefit and uses of the nation. It has been said by great statesmen that the basis and reason of our granting to the Crown these various sums of money for the maintenance of the members of the Royal Family, is that the Crown and the members of the Royal Family are circumscribed within narrow limits as to the persons with whom they can form alliances. There is not a Member of the House who does not rejoice that Her Majesty has reverted to the more ancient traditions of the Royal Family as to matrimonial alliances; but I think it will be admitted that the claim of those members of the Royal Family who contract marriages outside the area of members of the various reigning dynasties to be considered as members of the Royal Family,

  347
  in the ordinary sense of the word, ceases. It is for those reasons, firstly, because I believe that this fund which is at the disposal of Her Majesty is a fund which is really held in trust for the nation; and, secondly, because I conceive that we have no right to appropriate money belonging to the nation for the purpose of endowing members of the Royal Family who marry into another grade of society that I oppose this Grant.
  MR. CHARLES WILSON: I would suggest to the hon. Member for Northampton the desirability of not dividing against the Third Reading of the Bill, but I hardly anticipate that my suggestion will be accepted after the speeches that have been made. I voted with the hon. Member for Northampton in his Amendment on Friday night, and I confess that I was influenced to a very great extent by the speech of the hon. Member. Until I beard that speech I did not make up my mind which way to vote. I quite agree that the Civil List is burdened with useless extravagances, and that a saving might be effected which would meet this Grant for the children of the Prince of Wales without imposing any additional burden on the taxpayers of the country. It must be remembered that now we have an enlarged franchise, and that these matters are discussed throughout the length and breadth of the land, and if we wish to make the Royal Family respected and honoured in this country, as we all do, it is undesirable in the extreme that any feeling of irritation should be produced amongst any class by any further Grants being asked for in respect of members of the Royal Family. The working classes feel very strongly on this subject, and no doubt this feeling extends to others. While I and others entertain such opinions, it is as well it should be stated that we entertain no feeling of disloyalty to the Queen, but that, on the contrary, we have great admiration and respect for Her Majesty and also for the Prince of Wales, whom we admit has discharged the duties that have fallen to him with wonderful tact and discretion. I shall not vote with the hon. Member for Northampton if he goes to a Division, because I consider it very undesirable that we take any course which may
  348
  appear to be discourteous to the Royal Family. [A laugh.] An hon. Member laughs; but, still, we must consider that we have a great position to hold among the nations of the world, and that if that position is to be held properly the Crown of England must be represented amongst all the other great Monarchical nations of Europe in a fitting manner. I feel that it is extremely advisable the Third Reading should be passed without a division.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I should like to say a word in response to the hon. Member (Mr. C. Wilson). It is quite clear it is hardly possible for some Members of the House to approach the consideration of this question from a purely Monarchical or representative basis. I very much object to being obliged to say that we mean no disrespect to Her Majesty; but when I am personally charged with being disrespectful to the Sovereign, I am compelled to resent the charge. I, and others with whom I act in this matter, stand here with the simple object of discharging our duty to our constituents. Something fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday night as to Her Majesty being in the autumn of her life. I should like to say distinctly that if the refusal of this Grant would cause Her Majesty any pain or inconvenience I should be the last Member of the House to oppose the Grant. It is clear to everyone who has any knowledge on the subject whatever that Her Majesty's income is so large that if this grant were withheld there would be no interference whatever with her personal comfort, but it would simply necessitate the rolling up of a smaller fortune than hitherto. Therefore, keeping in view the very large private fortune of the Queen, I hold it to be a simple duty to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 41.—(Div. List, No. 282.)
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time and passed.

  COINAGE (LIGHT GOLD) [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by the exchange of, or payment for, gold coins, under the pro-

  349
  visions of any Act of the present Session to amend 'The Coinage Act, 1870, as respects Light Gold Coins."
  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES.

      Class IV.
      £2,104,339, to complete the sum for Public Education.
      THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,: I believe I shall be following the usual course if I commence the observations I shall have to make to the Committee by explaining, in the first place, what work has been done in the past educational year. The sum voted for 1888–89 was, on the original Estimate, £3,576,077; but there was subsequently a Supplementary Estimate of £24,690, making a total of £3,600,767. The total expenditure for the year was £3,600,692, so that a balance was left of £75. The chief cause of the Supplementary Estimate was that the rate of grant per day scholar, estimated at 17s. 6£d., reached 17s. 7¾d. The total sum required for the year 1889–90, for which I ask the Committee to be responsible, is £3,684,339, or an increase on the sum originally voted for the year 1888–89 of £108,262, or, allowing for the Supplementary Estimate, of £83,572. This large increase of £108,262 is accounted for by an addition of £101,459 for annual grants for day and evening scholars, now equal to £3,323,903, and of £1,940 for training colleges, the sum being now equal to £119,140. Those large sums are required to meet (1) an increase of 83,144, or 2·3 per cent in average attendance of day scholars, and 3,300, or 10 per cent in the average number of evening scholars; (2) an increase of 1¾d. per scholar, or £27,254 in grants to day schools, now 17s. 8¼d. per head; and (3) an increase in the number of students in the training colleges. With reference to the expenditure for salaries and staff there is little or no change to mention. There is merely the normal increase both at Whitehall and in the Inspectorate, the only change being the promotion of six writers to be
      350
      clerks to the Lower Division. With regard to teachers' pensions, although the position of matters is not, on the whole, as satisfactory as could be desired, yet an additional sum is being paid by the State for so worthy an object. Provision has been made for four additional pensions at the highest rate of £30, 17 at £25, 13 at £20, the total number now in receipt of pensions being 607. In June, 1884, the restriction imposed upon the number of pensions, so far as it affected the claims of teachers employed before August, 1851, was relaxed, with the result that, whereas in 1884 there were 17 pensions of £30, now there are 45. In 1884 there were 86 pensions of £25, now there are 257. In 1884 there were 129 pensions of £20, and now there are 305. The addition to the annual cost of teachers' pensions is £8,600, the total sum provided for pensions and gratuities being £14,215. I will now give a few statistics as to the rate of progress in the elementary schools in the past year. I will give a comparison of the number of schools inspected between 1887 and 1888. In 1887 the number of schools inspected was 19,154, in 1888 the number was 19,221, or an increase of 67. Again, in 1887 we found school accommodation for 5,279,000 children, and in 1888 for 5,356,000, or an increase of 77,000. The scholars on the register in 1887 were 4,635,000, and in 1888 they were 4,687,000, or an increase of 52,000. The average attendance at the schools in 1887 was 3,527,000, and in 1888 it was 3,615,000, or an increase of 88,000. With respect to the percentage of the average attendance to the numbers on the register, it is satisfactory to note that we have got over the slight decrease, or rather the halting progress, of the two preceding years. In 1887 the percentage was 76·1. In 1888 it was 77·1. There was thus a solid gain of 1 per cent in 1888 as compared with 1887. The percentage of passes in standard subjects in 1887 was 87·32, and in 1888 it was 87·97. The number of scholars examined in Standards IV and upwards is a fair test of the efficiency of the teaching in the schools, and there also satisfactory improvement is indicated. The number examined was 912,000 in 1887, and in 1888 it was 953,000, showing an increase of 41,000, or of 4·5 per cent. The percentage of such scholars to the

      351
      total number was in 1887 36·3, and in 1888 37·4, or an increase of 1·1 per cent. Now I will take another item which has been again and again discussed in the House, and which is acknowledged to be of very great importance as regards the future domestic happiness of the girls in the schools. I refer to the teaching of cookery, and I ask the House to listen to a few figures, because they show that since I gave a pledge some two years ago that the Department would do its utmost to promote instruction in cookery we have made rapid progress in that matter, although we have not yet reached the maximum point. The number of girls earning the cookery grant in 1887 was 30,431, and in 1888 it was 42,159, or an increase of 11,728. I will now give the number of certificated teachers. In 1887 it was 66,547, and in 1888 68,683, or an increase of 2,136. The number of pupil teachers has risen from 28,930 in 1887 to 29,901 or an increase of 971. Looking at those figures as a whole, they show a decided though gradual improvement in the efficiency of the work done in the elementary schools. They indicate naturally a rather lower rate of increase than in previous years, except on two headings, which I consider of the greatest importance. In the first place, there is a solid increase in the percentage of average attendance to the number on the registers. In fact, we have made up the lost ground of the two preceding years. In the second place, there is a large addition to the cookery grants, showing the advantages of the centre system of teaching and peripatetic teachers. In 1884 the number of girls taught cookery was 7,600; in 1885, 17,700; in 1886 the increase was 6,672, or 38 per cent; in 1887 it was 5,905, or 24 per cent; and in 1888 no fewer than 11,728, or 38 per cent, the total being 42,159, or nearly six times the number receiving grants in 1884. The increase in the number of children on the registers has fallen from 129,000 to 52,000; but the increase in the average attendance is the same as in 1887 (88,000), showing that the enforcement of regularity of attendance has more than kept pace with the addition to the number on the books during the year under review. I believe the new Code will have stimulated school attend-
      352
      ance, and there is yet ample scope for energy in that direction when we remember that there is now a daily absence of more than one million children. I am convinced that that deficiency might be much further reduced by making school life more popular, and varying the curriculum, rather than by fines and compulsion. Taking into account all schools affording elementary instruction, there are no-fewer than 4,800,000 children on the registers, or 16·75 per cent, of the population: while before the passing of the Education Act of 1870 there were only 7·08 per cent, of the population on the registers of such schools. That result has been achieved by the addition of 6,378 voluntary schools since 1870, providing accommodation for l,668,000 children, and by the addition of 4,562 Board Schools, providing accommodation for 1,809,000 children. These additional schools are provided as follows: From 1870 to 1876 there were 4,396 voluntary, and 1,596 Board Schools provided; from 1876 to 1882 1,744 voluntary and 2,272 Board Schools; and from 1882 to 1888, 238 voluntary and 694 Board Schools. The school supply may now be considered as well provided for, only 67 schools of all kinds being added last year. Before I leave these statistics I should like—and especially in view of probable coming Debates on these important matters—to give a few figures with regard to school expenditure, and the cost of maintaining our elementary schools. The cost of maintenance per scholar in average attendance in Board Schools in 1877 was £2 4s. 7½d., as against £2 4s. 7½d. in 1888; in voluntary schools the cost was £l 16s. 4£d., against £1 16s. 4d. in 1888, being a decrease of ½d.; excluding London, the cost in Board Schools was £1 19s. 8½d., as against£l·19s. 8d. in 1888; in voluntary schools the cost was £1 15s. 9½d., as against £1 15s. 8¾d. In the London Board Schools the cost was £3 0s. 5d., as against £3 0a. 6¼d. In 1888, while in the London voluntary schools the cost was £2 3s. 9½d., as against £2 4s. 1½d. in 1888. London-excepted, the expenditure throughout the year has been stationary throughout England and Wales, the net result being a diminution of ½d. per head in the cost of voluntary schools. In Lon-

      353
      don, however, the cost of Board Schools has risen 1¼d., and now reaches 6s. 3¼d. a head more than in 1884, while the cost in voluntary schools has risen 4¼d., and now stands at 1s. 11¼d. a head more than in 1884. The increase in the cost of schools in the rest of the country has been during the same period, in Board Schools 1s. 11¼d., and in voluntary schools 1s. ¾d. The increase of cost, therefore, in the Metropolis contrasts unfavourably with the rest of the country. Contributions from the rates amount to, per scholar, 17s. 7¼d., a reduction of 1¼d. compared with 1886–7; subscriptions, 6s. 7¾d., the same as the year before; payments by children in Board Schools, 8s. 11¼d. per head; in voluntary schools, 11s. 6¾d. per head, being a reduction of 1½d. and 1d. respectively. Compared with the figures of 1884, the rates have increased 1s.4¼d.per head, the voluntary contributions have fallen ¾d. per head, and the school fees have fallen 6½d. per head in Board Schools and 1¼d. per head in voluntary schools. The increased cost per scholar from 1884 to 1888 has been, in Board Schools, 2s. 11d.; in voluntary schools, 1s. 2d. A reduction during the same period has taken place in the fees and contributions of voluntary schools of 2d. per head, and in the fees payable to Board Schools of 6½d. per head. The total deficiency has been met in Board Schools by an increase of rates 1s. 4¼d., miscellaneous receipts 1¼d., additional grant 1s. 11¾d.—being a total of 3s. 5¼d.; and in voluntary schools by an increase of endowment ¼d., and additional grants 1s. 3¾d.—or a total of 1s. 4d. So much for the educational work of the past year. But if I finished my statement here I should be doing not only myself, but also the Department with which I am connected, a grievous wrong. I must therefore pass on to review other matters. I have been told over and over again during the past few months that the Code with which my name has been connected is much too stringent. It is now practically withdrawn from the cognisance of Parliament; but, so far as my experience goes, I think that one of the most indifferent methods of enjoying life is to have anything like a joint parentage in a Revised Code. The amount of inquiry, disturbance, and criticism is such as to be absolutely destructive of peace and
      354
      comfort so far as this life is concerned. Before I proceed further with my remarks however, I must express my extreme regret that the constant pressure of public business has prevented me from making an explanation of the Code. I admit that I have not pressed my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to any great extent, and when I refer to the criticisms of the Code I do so in no impatient and carping spirit. A document so intricate and so replete with technical language might easily be misunderstood, and, therefore, I am not surprised at the criticism. The Code was criticised from two points of view. It was urged by many that it did not go far enough, so far as education is concerned; while others said it went so far as to injure the schools in which they were most intimately interested. I believe, however, that whatever sins of omission or commission may be in these proposals, it will be acknowledged by all that, so far as its educational aspect is concerned, it is one of the best Codes ever laid on the Table of this House. I should like, if I may be permitted, to allude for a few moments to one or two of the more important questions raised in this document. One of the chief criticisms to which I have been subjected is that the Department have only partially adopted the recommendations of the Royal Commission, while they ought to have been adopted as a whole. It is true that the Department have not adopted all the recommendations of the Commission, but with some experience of the House and with some knowledge of political Parties I was aware that some of those recommendations would have provoked bitter Party controversy. We may fairly urge, therefore, that the Department did right in seizing upon recommendations which had received the commendation, not only of those who signed the Majority Report, but of those who signed the Minority Report as well. Let me deal, then, for a few moments with this charge. I may turn to the page of the Report in which the majority say that their desire has been first to make such recommendation as will give the country certain inestimable advantages for the present large outlay. But what happened, for example, in regard to the proposal to assist voluntary schools out of the rates? Those who

      355
      represented the interests of the majority of the Commission held a large meeting at which this question was discussed, and by an enormous majority the proposal was rejected. I should like now to deal with the most important change which was proposed, and that was in regard to the administration of the Grants. No one has studied either the evidence laid before the Royal Commission or the Majority or Minority Reports without coming to this conclusion—how very little really was urged in favour of the maintenance of the existing system of payment by results, and how much was urged against it. In framing these new proposals the Department felt, of course, the heaviest responsibility, because, so far as educational results were concerned, and particularly in respect of the elementary subjects, we felt we were leaving safe ground. We felt the gravest responsibility in bringing these proposals before Parliament. The great complaint made and urged before the Commission was that the existing system had grown too mechanical in its character, that it produced nothing but a system of cram, and that, instead of turning out the pupil with all his faculties broadly and widely developed, it looked upon the wretched scholar much in the light of a machine calculated to grind so many bushels of corn. In regard to the new system of administering the grants, the Education Department have endeavoured as nearly as posssible to follow the recommendations of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission. These proposals have been criticized from various points of view. In the first place, the Department has been told that payment by results would practically obtain under the new proposals. My reply to that is that nothing of the kind would happen, and that under them the elementary subjects would be judged on the same system as class subjects; the whole standard would be examined, and the Inspector would judge accordingly, and the award of the grant would not depend, as heretofore, on individual passes, but on the fact that the children, as a whole, had reached one of three standards which were named. It is difficult to explain the scheme without the Committee having before them the instructions which would be issued to Inspectors, but the Department hope to
      356
      found it on a system which has been thoroughly tried and tested in this country. It is said that the scheme leaves too much in the hands of the Inspectors, but I have to point out that these Inspectors are gentlemen who have been well tested in the work they have to accomplish, and none will have had less than 10 years' experience. No doubt the Inspector's Report will indicate to the Department what grant a school should receive, but the Report will have to be of the most searching and thorough character, and upon that Report the Department will have to judge. I have been told that the new proposals will be destructive of the interests of many of the voluntary schools, and that I shall be regarded as an immolator and destroyer. That I need hardly say, considering my predilections and my past experience, is not precisely the line of conduct I should sketch out for myself, but it would be well, perhaps, I should state how I believe the proposals will work. In the first place, the lowest grant of 12s. per scholar, according to our late proposal, must, at all events, be awarded to every school for two years which has a certificated teacher. I think there was something humane in a proposal by which every efficient school which has a certificated teacher should have two years, at all events, in which to improve its position and be secure of the 12s. grant. I should like to explain the position in regard to the three proposed grants of 12s., 14s., and 15s. 6d., respectively. These represent in the three standards of the schools, the percentage grant, the merit grant, and the fixed grant of 4s. 6d. At present no school does obtain 12s. per scholar unless it can produce 78 per cent of passes; likewise no school can obtain the 14s. grant unless it passes 90 per cent, and no school can obtain the 15s. 6d. grant unless it has 96 per cent of passes. I find that nearly 20 per cent of all our schools passed less than 78 per cent, and earned less than 12s. per scholar, and, therefore, in the case of that 20 per cent the Department's proposals will give an additional impetus to improve the efficiency of the schools. Proceeding on we find that 37·39 per cent of our day schools pass less than 90 per cent of the pupils, and receive

      357
      less than 14s. I find in most of these schools there is the same result—an increased grant in every case up to the maximum. Again, I find that no less than 42 per cent of the remainder of our Board Schools pass between 90 and 100 per cent. A large majority of these pass between 90 and 96 per cent. There is also a considerable gain in grant per head in each one of these schools. Therefore, when I am told that this is a vast scheme for the demolition of voluntary schools, I cannot help regarding the statement as somewhat astounding, and I am anxious to discover some fact or reason which will act as a warning to me and bear out the assertion.
      MR. MUNDELLA: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the number of schools that passed less than 70, less than 80 and 90 per cent. Could he tell us the number of schools which passed less than 65 per cent and less than 60 per cent, and the number that get no grant at all?
      SIR W. HART DYKE: I have no doubt I could get the information from the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not the figures with me. I know that, below 65 per cent, there are a good many.
      Mr. MUNDELLA: Yes.
      SIR W. HART DYKE: Before I leave this point, I may say that, in respect of the poorer or struggling class of schools in this country, this scheme of ours is eminently calculated to assist such schools. It will afford them the utmost encouragement to improve their efficiency, and they will be, in the vast majority of instances, afforded the solid and substantial advantage of an increase of their grants. Then, Sir, there is another branch of our system of grants—that for class and extra subjects. We propose seriously to relax the position of our schools with regard to these class and extra subjects. We have a proposal, which I hope will be renewed, to no longer insist on the necessity of teaching English as a first class or extra subject. I have alluded already to the question of cookery. I think the widening and opening of the curriculum of extra subjects will be found of enormous importance. Take, for instance, the scattered schools in agricultural districts. Can we rest content with the knowledge that our agri-
      358
      cultural schools in England and Wales are passing in elementary subjects and nothing else? I consider that a mistake, and a deplorable mistake. Again and again, by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have been questioned as to instruction in agriculture in our schools. I know something of rural school life, and I am not going to suggest anything so absurd as the turning out of first-rate agriculturists from our elementary schools. But there is a vast difference between that and the absolute ignorance which we see in our agricultural districts of what is destructive to agriculture and what beneficial. A deal of good could be accomplished by giving some instruction in insect life, and illustrations might be hung in our rural schoolrooms of insect life with the utmost advantage to agriculture. What do we propose to do? That pupils may attend combined science classes—a plan which has been productive of great benefit in Hertford-shire and other counties where the central system of teaching has been carried out. I believe, not only in rural districts, but in towns the combination of schools for the achievement of a particular purpose is of great advantage. What one school1 is absolutely unable to do can be accomplished by a group of three or four schools with very little trouble and expense, and by means of a peripatetic teacher they could carry out a system of instruction such as I have indicated, with vast consequent improvement to our school life. I need hardly mention, Sir, that there is then the great question of drawing. Hon. Members are aware that we have placed drawing outside the 17s. 6d. limit, and a most useful change I believe it was. Hon. Members will be glad to hear that there is a vast improvement in respect of the numbers being taught. I believe I am right in saying that the number of children being taught drawing in our elementary schools has increased 25 per cent. That is most satisfactory. I am one of those who think that the pencil ought to run a harder race for supremacy with the pen in the teaching of our schools. I am of opinion that enormous benefit is to be derived from teaching children drawing in our schools. If hon. Members will look at the Code, they will find that managers were encouraged to submit to the In-

      359
      spector a progressive scheme of lessons in class and specific subjects, and the curriculum would thereby have been widened to the greatest possible extent, and could have been readily adapted to the special circumstances of particular classes of schools. As regards the voluntary schools, I ought to say, before leaving this branch of the subject, that they will find a new field of exertion in these class and extra subjects, for which the Code offered fresh facilities. It will be asked, How is this to be done? It is true that a vast number of these schools do not at present see their way to afford instruction in extra subjects? But I would venture to plead that the new way of administering grants and conducting examinations will give to these schools time which they do not possess under the present system. It would give more time for teaching, and a better method of classifying the pupils. It would be a more elastic system—would cause less drudgery; it would be more liberal in its character; and I believe, if it is adopted, that the time hitherto wanting for teaching of these extra subjects will be available for their benefit.
      MR. CONWAY: Do you do away with the 17s. 6d. limit?
      SIR W. HART DYKE: The hon. Member refers me to the 17s. 6d. limit. I am not going into that question, which is a matter for legislation; it is not a question which can be discussed on a Vote; but of this I am sure, that, if any movement is made in the direction of assisting the school by further grants from the State, no such proposal will be considered valid or adequate by this House which does not carry with it some security that the extra money paid will be actually expended for the benefit of education. That, I think, may fairly be urged and demanded. My hon. Friends may say, "It is of no use shadowing forth these changes, which may be of use to these schools, if we are met by the vexatious difficulty of the 17s. 6d. limit." I have taken six counties in different parts of England, which I believe to be typical counties—Buckingham, Herefordshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Westmoreland, and Wiltshire. In these counties I find a total of 1,547 schools, out of which only 204 schools have exceeded the
      360
      17s. 6d. limit, 525 over 15s., 542 over 12s. 6d., 190 over 10s., and 26 under 10s. Only 17 per cent. of these schools are handicapped, if I may so term it, by the 17s. 6d. limit, while no less than 83 per cent are below that limit. Therefore, so far as 83 per cent of these schools are concerned, these proposed changes would be of considerable benefit; and, taking the proposals as a whole, I think there is not one of these schools—and I say it as School Manager in a country district—which will not be able to bring its total grant up to the 17s. 6d. limit. Again, I must say that I find it difficult to discover how proposals such as these are to immolate and destroy the great mass of the voluntary schools of this country. We have been told that they will destroy some 3,000 voluntary schools, and before this Debate closes I shall be anxious to know how they will destroy 300, or 30, or 3. Though I am afraid that I am detaining the House, still I think that the matters which I am discussing are of a very important character. I should like to say a word or two with regard to our teachers. Some of the largest and most considerable of our proposals affect our great teaching system. I must say I have marvelled at the inaction of the teaching community with regard to these proposals. They are, to my mind, so manifestly to the advantage of the teaching community that I have been puzzled from time to time that they have not been more cordially accepted as to principle and less criticised in minutiae of detail by the great mass of the teachers of this country. Now we have a proposal which I hope at all costs will be renewed, and it is that we relinquish the endorsement of teachers' certificates. We believe that it has been irritating, and that it has sometimes operated cruelly upon teachers who have been hard workers in their profession. The most important change, however, which we propose for the encouragement of teachers is in respect of freedom of classification. These changes were urged by the Report of the Royal Commission. I am aware that in certain quarters these changes have been criticised as not being real, but only changes on paper, and that if put to the test of practice would fail. I can only say that these proposals as

      361
      regards freedom of classification are intended to be complete, and real, and conclusive. We propose that a teacher may put his scholars, as regards reading, writing, and arithmetic, in any standard he chooses. We have been told that no proposal of this kind will be satisfactory so long as the word "age" is left in certain Articles of the Code as one of the tests of the capacity of a child. I think myself broadly that it would be against experience of all kinds, and against common sense, if we were to strike out "age" altogether as a means of testing the capacity of a child. Take a case. The Inspector passes a child whose face shows the evident traces of overwork. Would not one of the first questions which a man of sense and responsibility would ask be as to the age of that child? To forbid such a question as that would, to my mind, be an absurdity. In judging of the capacity of a child it will be the duty of the Inspector to consider every possible circumstance, including that of age. I think the objection to the word "age" is a wrong one, for after all its retention would not work injuriously as regards our teaching system, but serve as a protection both to teachers and children. Then we are told that the liability of all scholars present to be examined is likely to work harshly, though I think it will be a most useful provision. It is said that a child may have been in the school only two or three weeks when it is seized upon and examined by the Inspector to the injury of the expected efficiency of the school. I think such a criticism as that does not do much credit to the common sense of the Inspector, who would surely not be fit to remain long at his post if he did not easily discover how long the child has been in the school. Sir, there are one or two other points on which I should like to touch—among them that relating to day training colleges. We shall not propose vast revolutionary changes as regards the training of our teachers, but we do consider that the recommendations of the Commissioners on this point are well worthy attention, and we think that the experiment should be made. I will say this, in regard to our proposal, that so far as the Universities are concerned, and in regard to all Institutions who are prepared to receive day teachers for training, we have received the
      362
      greatest possible encouragement, especially from the Yorkshire College at Leeds, and the other University Colleges, the members of which have shown the greatest anxiety to be of service. The religious and moral training of our teachers is a subject of the greatest importance. I perfectly admit the importance of the religious and moral training of those who have to instruct our children. I will not go further into this point, except to say that we shall in every possible case have appointed a strong Local Committee in association with this new system when inaugurated. I deeply regret the postponement of this Code in regard to bilingual teaching in Welsh schools. The proposal to afford facilities for the teaching of Welsh and English side by side has met with unanimous support through the whole of the Principality. And in reference to this, I should like to remove a misapprehension which seems to prevail. It is thought that these proposals are made to promote the teaching of Welsh; but to my mind they are in a precisely opposite direction. We have made them entirely from an educational point of view, and because we found that unless some change was made in the Code, the Welsh people, in their efforts to learn English, would be heavily handicapped when it came to a question of examination. So far as my wishes and object are concerned, these changes have been made to promote the education of the Welsh children, and to enable them to get the best equipment when they start life. I am aware, Sir, that there have been several severe criticisms of our proposals with reference to evening schools. I at once admit that some amendment of them is necessary, and they shall be carefully considered by next Session. We think, further, that the additional subjects which we proposed should be taken in the evening schools were not sufficient. We feel that instead of two, four additional subjects should be allowed in evening schools in respect of such children as are not presented in any standard. I see by the Majority Report of the Commission it is suggested that we should do away with any distinction as to elementary subjects in evening schools or classes. But there is one difficulty so far as we are concerned, and

      363
      that is that the elementary schools receive public grants under the Act of 1870, and that so far as the Education Department is concerned we must recognise the teaching of elementary subjects, and put that test to scholars before they can have the advantage of evening schools. We have been much criticised in respect of the curriculum of evening schools. We are told that we ought to have a very wide curriculum. We will treat it as widely as possible; and I conclude that the permission will apply to evening schools, where, under the footnote to Schedule IV., any subject with the approval of the Department can be taken as a specific subject. These proposals involve a curriculum as wide as any educational reformer could wish. It is proposed that a special curriculum should be drawn up with reference to all these extra specific or class subjects; but to my mind it would be far better to leave the curriculum as wide, and as open as possible, and to let it be made as useful as possible to the wants of the locality in which the school is situated. I am aware that I have only touched on two or three points of interest in our educational system. It is utterly impossible in remarks such as these to cover the whole ground. I need hardly say, Sir, that we have had but one object in view, and that is the improvement and furtherance of our great national scheme of education. We shall endeavour, if possible, to turn managers into a new groove, to improve the general character of our schools, to make our school life more elastic and more popular, and, with regard to extra class subjects, to do our very utmost to widen the curriculum. One or two notices have already been given for next Session, and they rather point to the fact that the educational barometer presents more stormy aspects, perhaps, than it has done for some years past; but, so far as I am concerned, I know of nothing at this moment, and I trust that nothing would happen in the near future, which would lead me to be unfaithful to the traditions upon which the great Act of 1870 was framed, and which were to make the School Board system supplementary to, and not destructive of, voluntary effort. Well, Sir, whatever may be in store for us in the near future, I do not disguise from myself the fact that there are questions of vast educational im-
      364
      portance looming in that near future. Still, I trust that the House will approach those questions in a calm, broad, and judicial spirit, as becomes a Representative Assembly. I am certain of this—that we cannot afford to quarrel, or make political capital out of these great subjects. There is plenty of information to show that Continental nations are taking vast and daily strides in educational matters. They are sparing neither time, energy, nor money to bring about great results in education. Therefore, Sir, we cannot afford to waste time in quarrelling over those questions instead of coming to a practical result at as early a date as possible. I hope and trust that we shall approach them in a non-Party spirit; and I am quite sure of this—that whatever may be the result of our labours, whatever may be the result of our Debates on these important questions, we shall, at all events, ever be mindful that there is no issue so great, which an. Assembly like this can debate and consider, as the education of the people, involving, as that education does, the fate and future of this great nation.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Sir, the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has-placed before the Committee is not only interesting but highly satisfactory to every Member of this House and to the nation at large. As I understand, during past years not only has the attendance of children at school greatly improved, but practically we are very nearly up to our accommodation power. All we have to do now is to keep pace with the annual increase of children; at the same time, the moment has now fully come when we should endeavour to increase the efficiency of the schools by improving the education. We all concur, I think, in what the right hon. Gentleman said in reference to the withdrawal of the new Code. It was a very liberal Code, and a very considerable step forward in education, and embodied many very valuable suggestions. On this side of the House we certainly do feel that if the Code was not so thorough in some respects as many of us wished, yet we knew that it was high time, after the four years of stagnation which we have had since the Royal Commission, that a further step should be taken in order to carry out their

      365
      recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a pressure of business during this Session which had caused the collapse of that Code. Of course, that is only a way of putting it. We know, and the country knows, that it was not lack of time, but the pressure brought to bear by men behind the right hon. Gentleman upon the Government, which caused the withdrawal of the Code. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that the Party of which he is one of the most brilliant ornaments had among it no reionaries. We know it is perfectly true that reactionary Conservatives have almost disappeared; but I regret to say that, in respect of elementary education, we have still Conservatives—and those the Representatives, chiefly and unfortunately, of the Church of England in this House—who have caused the withdrawal of this Progressive Code. I am led to say that its withdrawal, to a certain extent, was the fault of the Education Department. While the right hon. Gentleman was presenting to us the Code, he left us very much in the dark as to how these vast and Radical alterations were to be carried out. I think that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House thought the Department would have done well for their own sake and the sake of the Code if they had laid before the House the instructions to the Inspectors on which they wished the Code carried out. I regret the delay which will be caused to progressive elementary education by the withdrawal of the Code. The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that the Code would be re-introduced. I trust he will be successful in doing so. And if his speech is an indication of the lines on which the Code will go next year, I do not know that we on this side of the House need so very much regret the delay which has taken place. But I am afraid that the same malign influence which destroyed the Code this year will be encouraged by its success to act in like manner towards the reintroduced Code. Those who have opposed it have done a very ill service to the cause which they have at heart. I do not believe that any political action in regard to educational matters for very many years past has done so much to injure the voluntary system in public estimation. For many years past I have
      366
      been one of those who can see a very great advantage in the dual system of Board and Voluntary Schools. But those who support the dual system as it at present exists do feel that, after all, the voluntary system only exists so long as it is really educational. When we find, as we have lately found, unfortunately, that voluntaryists look more particularly to the interests of their own denomination; and when we find the Archbishop of Canterbury reported to have said at some educational conference a while ago that this Code must be destroyed in the interests of the Church, then I confess it seems to me that to take up such a position is likely to do very much injury to the voluntary system. And not only so, but this opposition has been a very foolish opposition. The right hon. Gentleman, as Education Minister, clearly pointed out in his speech that the position of affairs under the new Code will not be disadvantageous, but rather advantageous to the voluntary system, because they will gain by the increased grants to the small schools. So that on the mere score of pounds, shillings and pence they will find they have made a great mistake. But if these educational reforms did entail a certain increased liability on voluntaryism, they ought not to whine to this House over those proposals; they ought cheerfully to accept them, for it is a fatal position for voluntaryists to take up that denominational poverty is to stand in the way of educational progress. As far as I can see they have no case. After all, voluntary education does or ought to imply some sacrifice on the part of those who are interested in that system. [Cheers.] I am glad to find that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House cheer that proposition. I think it is too much forgotten that sacrifices, instead of having been increased of late years, are very much diminished, and there is a large number of voluntary schools which are voluntary only in name, and which are carried on by means of fees and grants, and without any sacrifice at all on the part of the voluntary managers. Considering the very large sums that are paid to the voluntary system, and the very liberal way in which it has been treated, I do not see how they can expect the nation to vote additional sums unless they are prepared to make

      367
      some corresponding sacrifices on their part. During the last 10 years the voluntary system has received something like £160,000 annually in children's fees, and they are educating a quarter of a million more in their own particular tenets. Not only are the Voluntaryists not called upon for further sacrifices, but the burden upon them is actually diminished by no less than £30,000 a year in less than 10 years. I think we may fairly ask those who are specially interested in these schools, to be ready to re-subscribe this small sum, if the nation, in its desire to have further educational progress, requests them to make some further sacrifice to the interests of their own special schools, and join with the Vice-President of the County Council in hoping that this subject will never be made an acute Party question, for in the educational future of this country it is essential that all Parties and sections should combine to improve it. I feel sure that nothing will more damage the cause of education than that a large section of the community interested in special schools should endeavour to prevent progress by pleading their poverty. I think it a pity that, even if the Code were going to be withdrawn, we had not an opportunity of discussing it in this House, because that discussion would have been the means of rendering some assistance to the Department and also to the House in appreciating the merits and demerits of the scheme. The chief point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that in which he referred to the substitute he proposed under the new Code for payment by results. I am one of those who think that the Code would have gone a long way to get rid of the many evils which existed under the old system. We should, by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, have got rid of the old multiple system; but, at the same time, I think that, under present circumstances, it would be impossible to get rid altogether of the system of making some recognition by grants of the merits of the schools. It is proposed by many of the teachers that there should be regular grants given to every school, and that it should not depend on the examiners or on the machinery of the schools, but that it should be by a combination of machinery and teaching and good buildings that good results
      368
      should be awarded. But if we had not to make large payments to the beneficiary managers under the prevalent system, I doubt whether we should see large sums paid to Local Bodies to make them responsible for the management and inspection of the schools, and I also doubt whether such a system could be carried out. I am not sure that, under our system, where we cannot have a local buffer, such a system as that would answer, and I believe the proposal to abolish payment by results would be a satisfactory step forward, because it would get rid of that which was thereat evil—the old system of the individual examination of every child, and the payment of a percentage on examination—a system shown by the evidence before the Commissioners to be overwhelmingly bad. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the great opportunity given to teachers for the classification of the children and the choice of class subjects, and probably every hon. Member will welcome the great change which under these two heads it is proposed to make; but I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on one point—namely, that, although he proposes to give full freedom of classification, he is still going to retain classification by age. He desires that the word "age" should remain in the Code and be one of the items in classification. If we were starting a fresh system there might be no evil in such a principle; but the great complaint of the teachers and managers is that the Inspectors in the past have gone almost entirely on the age of the child, and if that word is still left in the Code the result would be that, the Inspectors having got into this rule, there would still be a great deal of difficulty in the classification. In regard to the choice of class subjects I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that under the new Code he has given practically freedom of choice; at any rate there is greater freedom than under the old system; but I am afraid that what is given with one hand is to be taken away with the other. It is proposed that schools shall not earn grants unless they take one of certain subjects, and the Department alway sseems to desire that as far as possible the obnoxious class-subject of grammar shall be crammed down the children's throats, as they put that in the class subjects with repetition,

      369
      making repetition compulsory. Under these circumstances freedom of choice in class subjects will not be so great as the right hon. Gentleman supposes. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to carry his new Code, as I think it would in many respects be one of the greatest educational departures of modern years. It is too much to expect that in the next few years the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the question of fees. I am not now going to discuss the question of free schools, but I would ask whether he could not see his way to the fees in the voluntary schools being made lower and more uniform than they are. I cannot for the life of me see why the fees of the School Board schools should be absolutely under the control of the Department, while those of the voluntary schools are practically under the control of the managers and not of the Department. In a number of instances the fees in the voluntary schools are very irregular, and in some cases among the rural schools we find that they have been actually raised almost to prohibitive amounts in order to drive the children out of school, so that the farmers and others might utilise their labour more quickly. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the children leave the schools at far too early an age, and I think that if he could only make a proposal to raise the age he would meet with almost universal approval. I would, however, suggest whether he could not combine such a proposal as that, which would throw a large burden on the parents, with some system under which fees might be greatly reduced and made more uniform, so that the parents would be to some extent relieved from the burden they have now to bear in the shape of loss of the children's wages and the cost of their school attendance. Thanking the Committee for its kindness in listening to these remarks, I cannot conclude without once more expressing my deep regret that the Code has been withdrawn, and my strong hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reintroduce it, or perhaps introduce evea a better one, next year if he has the opportunity.
      SIR R. TEMPLE: I cannot but heartily join with the hon. Member who has just spoken in congratulating the Minister for Education
      370
      on the statement he has made to-night in a genial, sympathetic, and statesmanlike manner. I am sure that this House will heartily concur in what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to the principal objects to be aimed at in regard to elementary education. I am certain that those objects are being obtained within the Metropolitan area, and that if hon. Members of this House could only see the educational work that is being done in London they would feel some pride in what is being achieved for the culture of the children, and look with hope and confidence to its good results to the country. I am sure that if the public could have seen the children of the Board Schools perform their march past in the Park of Lambeth Palace last year, and have witnessed the physical exercises the other day in the Albert Hall, they also would have felt pride in what is being done. We cannot, perhaps, get up an exhibition of drawings; but in music I believe we could fill the Crystal Palace with choirs of our children under our own teachers as conductors. We are going to have an exhibition of needlework in the East of London during the autumn, which I am sure will astonish all the spectators; and as regarded cookery, if hon. Members would visit the cookery centres between 1 and 2 o'clock, I am confident that their external senses would be gratified. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has exercised a wise discretion in postponing the introduction of the Code, at least till another Session, so that the public mind may be better matured by discussion during the Autumn on the subject. Nobody on my side of the House has doubted the excellence of the intentions of my right hon. Friend in regard to the voluntary schools. No one has ever accused my right hon. Friend of having done anything wilfully to immolate (as he calls it) or spoliate voluntary schools. It is felt that many of the proposals that are of benefit to the voluntary schools apply mostly to schools in the interior of the country in those counties such as that the right hon. Gentleman represents, and such as I myself represent, but that these benefits are not extended equally to the great voluntary schools in the towns, which are suffering from the competition of the Board Schools.

      371
      These are the schools where the real pinch exists, and where the actual struggle must be waged. If there was to be real benefit to voluntary schools at large, how is it that no increased provision was made in the Budget on this account? Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer made any increase to his Budget on account of the Code? Not at all. He has not done so in the Budget for the year, and I fear he will not do so in the next Budget. What would happen would be this: new concessions would be made in one direction and new restrictions would be imposed in another—addition in one place, subtraction in another—so that both ends are made to meet. But, on the whole, there would be no net gain to the schools. The objections and difficulties of voluntary school managers in respect to the new Code I will, in a few moments, summarise. I must do this in justice to my constituents. In the first place they contend that their liabilities are increased, while their resources will not be increased. Liabilities will be augmented in various directions in respect to space in schoolrooms, to establishment of teachers, and to apparatus, but there will be no increase where with to meet the increased liabilities in these three important departments of school management. On the other hand, they contend that their grants on the whole will not be increased. It may be so in some of the small schools in the interior of the country, but not in the great voluntary schools in the towns, and I think the danger is not for the country schools but for the town schools. In the country schools there is no competition whatever, while in town schools there is a grinding, crushing competition on the part of School Boards. It is difficult to argue in detail before this House as to whether such and such articles in the Code will benefit particular classes of schools, but those who are the managers and best judges as to whether they will gain or lose, declare for the most part that they will not gain. There is no complaint against my right hon. Friend for not moving in the matter of the 17s. 6d. limitation. Of course there is great grief over this limitation, but all our voluntary friends are well aware that the expansion of this will require legislation, and that
      372
      if legislation is proposed a great deal of strong feeling will be evoked on the other side, and opposition to the alteration would be serious, and would have to be wrestled with. As regards payments by results our voluntary friends are, no doubt, thankful to see that the stringency of the system heretofore exercised will be relaxed, but what will be substituted will be an unlimited, irresponsible, inspectorial discretion—excuse the long words, but perhaps they are allowable in an educational discussion—everything will depend on the instructions given to the inspectors. It may be that under these instructions the new system will be more burdensome than the old; it may be that while payment by results is a chastisement with whips, payment on inspectoreal reports may prove a chastisement with scorpions. That is the fear which prevails, and it might be advisable for my right hon. Friend to publish those instructions simultaneously with the Code. Further, in the execution of these instructions much will depend on the discretion of the assistant inspectors, and I would commend to my right hon. Friend that if the assistant inspector makes a report adverse to a school, an appeal should lie to the principal inspector. And, further, if it is contemplated to withdraw a grant from any school, that school so threatened should have due notice thereof, and the right to show cause to my right hon. Friend why the grant should not be lessened or withdrawn. There is great apprehension, and more than apprehension, much sorrow at the proposal to withdraw the grant for pupil teachers. The pupil teacher system is, in my judgment, essential to all schools, and particularly to voluntary schools, on both financial and administrative grounds. What our voluntary friends feel is this, that it was in order to find money for additional advantages and same time to strengthen the schools in the interior of the country, in rural districts, schools that are not exposed to competition, that the grant for pupil teachers was withdrawn, and the withdrawal creates great disappointment to the town schools which are exposed to School Board competition. One great recommendation of the pupil teacher system is its economy, but it I further conduces to efficiency. The best

      373
      teachers are those who have been brought up to the business of teaching from childhood. Selected scholars first serve as junior then as senior pupil teachers in special centres, then as ex-pupil teachers, and then after passing through the training colleges and won further their parchment certificate, and at last, having served as apprentices for eight or 10 years, become full-fledged assistant teachers. These are the very best men and women of their class who have imbibed the doctrines of pedagogy from their earliest years, and therefore we contend that a great blow to efficiency, as well as to economy, is being inflicted when the pupil teachers' grant is withdrawn. As to the training colleges, the voluntary school advocates have no objection to day colleges being instituted, but they fear that the day colleges, introduced in certain circumstances and conditions, would be enabled to compete unfairly and injuriously with the training colleges already existing, which are residential, and which have been founded for many years and have done wonderfully good work and brought up their alumni in a manner no day college can possibly equal. Therefore, there is an apprehension. No doubt my right hon. Friend may be able to make such regulations as shall secure an open field without favour, both to existing or residential training colleges, and the new day colleges to be set on foot. Another great disappointment is that the new Code made no provision for technical education. We contend, subject to the better knowledge of the Education Department, that nothing would have been easier than to obviate, by executive orders without legislation, all trouble about elementary schools, which trouble will now survive this Session, be carried over to next Session, and perhaps will never be solved. We say it would have been perfectly easy to make such regulations for technical instruction within the four corners of the Education Act. Further, we say the Code might have gone further in popularising evening classes. We are constantly liable to the eloquent and fervid appeals of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), because we, for years, have been trying to extract from the Education Department under this and preceding Governments certain reasonable facilities in order to make evening
      374
      classes popular. We did hope that this matter would have been settled by the new Code. I admit that the Code has done something, but much more might have been done. My right hon. Friend men ioned that the teachers as a body do not seem to be strongly in favour of the new Code, and is not that a signal proof that the Code requires further consideration? But I am not aware that there is disapproval of the Code on their part. While teachers think that there are many good points about the new Code, they at the same time complain that there is no provision, or a matter as to which teachers in England, whether in Board or voluntary schools, consider themselves much aggrieved. There is no provision whatever, either by Parliamentary or any other agency, in the nature of superannuation arrangements for them when they are unable any longer to carry out the exhausting labour in the classrooms, and this too by deductions from salaries without any burdens to the rates. This is a matter of great importance, because it not only affects the teachers personally, but the efficiency of the schools as well. In the absence of any such arrangement, teachers have to be kept on year after year, teachers of excellent character against whom no specific complaint can be alleged, but on whom increasing years are telling so that they are no longer equal to the discharge of their arduous duties. Now, Sir, I feel bound to take this opportunity of stating so much to the House, on behalf of my voluntary friends, not only on account of my experience in the Metropolitan area, where we School Board people are brought face to face with the greatest voluntary schools in the country, who are carrying on the most arduous of all the struggles now being waged anywhere, but also in justice to my own constituents and to a large class of clergy and school managers and of other persons interested in education who form the chief pillars of support of the voluntary school system. I say that the voluntary school system in this country is a system which deserves the support of Parliament and the nation. In the first place, it is a magnificent display of patriotic effort, the like of which is not to be seen in any other country under heaven. My right hon. Friend the Member for

      375
      Sheffield is fond of telling the English I people how much they have to learn from other nations in the matter of education. It is true we have much to learn from other nations, but I venture to think they have still more to learn from us, and I was sure they can claim nothing at all comparable to the system instituted by voluntary agencies in this country. The system has this advantage, that it saves a vast amount of money to the Public Exchequer and to local taxation. My hon. Friend who has just spoken talked as if the voluntary system was indebted to the nation, and as if it was rather kind of the nation to concede assistance. In my opinion, on the contrary, the nation is indebted to the voluntary system, eminently so. It is to the nation that millions of money are saved not only in taxation, but in a degree of private effort that no State effort could equal. No one can deny the assistance we receive from the local managers of Board Schools, but this, good as it is, does not equal the vigilance and loving care of benevolent friends towards voluntary schools. Such schools set an excellent example by the spirit they display. My hon. Friend who has just sat down says that these schools are no longer supported by subscriptions.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I said some of them.
      SIR R. TEMPLE: My hon. Friend says some of them are not supported by subscriptions, but that—and that is a remarkable admission from an opponent of the voluntary schools—they manage to carry on the work by fees alone and grants. That is too good to be true, but if they do they have thereby set up the strongest possible ground for the support of the House and the country. Look at the Board Schools. Do they manage to carry on mainly by the fees? The fees in London amount to only one eighth of the total amount expended on elementary education. And yet are the voluntary schools inferior? I am not sure that their average earnings of Government grants do not compare favourably with ours. One remark further in reference to what fell from my right hon. Friend as to the expenditure of the London School Board as compared with other School Boards and voluntary schools generally. 1 am afraid that the censure of my right
      376
      hon. Friend, if censure I may call it, mild censure by implication, is, in regard to the London School Board in my humble estimation, too well deserved. The London School Board has always spent too much and is still doing so, spending more than ever. Nobody in this House has stood up in his place more often to defend the conduct of the London School Board than I have, but its finances I cannot altogether defend. For several years from 1884 up to the present time, I have struggled not without success to keep expenditure down, and I shall not cease to struggle; but what I want to point out is that this question does not concern the House of Commons and does not relate to these votes. Whatever offences we commit in the way of financial extravagance does not in any way affect the sum we have to ask the House to vote. That is a question not between the London School Board and the House of Commons, or even between the Board and the Education Department, but between the Board and the ratepayers. If the ratepayers choose to elect a School Board who spend their money right and left they alone are answerable, it is their pockets that will suffer. I thank the House for allowing me to make this statement, and I will resume my seat with this observation—that my right hon. Friend and the Government have shown their wonted sound judgment in allowing a little time to elapse before the Code is re-introduced. We are not afraid of any adverse verdict as affecting the voluntary schools, we are quite confident that the more their work is examined the more splendid it will be found, like fine gold tried in the fire of criticism. At all events it will give my right hon. Friend and the Education Department the opportunity which has not been adequately afforded as yet of really taking the Voluntary School Managers into their confidence. I cannot help thinking that a good deal of trouble would have been avoided if the Education Department had been less reserved. I would entreat my right hon. Friend to consider this matter in consultation with the recognised Authorities of that great voluntary system of which the nation is so justly proud. I am sure they will give him every possible assistance, and he will find that no section in this country is more anxious to promote

      377
      that physical, mental, and moral culture that should render the rising generation of Englishmen a wise and understanding people.
      SIR J. LUBBOCK: The hon. Baronet the Vice President, in the closing sentences of his speech, justly insisted on the importance of education for the future happiness and prosperity of the country, and it is very much to be regretted that so little time is devoted to the subject. We hear of a Scotch Session, an Irish Session, and sometimes an English Session; I wish for once we could have an Education Session. What is the position in which we find ourselves? Two very important Royal Commissions have recently investigated the subject—namely, the Technical Instruction Commission, and the Education Commission. They each recommended important changes, and it is most remarkable that in very many points, I might almost say on all educational points in each case, the Commissioners were unanimous. The Technical Education Bill has been promised over and over again, and as often our hopes have been disappointed. I do not blame the Vice President of the Council, it is not his fault, but it is an additional evidence of the need there is that we should have a Minister of Education with a seat in the Cabinet, and then educational questions would receive the attention their importance justly demands. Then again the Education Commission, though divided no doubt on many important points, as was inevitable considering the diversity of views represented, was unanimous or almost unanimous on purely educational questions. Some of their recommendations, though by no means all, were embodied in the New Code. For my part I thank the Vice President for the care he has devoted to the subject, and for the improvements he has introduced, and I regret that the Code has been withdrawn. The objections to it were not educational objections. I think that the hon. Gentleman opposite and the supporters of voluntary schools, who object to the New Code, entertain exaggerated ideas as to the cost which would be involved in the new requirements, and that they underrate the average amount which Will be earned under the New Code. It
      378
      may reasonably be expected that the increased efficiency will secure a larger grant. Of course we must remember that it is in the essence of the existence of voluntary schools that there should be a substantial sum raised by subscriptions. It is a serious misfortune that the Code is to be postponed. Is it not possible, even now that the educational changes, as to which there is no question, should be accepted? They are imperatively required. For instance, the present Code presses unduly on night schools. There is no compulsion in the case of night schools, and the consequence, of course, is that unless they are made interesting and attractive to boys and girls, they will not be attended, and, as a matter of fact, they are lamentably few and far between. Again, the Commissioners were unanimous as to the subjects of instruction which they regarded as essential. They said:—
      "The following are the subjects of elementary instruction which we regard as essential, subject to the various qualifications which we have already made: Reading, writing, arithmetic; needlework for girls; linear drawing for boys; singing; English, so as to give the children an adequate knowledge of their mother tongue; English history, taught by means of reading books; geography, especially of the British Empire; lessons on common objects in the lower standards, leading up to a knowledge of elementary science in the higher standards."
      That is to say they regarded the four class subjects as they are technically termed—namely, geography, history, English, and elementary science as essential. But the Code only allows two class subjects to be taken, of which English must be one and geography is generally the other. I am aware that there is, for those who know it, a postern door of escape, and they may take class subject as a special subject. But that is a roundabout process and is scarcely ever made use of. Now, what is the result? Out of, say, 20,000 schools only 383 presented any children in history, and only 39 in elementary science. When I mentioned the corresponding figures last year I was told that I must have made a mistake, and I will, therefore, quote the very words of the Report—
      "The wider range of class subjects allowed by the Code under the head of 'elementary science' does not appear to be taken advantage of to any great extent at present. The returns show but 39 schools which have taken subjects under this head, while geography has been

      379
      taken in 12,035 schools, needlework, by the girls, in 7,137, history in 383, and drawing in 505."
      Of course I know that there are schools in which these subjects are taught, though the children are not presented for examination. That, however, strengthens my case, because it shows that as at present constituted the Code discourages the very thing we wish to secure. Schoolmasters naturally consider that the Department wishes children only to take up two class subjects, and they limit themselves accordingly. The London School Board, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham has often reminded us, has set an excellent example in this respect; they not only teach all four subjects, but went further and took up some of the specific subjects also. They found the results excellent. So far from interfering with the elementary subjects, the variety introduced, the greater interest excited, benefited the reading, writing, and arithmetic. Mr. Rankine reports that—
      "In specific subjects this district is preeminent. No other district in England approaches it. Over 6,000 scholars were examined last year in specific subjects, The favourite subjects are physiology, domestic economy, and algebra. The children examined passed well in all subjects. The higher the instruction is carried in any school I find the lower work improved in proportion, and better results in reading, writing, and arithmetic are obtained with less pressure. This is, no doubt, owing to cultivation of general intelligence."
      The result of the wider education given in German schools is the same. Surely, then, the time has come when every school should be examined in all the four class subjects. I do not mean that in every school they can all as yet be insisted on, but that this is what we should aim at. In the old, I regret that I must now say the present Code, if any class subjects are taken one must be English. The Education Commissioners unanimousely recommended that this rule should be withdrawn and the school authorities should be allowed to choose their own class subjects. This the Department has done in the new Code, but then I am sorry to see that in another part of it they introduced a provision that "No school shall receive more than 12s., unless the Inspector reports that the scholars throughout the school are satisfactorily
      380
      taught repetition as set forth in Schedule II." But repetition is part of the English. This is really therefore taking back with one hand what they have given with the other. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to omit this when he reintroduces the Code next year. But could he not even now in accordance with the unanimous recommendations of the Commission remove the provision which makes English compulsory. There is only one other subject on which I should wish to say a word before I sit down. Our elementary school system in the case of boys is altogether a training for the brain, I might almost say of the memory; there is nothing which tends to give a command of the hand and eye. In the case of girls, of course there is needlework, but we have nothing of the same sort for boys. The experience of the Slojd system in Sweden, and of other foreign schools, I might add, I think, of our London School Board, shows that there is really no difficulty in the matter, though, of course, it can only be introduced by degrees; and I hope that when my right hon. Friend is reconsidering his Code he will introduce provisions, not of course as yet requiring, but encouraging the introduction of manual training into our elementary schools—not intended as a preparation for any particular handicraft—but to give control over the hand and eye. I believe, and I speak from some little experience in this matter, that such lessons would be very popular with the boys, and that would in itself be a great recommendation. I am convinced also that it would have a good effect on the purely literary studies. We often hear of the importance of teaching children to read with expression, but what is much more important, is that they should read with ease. This can only be acquired with practice; and people only read much, if they have been taught to enjoy it. The cardinal mistake that we have made has, I venture to think, been that our object has been to teach as much as possible, instead of endeavouring to make the process pleasant so that the children might wish to learn, and might teach themselves. What children learn for themselves is far more valuable than what they are taught. The changes to which I have called attention, which were unani-

      381
      mously recommended by the Commission, and which would not, I believe, be seriously contested in this House, would leave more freedom to school managers, would encourage and promote continuation schools, and would render our system more practical and more interesting to the children. The weakness of our present system is the absence of interest, and consequently of the wish for continuation schools, so that too often the children forget what they have so laboriously learnt. If, on the other hand, we can but enable them to realise the delightful and inexhaustible fund of interest and enjoyment to be derived from books, and still more from Nature herself, then indeed we shall need no compulsion, our schools and our libraries will be full, and the prisons and public-houses comparatively empty.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: We all agree with the hon. Baronet in wishing that more attention should be paid to education in the House, but I think the state of the House during this Debate will hardly encourage the Government to give us many more Bank Holidays for the discussion. Now, when I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Vice President, I thought that the Chief of the Education Department ought to be the most popular man in the country, for he described himself as the most generous of givers of public money, and that the Department must be the model Department in the Government, for he described it in glowing terms of praise. I hope I will not throw any discord into this discussion, if to a certain extent I criticise both the speech of the Vice President of the Council and the conduct of the Department. I have just presented a Petition, signed by 20,000 persons, who complain of the way in which the education of this great country is managed. The Petition is from managers, and parents who send their children to school, both voluntary schools and Board schools, and what do the petitioners ask for? For the relief and encouragement of voluntary schools. They think that the voluntary system is unfairly treated at the present time by the Department. They think that the policy of the Department is and has been for many years a stand-
      382
      still policy, and that there is a great deal of inefficiency in the way in which the business of the Department is carried on. If the complaints of the petitioners are well-founded no Government, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, can afford to overlook or to neglect them. Who make the complaints? Not reactionaries, not men who have hindered the cause of education, but men who have stood in the forefront of the educational movement for the last 50 years, men who show their interest in the education of the poor by annual subscriptions to the amount of three-fourths of a million sterling, by invested capital in schools and school plant of the value of £30,000,000; men who, without any assistance from the rates, are now managing the schools which contain more than half of the school children of England. What will be the cost to the country of extinguishing these schools? It will be many millions sterling a year, and £30,000,000 down. Who do these schools belong to? They belong to all religious denominations, to the Church of England, Methodists, Independents, Baptists, Wesleyans, Roman Catholics, and to Jews; their watchword is "freedom of religious education." The English people are essentially a religious people; I do not think any one will be found to deny that, notwithstanding the activity of the Secularist party in the House of Commons. The managers of voluntary schools believe that there is if not an intention, at all events a tendency in the action of the Education Department to violate the concordat with Mr. Forster. Everyone will allow that moral training is at the root of sound training, and that the foundation of moral training is religion. When men begin by eliminating religion they often end by obliterating morality. In the new Code there are no instructions whatever to the Inspectors to report on moral training; yet the Royal Commission declare that it should be the first duty of the Inspectors to report on moral training, and to impress on teachers, managers, and children the primary importance of that essential element of all education. The members of the Royal Commission may well say, "Who has read our Report?" They are like men crying in the wilderness; the Department seems to have

      383
      paid no attention to their recommendations. "Accuracy of knowledge" is one of the points upon which the Commission suggest that the Inspectors should report upon. Will it be believed that during the 20 years the Department have never succeeded in giving an authoritative definition of "elementary education?" The idea of elementary education changes with the Code, and there is no limit to the number of Codes. There must be some mental confusion at the Education Department or they would not have gone on without defining the education which is to be paid for out of the rates and taxes. This mental confusion seems to prevail throughout, for no classification of schools has been arrived at. Neither in the time of the right hon. Gentleman nor of his predecessor (Mr. Mundella), and between them they had held office for 10 years, no attempt has been made to distinguish between schools under different conditions, and to treat them according to their circumstances. What has been done for the poor urban voluntary school—that school which is of such great advantage socially and religiously? Simply nothing. Then we come to the small rural schools, of which there are 4,000, whose attendance is less than 60. What has been done for them? Nothing, or hardly anything during the time of my right hon. Friend opposite, or my right hon. Friend the present Vice President. All that has been proposed is that they should be compelled to provide a much larger staff and should have the inadequate compensation of £10, which would in no way cover the increased expense. Every one who knows anything of schools in country places will admit that if the cause of education is to be advanced, these schools should be assisted by a special grant towards the staff. Again, voluntary schools are unfairly treated by their enforced association with pauperism. In the case of Board Schools parents unable to pay school fees get them remitted without difficulty, but in the case of voluntary schools a parent has to go to the Board of Guardians and submit to all the unpleasantnesses of pauperism before his fees are remitted. The right hon. Gentleman has now been three years in office, but no change has yet been made as regards the hardship to which volun-
      384
      tary schools are subject in having to pay rates while night and Sunday schools are exempt. Now, I wish to make it quite clear that the complaint which I now make is rather against the policy of the Department than against the right hon. Gentleman personally. The policy inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield still governs the Department in every respect. We remember the struggle we had with him on the matter of overpressure. Although personally a man of kindly good nature, yet we found the right hon. Gentleman was killing two or three children every month. It was only by bringing forward case after case and making the public fully aware of what was going on that we were able to get any relief. We all remember the famous Report of Sir Creighton Browne on overpressure, which the late Vice President tried to suppress. We have to a certain extent corrected the evils of overpressure, but still the salaries of the masters are dependent upon grants, and that is the fruitful source of the danger. We hope the hon. Gentleman will make the salaries of the masters not so much dependent on the grants as they are at present. The chaos in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite left the Department compelled the Government to appoint a Royal Commission on Education, and though that Commission has reported, that Report unfortunately has not yet been acted upon. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to effect reforms in the conduct of his own Department. There is a want of confidence in that Department, and that is shown by the rejection and withdrawal of the Code—a want of confidence that I can assure him is very widespread. The Inspectors require to be inspected. There is great difficulty in getting rid of a bad Inspector, who may cause terror to a whole district. The other day I brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend what appeared to be a case of untrustworthiness in an Inspector, and told him he would find that other complaints against this Inspector had been made. My right hon. Friend said he could find nothing to confirm the statement that the removal of the gentleman from one district to another was due to any misconduct,

      385
      that anything was known of his antecedents at the place I mentioned. But the fact was that the gentleman was cast in damages and costs in the County Court for striking a boy with a book in the course of an examination. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend, but I mention this incident to indicate that the Department is not as well managed and as well manned as it ought to be. And now I wish to point out how the creation of new precedents which has been going on from time to time by the Department has led to the invariable injury of voluntary schools. Those who know the rules and methods by which the Education Act is worked know that School Boards have the right of appealing to the Department to obtain compulsory powers to purchase sites for schools, and it is right that they should have this power. But the School Boards have not the right to compulsorily acquire the sites of voluntary schools, for these are guarded by the 23rd section of the Education Act, and this has been recognised by the Department until last year when they attempted a new departure, and to apply the compulsory powers of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to force a voluntary school to sell its site to a School Board. Now, a new practice such as this is contrary to the concordat of Mr. W. E. Forster, and would, if allowed, lead to the effacement of voluntary schools. The case I refer to is known as the Middleton St. George case. Next I wish to call attention to a matter about which I asked a question this evening, and received a rather unsatisfactory answer. The method laid down in the Code as the basis for measuring the accommodation in voluntary schools is eight square feet per child. This has invariably been adopted. Article 96 and Note of the Code directs that "eight square feet of internal area for each unit of average attendance" shall be the basis adopted, and the principle hitherto acted upon by the Department is that voluntary schools shall not be touched by the 10 square feet basis, and that in case of schools which have been passed by the Department for a certain number of children the arrangement shall not be disturbed. But the other day at Luton, in order to give a defence for the enlargement of the Board School, a voluntary school was,
      386
      for the first time, measured on the basis of 10 square feet instead of eight, and the Vice-President said that voluntary schools would be measured on that basis.
      SIR W. HART DYKE: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I am afraid I did not make myself understood in the latter part of my reply. I did state that there were other cases.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I would ask my right hon. Friend to give me other instances. I am informed that there is no case precisely parallel to this Luton case. I believe this is the first case during the 19 years the Education Act has been in force in which 10 square feet measurement has been adopted in calculating the accommodation of a voluntary school. What I want to point out is the somewhat unfair spirit in which the Education Act is worked by the Department against the voluntary schools, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to remove the unfairness. We who are interested in voluntary schools cannot but be dissatisfied with the partiality which reigns in the Department. The voice of the Education Department is the voice of my right hon. Friend, but the hand is the hand of his predecessor, and the head that conceives these new principles seems to be that of the ingenious chief of the Department.
      MR. MOLLOY: Like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I have always been a strong supporter of the voluntary system, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman had devoted some of his time to dealing with what, after all, is the real question before us, rather than have gone into the mass of details he did. The right hon. Gentleman asked for some explanation of the causes of the opposition to the New Code now put off to next year, and some hon. Members on the other side have given explanations. Whether they are the whole or only part of their explanations I do not know, but I will tell him very distinctly why I put down notice of opposition. It was this. I felt that the Code raised questions as between voluntary and Board I Schools, which under the conditions and I at the time of the Session could not be debated with any good result. Further, I looked upon the Code as merely a compromise. When the

      387
      Royal Commission issued their Report, if the Government with their big majority between them had had the courage to carry the recommendations of the Commission into legislation they could have done a very great deal of good, and all parties might have been satisfied. But the Government allowed three years to pass, and then introduced the Code as a compromise only dealing with details of the proposed changes. The result appears to me to be that all hope of this Report of the Royal Commission being carried out has long passed. I do not myself see how the hopes expressed in that Report, and by those of us who sat on the Commission will ever be carried out by the present Government. I myself wish sincerely the Government had acted at once upon the report of the Royal Commission and carried out their own intentions, which were, to all intents and purposes, the intentions of the Royal Commission, for they had their majority on the Commission. I regret exceedingly they did not do so and effect a settlement of the question which was possible then but which, I believe, is utterly impossible now. We have gone a very long way beyond that Report. The very fact that the Report has been considered and discussed throughout the length and breadth of the country, and discussed by all educationalists, has made it impossible that the scheme which really underlies the Report can be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman was afraid of outside opinion and of a section of his own followers perhaps, but from whatever course it may be, the golden opportunity has been missed, and we must now seek for a settlement of the question upon a basis entirely different from that which we had formerly hoped for. I think there is nothing more dangerous to the cause of education than that it should become a Party and political question, but a Party and political question it is fast becoming, and is now far more than it was three years ago. Free education is now a plank in a political platform, and we have seen the principle carried out in Scotch legislation. I have come to the conclusion that supporters of both voluntary and School Board systems must be prepared to accept free education, compulsory education, education
      388
      up to a standard and inspection. We shall have to accept nearly all that is accepted in Board Schools. I will go further and say this, that I think the result in the very near future will be that the whole system of education in the country will have to be under a system of Board Schools. Of course it will be impossible for voluntary schools to pass under Board School management under existing conditions; there must be a compromise on both sides, there must be a "give and take," and I am satisfied that a fair and honest compromise between the voluntary and the School Board systems can be effected. I, for one, do not fear it. The difficulty, of course—the main difficulty, and I speak more especially for those of my own creed, is that in accepting what the Board Schools demand we could not accept any system that would introduce into our schools a system of proselytism. We must find a system of compromise with the School Board system that will enable us to live together and carry on our educational system without injury or annoyance, to either side. I certainly would have preferred the carrying out of the original system, but that is impossible; we have been driven into the position in which we find ourselves. I suppose there would have been considerable difference of opinion among those who support the voluntary system, and I think that difference of opinion will be to their injury; but they must blame themselves for the position in which they find themselves. I think a good deal of it has arisen from the fact that in some of the voluntary schools the political element has been introduced, more especially in some of the country schools. That accusation has been made against them, and whether it is true or not, we find ourselves in the present difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman has asked us to give him our views upon it, and I give him my view most willingly, for I know the interest he takes in the subject. These are the views I hold, and I believe that a compromise may be effected, that we may take this question, once for all, out of the political arena, and devote ourselves to the interests of education apart from every other consideration.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: It is impossible to overrate the

      389
      importance of the speech to which we have just listened. It indicates a policy with which I have the greatest sympathy, and frankly expresses views I have long entertained on the education question. I hope the importance of the subject may not be measured by the attendance of Members; for, indeed, I think it is impossible for the House of Commons to be engaged in a more important discussion, one that has a more important bearing on the future of this country. It is one of the most important considerations that meet us in relation to this great problem, that there are still a million of children not reached by our educational machinery, and we have to find a means of reaching these children; for it is from these largely that our criminal classes and our drunkards and many evils of society spring. I have listened with intense interest to the discussion, and I cannot help thinking that those who look at this subject from a voluntary point of view shut their eyes to facts that nevertheless they will have to encounter. It is not for the advantage of the country that three-quarters of a million in grants of public money should be placed in the hands of those who promote education merely as a means to sectarian influence. It is against the extension of this sectarian influence we protest and have to fight. We have had strong illustrations of this. The Technical Instruction Bill would have passed but for the opposition of voluntary schools, chiefly due to clerical influence. I am one of those who think that we shall never reach our educational requirements until we have compulsion in a much stronger form; but the country will never allow compulsion to be exercised by a self-elected body such as the managers of voluntary schools are. We are rapidly tending towards free education, and I only wish that in our own Local Government Bill we had been as wise as our northern friends in devoting the relief of local taxation to that purpose. I congratulate our Scotch friends on their success in this direction, and I am sure that the advantages of the principle cannot long be controlled by a geographical boundary. While I listened to the statement of the Vice President, I could not help noticing the fact that while expenditure for educational purposes is growing, subscriptions for the voluntary system are
      390
      declining, and this, I think, clearly indicates that those who talk so much about the voluntary system do not make much impression in respect to it. But I do not wish to introduce more discord, though I cannot but express my belief that the clerical desire to keep control over education has checked the progress of education in this country. Long ago we should have had a really national system if we had had less of the clerical fingers upon the educational springs of the country. I listened with delight to the speech just delivered. It came from one who represents a section of Christians not supposed to have the most broad and liberal views, and, coming from the hon. Gentleman, it is a fingerpost that indicates the road that the Education Department would do well to follow; and I am sure we shall all have cause to rejoice at the advantages it will bring to the nation.
      MR. CALDWELL: I find that whilst there are 16·4 per cent of the population on the school registers in England, there are 15·9 per cent of the population on the school registers in Scotland—taking the year 1887—and the average attendance per population in England is 12·9 per cent of the population, as against 12·4 per cent in Scotland. Then again, in regard to the annual inspection, we find that a larger number of children are present at the annual inspection in England as compared with Scotland, and the results are, therefore, very creditable to England, the population of which is undoubtedly in advance of Scotland, both as regards the number of children on the school registers, the number in average attendance, and the number presented for inspection. Of course the attendances in the higher standards are larger in Scotland than in England, but then in England the compulsory standard is the Fourth Standard, while in Scotland the compulsory standard is the fifth. Again, in Scotland no child is allowed to work in a factory until it attains the age of 13 years, and that restriction does not apply in England. Again, in Scotland no child is allowed to pass from school until it has either passed the Fifth Standard or is fourteen years of age. It is quite evident, therefore, that you have superior educational results in Scotland as compared with England. In England

      391
      you have, to begin with, a higher number of children on the school register, and what you want now is to bring up your educational standard. That is only to be accomplished by England following the lead of Scotland in making the fifth the compulsory standard, in preventing children under 13 working in factories, and in making the compulsory school age 14 years. There is less difficulty in raising the standard in England, because there a child goes earlier to school than in Scotland. In Scotland 3 per cent of the children go to school under seven years of age; in England 5 per cent are under seven. Now, I say there is no practical difficulty in making the compulsory standard in England the same as in Scotland, and I venture to think if this were done we should in a year or two have educational results in England far surpassing those obtained in Scotland. Another fact to be borne in mind is that in Scotland the Board Schools combine elementary with secondary education. I will cite the case of the City of Glasgow in order to show the extraordinary result of this system. According to the Report of the Education Department it is expected that one in every seven of the children at school will be found in private schools. Therefore, of the 84,000 school children in Glasgow, 12,000oughttobe found in private schools. But the result of the educational system prevailing in Scotland is that there are only 4,000 children in Glasgow in schools where the fees are above 9d. a week, and 2,500 of these are in public schools, so that there are only 1,500 children whose parents may be said to pay for education without assistance, and even that 1,500 includes children brought into Glasgow from the country in order to get the benefit of the better education to be obtained there. In fact, the class of children who attend secondary schools in England are in Scotland to be found in the Board Schools. You have an enormous proportion of the better class children who go up to Standard VI., and who, by taking specific subjects, are capable of earning the higher grant. In conclusion, I would again urge that by raising the compulsory standard and the school age in England you would secure educational results superior not only to those obtained in Scotland, but superior also to the results obtained in any country.
      SIR HENRY ROSCOE: The small attendance this evening is not very encouraging, but we ought to remember that this is the 5th of August, and to-day there are attractions which draw Members away from this House. I think if we could induce the Government to bring on the Education Estimate at an earlier date next Session, we might have a larger attendance of Members for a discussion of so important a character. I join my hon. Friend the Member for London University in regretting that the Government were forced to withdraw the New Code, for it seemed to me it was a real step in advance. We have already given Scotland educational measures of the highest importance. Wales has been given a Bill providing for intermediate education, which, I trust, will prove an enormous improvement; and now I ask how long are we in England to wait? Are we so advanced in our education that we can afford to let other countries get ahead, of us? It is a matter of the deepest regret to all friends of education that in consequence of outside pressure this Code, which promised so much, had to be withdrawn by the Government. I speak feelingly on the subject, for the same influences, I fear, also acted detrimentally to the Technical Education Bill, which I had the honour to introduce to this House. It is much to be regretted that this has been so, for those who have had the opportunity and advantage of seeing what is done in Continental countries in this respect will, I think, agree that we in England are behindhand, and that it is imperative we should put our shoulders to the wheel and improve our educational system if we are to succeed in the competition with other nations. Even at this late period of the Session something might be done in the direction suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for London University, and surely it is possible to take into consideration some of these matters which are non-contentious. The questions of drawing and manual exercise are matters of the gravest importance to our national system of education, and seeing; to what a large extent they are introduced in continental countries, I think we may assume they are equally necessary in this country for the proper edu-

      393
      cation of our children. I wish in the most earnest manner to impress upon the Vice President the great importance of now dealing with these matters. Our present system of elementary education requires to be made more practical and to partake less of the character of book work. I trust that this subject will more and more engage the attention of the country, and I repeat that I think it it most unfortunate that this matter should have been postponed to the fag end of the Session when our forces are somewhat exhausted. I hope the educational debate will take place earlier next Session.
      MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I have the honour of representing a city which stands well forward in the matter of education, and I have the best authority for saying that there they do not in the least regret the withdrawal of the Code. On the contrary they quite approve it, because they hold that a Code which proposes to introduce such radical changes requires at least six months' reflection before it can be adopted by the House. It is not a light matter to introduce a change which would be so widespread in its effects. In Liverpool, the School Board and the voluntary systems have worked harmoniously together, and I should regret to see the voluntary system cease to be one of the leading factors in our educational system. I hold in my hands a memorandum from the Liverpool Elementary School Managers Conference, which practically embraces all the managers of the City of Liverpool, in which they say they believe it is most desirable that the limit to which so much reference has been made should be removed, and in which also they recommend that the suggestions of the Royal Commission as to the rates levied on schools should also be acted upon. The hon. Member who last spoke seems to feel great regret that his Bill has not been allowed to pass this Session; but if he will examine it more closely, I. think he will allow that it is distinctly one-sided, and while it may do a great deal for the advantage of education, it will also do a great deal of harm to the voluntary system, which most of us are determined shall go hand in hand with the School Board system. It is therefore rather hard that the hon. Member should thus criticise our action,
      394
      seeing that while we are anxious to promote the cause of education we are also anxious that justice shall be done to a system which has hitherto worked with so much success. At this time of the night it is unnecessary for me to enter into the various questions raised by this Code. I had intended in a few days to bring under the notice of my right hon. Friend the important question of cookery. I believe the Liverpool people are much interested in this branch of female education, and I desire to ask the Vice President if he is willing to extend to England the advantage which the Scotch enjoy in this matter? In English night schools, before a pupil can earn a grant, it must put in an attendance of 40 hours, but in Scotland a child attending the class 24 hours earns a grant of 4s. I think it is practically impossible for a hard working girl—who spends the day in manual labour—to give as much as 40 hours attendance, and a modification such as I have suggested would, I am sure, be much appreciated and work well.
      MR. MATHER: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member's ardour in educational matters is not confined to a desire to promote voluntary education. I am sure on this side of the House we have no desire to say a word against voluntary schools. So far as they exist for the purpose of' promoting education in its truest and best sense, we desire they should have the benefit to be derived under the New Code, but in order that they should be reckoned amongst the great educational institutions of the country, their efficiency must be equal to that of the Board Schools, and they must be judged by the measure in which they contribute to the education of the people generally. I think this Debate has taken place at an unfortunate moment, and I hold that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education deserves our sympathy. We have had testimony of the earnestness which he brings to bear on these questions, and I think some efforts might have been made to render this Debate more worthy of the subject we are discussing by selecting a day when hon. Members could have attended in greater number. The hon. Member for Liverpool has alluded to the action of the hon. Member for Manchester City, in regard to his Technical-

      395
      Education Bill, and has rather blamed him for not having introduced a measure which commanded assent from both sides of the House; but if the hon. Member had followed the fortunes of this Bill I think he would have seen it was shipwrecked on the ground that it could not be made satisfactory to some hon. Members opposite who have the greatest power with the Government in directing educational matters. The hon. Member perhaps forgets that a distinguished Member of the Party opposite proposed certain Amendments to the Bill.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. MATHER: I presume, Sir, I am not in order in further referring to this Bill, but I would suggest that the failure to pass it is not the fault of the hon. Member for Manchester. Now although we are nominally discussing the Education Estimates we are really discussing the New Code, and the right hon. Gentleman has invited an expression of opinion to day in order that the subject may come before the House next Session in a complete form and then receive the assent of Parliament. Now I believe that in our elementary schools throughout the country there is accommodation for more than five million children, and the important question we are now discussing is what subjects and methods of instruction shall be hereafter adopted in these schools. We must bear in mind that the use of our school system is unhappily almost confined to what we may call the working classes, and it is therefore most important that the subjects and methods adopted in them should be suitable to cultivate the intelligence, the aptitude, and the thinking powers of the children for their own future advantage and the good of the nation. In my opinion, we do not now get from the schools results that are adequate to the requirements of the country. We have not for the last 20 years had the plan of instruction which is best capable of developing the capacities of the children and preparing them for their future duties in life. In Germany, Prance, and America you will find an entirely different system of education. There all classes are educated together; the schools are usually supported by the State, and the education, from the lowest to the highest, is available for every class
      396
      in the community. Anyone looking at our curriculum will, I am sure, admit that we have not been sufficiently practical in our methods. Happily, at last we have introduced the Kindergarten system into our infant schools, and that has, undoubtedly, pointed the way towards the introduction of a similar system into our higher grade schools. Manual training ought to be combined with class subjects; and experience shows that children who have had the former kind of teaching are able to excel in the class subjects prescribed by the Education Department those children who have devoted their whole time to those subjects. Wherever manual elements are introduced into elementary education— wherever drawing is taught at an early age and continued up to 13 or 14, and is also associated with workshop training, the children have been found far more apt in all the essentials of education than those who had not had such privileges. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will well consider this matter, and see if he cannot improve the Code in this respect. This is not a Party question. I recognise fully the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to promote the cause of education in this country. I believe they are as earnest as hon. Members on this side of the House; but we can no longer ignore the fact that in the future we can only hope to hold our own among the nations of the world by securing the increased intelligence of our people, and developing our intellectual resources. In England we have natural resources superior to those of all the other nations of the world; and we only require to combine with those resources an education fitted to make our working classes a thinking, intelligent, and sober people, in order to hold in future a position higher even than that which we now possess. A little while ago we were engaged in discussing the Government proposals to spend a large sum of money on Naval defence. Well, many of us think the intelligence of our people is our first line of defence, and some of the money might be better spent on the education of the children of our working classes, with a view to enabling them to make the best use of the resources with which bounteous nature has endowed us, and thereby ensuring still greater pros-

      397
      perity for this country in the future When the Government come forward next Session with their new Code and their other proposals relating to education, I trust that, as the question is not a. Party one, we shall all unite with one accord in endeavouring to bring our educational system into harmony with the wants of the age and the requirements of the nation.
      MR. JOHN G. TALBOT: The speech we have just listened to is, I think, a satisfactory exemplification of the tone of this Debate; but, unfortunately, when we come to practical conclusions we do not always agree as to the method in which the principles to which we give expression should be carried into effect. It is easy enough in this House to lay down a more or less sound theory as to the principles on which education should be conducted, and say that it ought not to be treated as a Party question. No one echoes that sentiment more than I do; but when hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House come forward and ask that that sentiment may be carried into practice, and that no Party consideration shall prevent even-handed justice from being dealt out to them, they suddenly find all the forces of the Party to which they do not belong mustered together against them, and any concession to what is called the voluntary principle is immediately denounced in this House, and by the more powerful agencies outside of it. I hope that this will be an exception to the general rule, and that when this question comes to be more fully and more completely considered by my right hon. Friend and the officers of his Department, they will be able to assure us that it will continue to be conducted on the lines I have laid down. It must never be forgotten that education in this country has had a remarkable history. Like almost all of our great institutions, it was first brought to the front by voluntary agency, and at a time when the School Boards were not in an active state of existence, the voluntary principle was perfectly alive. Lately, emphasis has been laid on the fact that religion should be made the foundation of all education in this country. The advocates of voluntaryism do not, however, go the length of asking that religious and voluntary principles should be made the foundation of edu-
      398
      cation; but they contend that the system inaugurated in 1870 was intended to supplement and not to supplant, and should be maintained in its efficiency and integrity, at the same time not forgetting the important service which has been rendered by the voluntary principle to the cause of education. Our action, therefore, has been based on a conviction that we are bound by the traditions which we value, and by the interests which we represent, to see that in the new Code, which we believe to be a great and new departure, the interests of voluntary schools shall not be allowed to suffer, and that fair play shall be extended to both sides. That principle underlies the action we took upon the question of technical education. We value technical education as much as anyone, but we were determined that in this matter all the schools should be placed on an equality. And now, having made these few preliminary remarks, I ask the permission of the House to say a word or two in reference to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education. I acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, that you have been very indulgent to us to-night, for, although we are apparently discussing the Education Estimates, we have been permitted to refer to the Code which has been withdrawn, and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate set us the first example in this matter. One of the points on which the Education Commission laid particular stress was the question of transfer schools, and in regard to that the Commissioners said—
      "That in any fresh educational legislation it should be enacted that no transfer of a school held under trust should take place without the consent of a majority of the trustees, and that the Department should not sanction such terms of transfer as interfere with the original trust beyond what is required for the purpose of the Education Acts, and that provision should be made that no structural expenses involving a loan should be incurred without the consent of the trustees who lease the building."
      This is the point on which, if I may venture to say so, I think my right hon. Friend should take care that in any further legislation on this subject, whether by Code or by law, due security is provided. A great deal of complaint has been made in the past that voluntary schools have been transferred to School Boards by the mere fiat of a temporary

      399
      Board of Managers, and that the consent of the Trustees has neither been asked for nor given to the transfer. That seems to me to be a very inequitable state of things, and hence it received the attention of the Education Commissioners. Another point as to which I would like to say a word or two arises upon the recommendation of the Commissioners as to the limits of primary and secondary education. On this point the Report says—
      "That, as the meaning and limits of the term 'elementary' hare not been defined in the Education Acts, nor by any judicial or authoritative interpretation, but depend only upon the annual Codes of the Department on whose power of framing such Codes no limit has hitherto been imposed, it would appear to be of absolute necessity that some definition of the instruction to be paid for out of the rates and taxes should be put forth by the Legislature. Until this is done, the limits of primary and secondary education cannot be defined."
      No doubt there is a certain amount of restlessness on the part of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House on this subject of education. They are never satisfied, and possibly they ought not to be satisfied; they ought always to be trying to get something better. At the same time, I think they ought to remember that, excellent and admirable as education is, there is a limit to the public purse, and representing, as we do, the taxpayers of the country, we should bear in mind that, however desirable it may be that the children of any class should have a thoroughly good education, too much ought not to be done at the public expense. I remember that some years ago I was very much struck by a remark made by a right hon. Gentleman, whose death this House has so much cause to deplore—I mean Mr. John Bright—who said that, for his part, elementary education meant giving a child the power of reading intelligently, of writing a good hand, and of adding up simple sums. Some people think there ought not to be any limit to the instruction in our schools. They would not only provide technical education, but they would teach Latin and French, and would go on, until they had adopted practically the curriculum in force at Eton, at Harrow, or at Winchester. I say, let the people face this question. I do not represent a popular constituency, but many hon. Gentlemen do, and I would
      400
      suggest that they should ascertain what is the feeling of their constituents on this matter. Now, Sir, there is another subject on which I would say a word or two. I find a recommendation of the Royal Commission points out—
      "The necessity for having some form of evening school for the purpose of fixing and making permanent the day school instruction and that it would be worth the while of the State to spend more money on such schools."
      That, I think, is a reasonable and logical suggestion. The great difficulty is, that the children when they leave-the elementary schools are apt to forget what they have learnt, and I should be very glad to see if something could be done in the way of establishing evening, schools which would give permanency to the day school instruction. Now, Sir, I have been challenged sometimes to say what it is we want in the way of additional assistance. We have been told that we are very unreasonable not to rest content with what we obtained in the Code; but if I may sum up in a very few words what we want and. what we did not get under the new Code, it is simply this: Additional burdens were laid on the voluntary schools; but while you put those burdens upon them you did not provide the additional income which was necessary in order to meet the extra requirements, and I think we, at any rater had a right to expect that something would be done in that direction. I shall be rather surprised if my right hon. Friend contradicts me when I say I do not imagine he has made any provision in his Budget this year for an increased grant for elementary education. I should be very glad if he could assure us he would do so next year. Until I get a positive assurance from the Government that we may get a little more grant from the Government, I shall remain of opinion, that whilst the burdens are proposed to be increased, the means of meeting those burdens are not intended to be proportionately increased. We ask for additional assistance to enable us to meet the additional burdens which, are to be thrown upon us. It does not seem to be unreasonable to raise the 17s. 6d. limit to 20s., as proposed by the Commission, any more than it was to raise the 15s. limit to 17s. 6d.We be-

      401
      lieve the 20b. now represents half the present cost of the education. I do not think, then, that our request is an unreasonable one, although it is a very undue favour to ask for the voluntary schools. I am aware that, in regard to the Board schools, it is only a question of putting your hand into one pocket or the other; but I am sure the managers of the Board schools are anxious to keep down their expenses as much as possible, and would be glad to have this increased grant. What I ask for the voluntary schools, I am ready also to concede to the Board schools. As to the rating of the schools, the strong argument which has been advanced is that this House is already committed to the principle of exemption in the case of the Sunday and ragged schools, and it seems almost unfair that whilst excepting them you should not except ordinary schools which give education on all days of the week. There is one other matter on which I should like to ask my right hon. Friend's attention. There is a very sore feeling on the part of a limited number of the older teachers of this country, and I think if my right hon. Friend can remove that sore feeling he will be doing a very charitable and wise act. Lord Lingen, who was Secretary to the Education Department in 1869, and afterwards, for several years, Secretary to the Treasury, says he did not know of the exclusion of the two classes of teachers I refer to from the benefits of the pension system. The contention is that many persons were induced to become pupil teachers, and many others were in training at the Training Colleges in May, 1862, on the strength of the old pension system, and that these have a claim to share in the pensions. I say that these persons, and those who were engaged between 1846 and 1851, have a very strong moral claim upon the bounty of the State; and I do think that if Parliament would make up its mind to accede to that claim, it would be a real act of bounty to these persons, and an act of advantage to the schools in which they are serving, as it is obvious that persons of this age must have given the best of their strength to the work, and it would be better if they were allowed to retire. I thank the Committee for having listened so patiently to what I am afraid has been a rather disconnected address.
      402
      I will only say, in conclusion, that I think I can assure my right hon. Friend, if I know anything of those with whom, I have the honour of acting on this side of the House, that any proposals he may make in an Educational Act next year will be received by us with every desire to co-operate with him in the great work in which we are engaged-We do not yield one jot to hon. Members opposite in our desire to promote the true education of the country; but we say that, representing to some considerable extent the voluntary schools of the country, we are determined that by no act of ours shall the voluntary system suffer.
      MR. G. DIXON: I have been waiting to hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite what their reasons were for attempting to delay the passing of the New Code. We now know accurately and definitely, from perhaps the greatest authority in, this House, what those reasons are. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot) has told us that the objection to the New Code is mainly, if not exclusively, that it calls for greater efficiency on the part of the voluntary schools and, at the same time, it does not provide for them a larger amount of grant. The hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leigh ton) told us earlier in the evening that there had been on the part of the upholders of the Board Schools a violation of the Concordat of 1870. Now, one thing perfectly clear from the Debates at that time, and the principles upon which the Education Act was-based, was that whilst every consideration should be given to existing, voluntary schools, and the grants to those schools should be increased in order that they might meet the demand for better education, in no case was the grant made from Imperial resources to exceed the amount levied in the locality of the school. No doubt in some cases this grant was to exceed half, but that was merely because some of the schools were extremely poor, and the limit was made of 17s. 6d.; beyond that limit the grant was not to exceed half of the entire cost of the school. But what becomes of the Concordat of 1870 if we are to acquiesce in the demand of the hon. Member for Oxford, and to give grants to the

      403
      schools beyond that which they levy in the localities? It has been said that the poor schools in agricultural districts would receive greater grants under the New Code, but the complaint made is that voluntary schools in large towns are not to be benefited. But what is the condition of the schools in the large towns which require assistance and in whose interest a valuable Code is to be suspended? These are the schools almost invariably without any contribution, or at any rate with a mere minimum of contributions from so-called subscribers. I am speaking that which I know, because as Chairman of the Birmingham School Board I am well acquainted with voluntary schools. It has been the Board's policy to treat them with every possible consideration. For years past many of these schools have not had the funds required to carry them on, and special efforts to obtain increased subscriptions have not been attended with success. It was supposed at last that the remedy would be a general subscription amongst all the voluntaryists in the whole district to help the poor schools. Yet the schools remain as before, and the contributions are so small that we are expecting continually that some of them will fall through. Depend upon it that if the proposals of the hon. Gentlemen opposite are to be carried out, and whenever the funds of these poor voluntary schools fall short they are to be made up out of the Exchequer, there will be a principle established which the majority of the people of the country will not approve of. We have been told that, while the contributions to these schools have fallen off, the number of scholars attending them has increased. It has been said to-night that there has been a decrease of £30,000 in the annual contributions to "voluntary schools during the last 10 years. But, supposing you act on the principle suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and when these schools are in difficulties you, because they are religious schools, give them a grant from the Exchequer, do you think the voluntary contributions would increase? No, they would diminish still more, and you would have to come forward with larger and larger sums to meet the falling off of the voluntary contributions. Let me remind the House and the country that
      404
      these voluntary schools, for which so much is said, and in order to assist which they have upset this valuable Code, are not equal to the Board Schools. They are far inferior. We have been told that the voluntary schools must be nearly equal, because the grant is nearly equal. But every expert knows perfectly well that, in this respect, the grant is no guide whatever. It was one of the grievances of the hon. Member for Shropshire that the new Code was to require more space per child; and that simply means that the voluntary schools do not provide that amount of cubic space for scholars which the Department thinks necessary. In fact many of the schools are too crowded, and are, therefore, in an insanitary condition, which is a serious hindrance to their educational work, as well as an injury to the health of the children. That is not all; the kind of education given in these schools is necessarily very inferior. I do not complain. I have never ceased, from the time I took an interest in elementary education, to say as much as I possibly could in honour of and to show my esteem for what had been done by the voluntaryists up to the passing of the Education Act. But because I honour them for what they have done and say that their work was a self-sacrificing, a noble, and a very valuable work, it does not follow that this great country is to stop at the point which they have happened to reach, and that we are not to make any effort to meet the constantly progressive demands for the further education of the great masses of the people. By the Act of 1870 an enormous advance was made in the provision of means for the education of the people. And who opposed the establishment of a national system of education? It was the friends of the voluntary system. And what have they to say now? They acknowledge that the education given by the Board Schools is a good education; at any rate, that it is equal to the education they give. We say it is inferior. We have now got, probably, accommodation enough for the children of the country. We have got what used to be considered fairly efficient education for all; but we who have the subject continually before us see that the improvements made are far from sufficient, and that if we do not want to lose a great part of

      405
      that which we have obtained by the expenditure of these £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 of grants by the State, we must go further. The proper way to deal with this question is to say that the School Boards interested in the education of the people, or the voluntary managers, if they care to do it— we do not object to their doing it— must do more than was supposed to be necessary in 1870. The hon. Member for Oxford University thinks, as Mr. Bright thought 20 years ago, that to teach the children in elementary schools to read and write is enough. Let me tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that we do not think so now. The country does not think so, and the working men do not think so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Talbot) will be surprised when I tell him that the working men of Birmingham are really in advance of the School Board; they are continually pressing it forward; their complaint is that it does not do enough; they watch the course of legislation on the subject; and they express in the strongest terms their dissatisfaction at delay. The School Board feels that it is their duty to do more than the law permits them to do. We feel it is our duty to give what is sometimes called secondary education, to supply future workmen with the means of acquiring the elementary and scientific knowledge alluded to by the hon. Member for Manchester (Sir H. Roscoe) and to provide evening continuation schools to enable workers to learn what will make them more successful in their particular trades. And we are met by the National Society and the voluntaryists in this way—"You shall not have these advantages unless you will give more money to the voluntary schools." The great mass of the electors in the country will not permit the education of the working classes to be retarded by such motives. It is an entire mistake to suppose that increased grants to voluntary schools will put them on a level with Board Schools. One half-crown addition to the grants will have to be followed by another as the subscriptions fall off; and yet neither the taxpayers nor the ratepayers would be represented in the management of these schools If the so-called compact of 1870 were to be violated, you may rely on it that
      406
      the country would be up in arms against you; and even if you succeed for a moment your success will be but fleeting, and before many years are over the principle you are now laying down will be swept away.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down need not be afraid that we on this side are anxious to confine elementary education to merely reading, writing, and arithmetic. We fully acknowledge the feeling of the-country in favour of higher education, and we are determined to act upon it, If anything were wanted to show how determined we are to pursue a policy of that kind it would be found in our attitude towards technical education. We fully admit that the feeling of the country is in favour of introducing technical education, especially in the higher schools; but even in elementary schools we are willing to give effect to that feeling. We maintain that any assistance given for the purpose naturally ought to follow the lines of the original Act, and must be equally given to both classes of schools recognised by that great settlement in 1870. Before I deal with the larger question, perhaps the Committee will allow me to say a word or two on a question particularly interesting to my own constituency—namely, half-time. I venture to ask my right hon. Friend to take this question into consideration, whether it would be possible to re-introduce the provisions that existed in the Act, 1876, but were-abolished in 1880. I know it will require an Act of Parliament to do it— namely, to allow a standard of previous attendance to count as an alternative to educational efficiency in permitting half time employment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite does not think so.
      MR. MUNDELLA: It is utterly impossible.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That may be so in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not the view in the manufacturing districts. A number of children who are not able reach the same standard of proficiency as others, are kept back for a considerable time from half-time employment, and this is resented by the parents. I think that by such an arrangement these children might be allowed to become part of the

      407
      wage-earners of the family, and in that way education of the children would become more popular with their parents. This view has been pressed upon me by an important Local Board in the neighbourhood of Preston, and also by the Teachers' Association of Blackburn. I would press this upon the consideration of my right hon. Friend between this and next year. And now let me turn to the new Code and the reasons for its failure. I do not for a moment think that any attack was intended by my right hon. Friend upon voluntary schools. For my own part, I give the Government great credit for having introduced a system totally different from the old payment by results under which we have so long suffered. But though the Code in its main outlines was a good Code, no doubt it was among voluntaryists allover the country widely unpopular. It contained certain provisions of an irritating character, and a good deal that was vague, but we should have believed that the vagueness would have been interpreted in a proper spirit, and that the provisions that were irritating would have been carried out so as to inflict no hardship upon voluntary schools if only we could trust the authorities who would administer the Code. We do not distrust the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board; but we have a profound distrust of the Education Department, not merely because in the changes and chances of political life the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield may resume his seat on the Treasury Bench—and of course from our point of view that would be a public disaster— but because the right hon. Gentleman has left his spirit behind in the Education Department; and though my right ton. Friend does his best to restrain that spirit, we see it peeping out in every direction. Let me take two instances. There has been a question of increased cubic space in the New Code. I do not believe that the Government intended that provision to apply to existing schools; but in its words it did apply to them, and we found a most extraordinary reluctance on the part of "the Government to withdraw that provision. Then there was the question of fixed grants. I am myself of opinion that the method of assigning the grant in the New Code was a very good one.
      408
      I presume that the Government intended that the lowest grant of 12s. was not to be withheld except in cases of gross in-efficiency. That is what my right hon. Friend would probably say. But those who represent voluntary schools have no confidence that this provision would be interpreted in this harmless manner, so it became our duty to putdown Amendments to make the meaning clear, and I am bound to say that, distrusting the Department as we did, the proceedings of the Government did not reassure us. Hon. Gentlemen are well aware that this is not the only Chamber in which these discussions take place. Listening to the utterances of Her Majesty's Government, taken as a whole, we could not feel sure that there was this determination to interpret all that was vague and irritating in a manner fair to voluntary schools. We could not feel sure that that was the case. Speaking for myself I do not share all the fears that have been expressed; but what I urge on the Government is this— that between now and next year they should make their intention clear. If they would make all these points clear before next year I do not believe that the Government will experience any difficulty from those who sit on this side of the House, at any rate, in passing their New Code. And now I turn to the question that has been discussed to-night. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always telling us we must not attempt to bring about a change in the Concordat of 1870. The Act of 1870 gave a certain period in which voluntary school managers were invited to establish voluntary schools all over the country, and Parliament thus entered into an engagement of honour from which it cannot escape so long as voluntary schools do their duty. Since 1870, again, a great many new circumstances have come into existence; there is, in the first place, the astonishing multiplication of voluntary schools, which I do not think was anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian or by Mr. Forster at that time. The voluntary schools have become by far the most important educational agency in this country. They educate a far larger number of children than the Board Schools do; according to the reports of 1886–7 the numbers are in the proportion of 22 to 13. Then there is the enormous increase

      409
      in the cost of education which was not contemplated at the time, and which throws an enormous burden on the rates and also on the voluntary subscribers. The hon. Member for Edgbaston said that the voluntary subscriptions had fallen off in the last 10 years, but the hon. Member forgot that for the most recent period, from last year to the present day, the voluntary subscriptions have practically remained at the same figure, and even in the period mentioned they have only fallen away by the comparatively small amount of £30,000, and even this has been made up by an increase in the amount of endowments. If hon. Members doubt that, they will find from the Report of the Commission that is so. But there is a third, and a much more important, event which has taken place since the settlement of 1870. The Nonconformist witnesses before the Royal Commission have declared that no religion whatever is possible in the Board Schools. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield believes in the religious education given in the Board Schools, and I will not say a word against it. I am glad to feel that there is some sort of religion taught in the Board Schools, but the witnesses to whom I have referred showed that it was impossible or of no value. The public opinion in this country is in favour—strongly in favour—of religious education. Does anyone deny that the people of this country are profoundly impressed with the importance of teaching religion to their children? Does not the Sunday school itself show the enormous desire the people have for religious teaching? I have shown that the Board Schools had failed to provide religious education, and I entirely repudiate the view of the Member for Birmingham that the electors in this country are opposed to the voluntary school system.
      MR. G. DIXON: I did not say they were opposed to the voluntary schools. What I said was that they were in favour of making their education more effective.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I apologise to the hon. Member. I have no doubt I did misquote him slightly. What the hon. Gentleman, I think, wished to imply was, that the people of this country would not allow religious considerations to stand in the way of educa-
      410
      tional progress. I believe the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I believe the people do not care for very advanced educational systems, and that they do care for religious education. When I think of the constituency the hon. Member represents, I am surprised at the line he has taken. A country district might have a feeling against a voluntary school which the Nonconformists were obliged to attend, but how Birmingham can find anything to complain of in the existence of voluntary schools I do not know. In the constituency I represent there is no Board School at all. Every denomination has its own school, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Tomlinson) represents such another constituency. But in the case of a country district where there might be a theoretical objection. I feel bound to say that nothing is more instructive, in reading the Report of the minority of the Commission, than the account which they give of the action of the Conscience Clause. The Conscience Clause, they agree, is not violated; but they say it has been ineffective. It has been ineffective because the Nonconformists do not make the slightest use of it; that is to say, they are content with the present settlement. That being so, we have to consider the position in which we are now placed. After the Report of the Commission it will not be possible to remain exactly where we are. The majority of the Commission reported that the two systems ran along side by side, but the pressure is becoming almost more than the voluntary system can bear, and that, unless something is done for its relief, we must look to the time when the voluntary system must gradually disappear. We must not merely look at the rights of the voluntary system. The hon. Member said the voluntary schools have no right to expect assistance from the State unless they made every effort to maintain their subscriptions. I have no doubt they will do that, but I look at the matter from the point of view of the community. It would be a profound disaster to lose these voluntary schools, and I would go a long way to prevent it. Some hon. Members seem to think that we who touch their educational system are poachers. Well, we will be no longer considered poachers. We have a distinct line. We enjoy the support, I believe, of a majority of the electors.

      411
      We certainly enjoy that of the majority of the House, and we intend to use the power placed in our hands. I do not say that any Member will propose that direct rate aid should be given to the voluntary schools. The time is not yet ripe for that great question, but no consideration will restrain us from making the demand if we think fit. In the case of technical education, the hon. Gentleman has declared in the most emphatic manner that he will not allow any assistance to be given to voluntary schools. We are sorry hon. Members take that line, but we are determined to meet them. Next Session we hope to meet them in the open and defeat them in the Division Lobbies. Let not hon. Gentlemen think that at the next Election they will be able to throw it in our teeth that we stopped technical education, for we fully intend to carry it out ourselves. We are often told in these discussions that we are being defeated by other countries in the great competition that exists at the present day, but I am not convinced. When I look back on history I find that we have not always followed the example of foreign nations, and yet we have been successful and they have failed. I find, too, that there has been one undoubted characteristic to be recognised—the religious character of the English people. How do we know, with all our technical education and the rest of it, an irreligious England would produce the same result as in the past? We insist on religious teaching as a basis. We insist on the maintenance of our denominational schools, whether for Catholics, Methodists, or Church of England, and we believe we shall succeed.
      MR. MUNDELLA: I am glad, Sir, that when I rose before I had not the good fortune to catch your eye, for it has given me the opportunity of hearing the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon). There is no man in the House more thoroughly qualified to speak on the work of education, and I may tell the noble Lord that though he seems to doubt it, no Member in the House has done more for the religious education of children than my hon. Friend has done in Birmingham. He cannot be surprised if I say, speaking from my experience of the Education Department, that no Member has
      412
      done more for voluntary schools than the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon). I have known him put his hand into his pocket" to advance them
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Looking at what they have done in the past, I should be rash to predict the collapse of the voluntary schools; but I do think there is a risk that they may be over-pressed, and I desire to protect them against it.
      MR. MUNDELLA: That was the burden of the noble Lord's speech—that having in view the burden they are bearing and the difficulty they experience in competing with the Boards Schools, something should be done by the Government for the voluntary schools. I must say that I do not think the First Lord of the Treasury will thank the-noble Lord for his speech, and I am certain that the noble Lord has made the task of the Vice President very much more difficult than it was. And before I pass on I should like to refer to what I think was much to be regretted in the speech of the noble Lord, and what I think he himself will one of these days regret, if he does not feel ashamed of it. The noble Lord attacked the Education Department; he said he believed in the good intentions of the Government, but that he had no faith in the Education Department.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Hear, hear.
      MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, he applauds that statement. The noble Lord said I had left my spirit behind me in the Education Department. I wish I was sure of that; but I will say this to the noble Lord—that it is disgraceful that a Member of the House should attack officials when they cannot defend themselves.[Ministerial cries of "Order!"], It is a shabby thing, at least, to attack permanent officials when they are not present to defend themselves, and have no one to do so for them; but, speaking from what I know of the Department, and of its traditions under every Vied President, I believe that it has been perfectly impartial in all its dealings with Board and voluntary schools; and if it has had any leanings, they have been almost always in the direction of the voluntary schools, which they are anxious to prevent from going to the wall. I am afraid the reference of the noble Lord was entirely confined to one important Member of the Education Department—namely, the Secretary to the Department, for I heard his name

      413
      called out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Loughborough Division.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I decline to have any words put into my mouth beyond those I used and to which I adhere. I am not responsible for any interruptions.
      MR. MUNDELLA: He is not responsible for interruptions, but he is responsible for his words, and when he speaks of the Education Department he must remember that the chief of the Department is responsible for all the other officials, and I trust that the Vice President, when he rises to speak, will give the noble Lord a piece of his mind for the attack he has made on the permanent officials, because I hold it to be the duty of every chief not to allow his subordinates to be attacked. Did the noble Lord ever bear imputations of this kind made from this side of the House? So long as I was at the Education Department I always received the strongest public testimony from the heads of the Church to which the noble Lord belongs, from the late and the present Archbishop of Canterbury, from most of the Bishops, that I held the balance equal, and tried to administer the law as I found it; and I believe every Minister will endeavour to do that. The hon. Member for Oxford University admitted that the defeat of the Code and of the technical education scheme was entirely due to the apprehension that the voluntary schools would suffer. Thus, after three years and three Bills—after the passionate appeal made two years ago in Manchester by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government would not allow the Irish to obstruct their good intentions with respect to technical education—the House has not been given a chance during all this time to vote on the question of technical education. The noble Lord and his friends speak a good deal about religious education. But I believe that when they speak of religious education they mean sectarian education. They believe that there is no religious education unless it is associated with dogma. ["Hear, hear," from the Ministerial Benches.] I am sorry to hear that cheer from the Benches opposite. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he has ever been in a London Board School? Has the noble Lord ever attended at the opening of a London Board School or at the hours
      414
      when religious instruction is given? Has he seen the syllabus of religious teaching? I believe that there is more and better religious teaching to-day than at any time during this century. The noble Lord talked about a "religious England," and said we were possibly in the way of having an "irreligious England;" but he forgets that, whereas a century ago, Joseph Lancaster began to teach children for 5s. a year, to read and spell texts; now there are 4,600,000 children under instruction, and almost every child receiving good, solid religious education. A clergyman of the Church of England, a member of the School Board, and Chairman of the Religious Instruction Committee, wrote me a letter stating that the religious instruction of the School Board in London is at least equal to, and in most cases better, than the religious instruction of the voluntary schools; and I know that is so, not only in London, but throughout the country. There are in proportion to the population 40 per cent more in Sunday-schools than there were in 1851, and the number on the register is 5,200,000, or 500,000 more than on the register of day schools. What, then, does the noble Lord mean by talking as if the religious element was entirely monopolised by that side of the House, and we were advocates of irreligious instruction? There is no justification for any statement of that kind. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on what I may call the ordinary statement of automatic progress in the numbers under education in our elementary schools. So far as numbers are concerned, nothing could be more satisfactory. In 1870 the number in average attendance was 1,160,000, in 1876, under the Act of Lord Sandown, it rose to about 2,200,000, in 1880 it was nearly 3,000,000, and it is now 3,800,000. During the past 19 years what has been, going forward in regard to education? First, we have brought the children into the schools, and then we have given them a minimum of instruction; but I have no hesitation in saying, after the Report of the Royal Commission, we are in the presence of a state of things which demands a new departure. It is impossible, in the existing state of things, to continue the present moral and pecuniary waste. A few weeks ago attention was called by the Bishop of

      415
      Lichfield to the great blot upon the Education Acts that children are leaving school at earlier ages every year. The reason is that the children are better taught, and every year they pass through their standards earlier. In Standard II. last year there were 561,000 children, in Standard III. 561,537, in Standard IV. the number fell to 481,000, in Standard V. to 309,000, and in Standard VI. 4here were only 129,000 children. In more than half the rural parishes in England the standard of exemption is Standard IV., the children are passing from school at 10 years of age, and very soon they will have an opportunity of forgetting all they have learned at school. We are spending between seven and eight millions a year on elementary education. So few children reach the upper standards, in consequence of the early age at which they pass the standard of exemption, that they lose in a few years all they have learned at school. A great many of them do not work; if they did they might become half-timers. The Chairman of the Birmingham School Board, in his address on last year's work, said that the parents were powerless to enforce their own wish, and there being no law to touch them these lads are a law to themselves; they will neither earn or learn, but loaf. That is a state of things which certainly urgently demands a remedy. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford says we I have no standard of what elementary education ought to be, and that we seem to be adding first one subject and then another which was not in contemplation when the Education Act was passed. I have not time now to quote Mr. Forster's speeches, but I may point out that in opening several of the higher elementary schools he said that it was always contemplated that this education should be equal with any in Europe. Will the hon. Member for Oxford University consult the authority of his own Commission, which was sent on the Continent to consider the question of the elementary education of Europe? Mr. Alfred Arnold, the best authority we have, in his Report, which is one of the most important documents in relation to elementary education ever submitted to this House, says—
      "The release of a child from school at 10 or 11 because he could pass the Fifth Standard would be thought in Germany absurd and most injurious."
      416
      I am afraid the noble Lord opposite is not acquainted with that Report. The right hon. Gentleman's Code was in many respects an advance, and I very much regret its withdrawal. I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he has been badly treated at the hands of his chiefs. I know the trouble it involves to prepare a New Code, and make it fair all round, and I say that to prepare one and place it on the Table of the House, and let it lie there for six months to be shot at by all who misunderstand or misrepresent it, and never to give it one moment's chance of discussion, is to afford very scurvy treatment to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. I have often been disposed rather to commisserate with the right hon. Gentleman than to blame him. I have regarded him more with sorrow than with anger for all the miserable shortcomings of the Education Department during the past three years.
      MR. RITCHIE: Hear, hear.
      MR. MUNDELLA: I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is cheering that statement, the President of the Local Government Board, will take his full share of the blame. The Vice President of the Council is not a Cabinet Minister, and any Minister who is without a seat in the Cabinet has but a very poor chance of obtaining the consideration of any important subject it is his lot to bring before the House. I hope and trust the day is not far distant when we shall deal not only with questions of administration, but with the more important question which was before the House five or six years ago, and in favour of which a Committee reported unanimously—namely, the establishment of a Minister of Education. Until you have such a Minister you will never have your work properly performed— the Vice President of the Council will never be able to exercise proper influence over Her Majesty's Government. What I want to say with regard to the Code is this, that do what you will, shuffle the cards as you may, you cannot by any system of administration remedy the great defects which are now too apparent in the Educational system. It is not possible by means of a Code to lengthen the school life of a child which has been stereotyped by our low standards. The majority and the minority of the Education Commission were

      417
      agreed that you must raise the standard -of age and also the minimum standard for half-time and full-time examinations. I think they recommended that we should place England on the same footing as Scotland in that respect. The Third and Fifth Standards should be the minimum in England as in Scotland, otherwise we are wasting money in a lavish and almost profligate manner. Because £8,000,000 a year spent in elementary education when more than half the children do not complete their education is simply robbery of the taxpayer. Now, there was some question raised as to the progress made in certain subjects which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President said affect domestic happiness. Cookery and domestic economy are two of these subjects and they require little or no apparatus. But where are they taught? I put the question to the noble Lord. The teaching does not take place in the voluntary schools. Of 42,000 children who received grants in cookery during the past year 35,000 were taught in Board Schools, and only 5,318 in the National Schools of the Church of England to which Church the vast majority of the voluntary schools belong. "What is the reason of this?
      An hon. MEMBER: The rates.
      MR. MUNDELLA: But the noble Lord insists that the voluntary schools shall have the same means to enable them to teach technical education as the School Board schools. The voluntary schools have the same grants for teaching cookery as the School Board schools have; and because they will not teach it or cannot teach it are they to remain as dogs in the manger, refusing to Allow it to be taught to any one else? Are we to wait fur technical education for our children until such time as the voluntary schools can share the rates with the Board Schools, and that will be doomsday or never? Take the question of domestic economy. The number of girls taught domestic economy last year was 14,840. I want to show that the voluntary schools are trying to cover too large an area; they are taking too much on their shoulders in the determination not to let the School Boards come in, and so the education of the country is being starved. I can point to towns where there is no Board School, and where, depend upon it, it is a great misfortune
      418
      for the towns, as they are where, while education ranks lowest and is poorest, the highest fees are paid—in some cases actually double what are charged in School Board towns. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple) talked about the extravagance of the London School Board, both in the case of the last Board and the present one. Well, the hon. Baronet had a majority on his side at both Boards— how is it he did not manage to keep down the extravagance? The fact is the education of the London School Board is too good to be much cheaper than it is, and the hon. Member in his heart of hearts knows it. There are voluntary schools that give as good instruction, but it costs just as much. It is useless to say that the voluntary schools cost less than the Board Schools. I am grateful for what the voluntary schools have done, and have no desire to see them injured where they do their work as well as the Board Schools, but I say they cannot survive unless they do that. We have no right to maintain inferior schools and force the children to attend them, without choice to the parents, and waste the school life of the children, which must happen if they have not good instruction. A strong appeal was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) on the question of inspection, and he spoke of the Inspector as the great terror of the school. Well, some of the mare not only a terror to the school, but a terror to the Department. But how does this come about? Why, by the exercise of political patronage, and putting men into the Inspection Department because they were the sons or relatives of this man or that. When you get the men there they do not turn out to be what is wanted. During six years something like 80 University men were appointed, and many of them were wholly unfit forthework—men who had no sympathy with child life, no desire to study their duties—in fact, no desire to do anything but receive their salaries. Well, we had to put an end to that. A Return before the House shows that between 1880 and 1889 only two Inspectors were appointed who were members of Universities, and one of them was a Welsh-speaking Inspector who was wanted in Wales. We improved the position of the teachers and promoted them to these

      419
      positions, and they have done their work much better than the late Inspectors; in fact, so much better that £12,000 a year is already being saved, and that will amount to £20,000 four or five years hence. I cannot agree with what has been said in favour of the New Code. It has been stated that it will abolish payment by results. In my opinion, it does not touch them. It simply is a system of larger merit grants—namely, 12s. 6d., 14s., and 15s. 6d. for three classes of schools, and three merit grants, arrived at, not by individual examination of every child, but of a proportion of the children, on whom an average will be struck. As to the question of day training colleges, I would point out that some of the best teachers in Great Britain are trained in day training colleges. In Scotland teachers are trained in day training colleges. The consequence is that in Scotland they have a higher class of teachers than in England. I do hope that in England we shall soon get day training colleges. I want to impress on the House that the Government have had the question of education before them for three years, and that they have done practically nothing. Whatever progress has been made has been the automatic progress of the old Code. The First Lord of the Treasury a year ago made a promise in regard to secondary schools; but nothing has yet been done in that matter. The Government have before them the Reports of three Royal Commissions— that on technical education, that on elementary education, and that on the teaching of the deaf and dumb, the Reports of which are all awaiting legislation—and they have given a sound promise that the system of educational endowments prevailing in Scotland shall be adopted here. Scotland is in an exceptional position as compared with England in this respect. It has better schools and higher standards, and is, moreover, receiving grants from the Government for secondary education. How long shall we be before we overtake Scotland? At the earliest opportunity next Session I intend to give the House the opportunity of testing its opinion as to whether we shall not make a new advance; for I think the time has come for a new departure. We can only make this by legislation, and in legis-
      420
      lating we must raise the standard and the age, and so extend the School Boards as to make them obligatory all over the country. The speech of the hon. Member for King's County, made on behalf of a very important educational body, shows that they are wearied of the burdens and contentions of the present system and are prepared for a compromise by which they may place themselves under representative management and adopt a better system. Surely the Church will not stand in the way, and certainly the Nonconformists ought not. As to technical education I sincerely trust that even this Session the Government may see their way to help us in getting some scheme that will end the bitter controversy of the last few years. It has been no fault of ours, for we have tried what we could to introduce it; and I earnestly trust that the Government may at least do something before another Session.
      MR. H. GARDNER: I have an important Amendment on the Paper which I am anxious to bring before the House, but at this hour I will not enter upon it so as to prevent the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Hart Dyke) addressing the House, and, therefore, will postpone it to the Report.
      SIR W. HART DYKE: There are only a few minutes left to me to reply to the many points that have been raised in this very interesting discussion. Some of my hon. Friends appear to fear that the proposals of the Government would seriously increase the charges upon voluntary schools. With regard to school accommodation, a pledge has already been given which I think ought to allay this apprehension; and as to the school staff I have had a list of schools made out and have found that in very few instances indeed of voluntary schools does the present staff appear to be inadequate. With respect to what had been said about injustice being done to voluntary schools, I can only say that during the time I have been at the-Education Office I have never been able to point to one single case where I had a shadow of a suspicion that injustice was being done. I could point to instances when I have gone into cases of voluntary schools and done them more than justice. It is too late now to go into other questions, but in conclusion I promise that before making

      421
      any new proposals I will fully take into consideration all the suggestions which have been made in the present Debate.
      MR. MUNDELLA: Would it not be desirable that the memorials sent to the Department in respect to the Code from all the different bodies should be printed for the information of the House?
      MR. CONWAY: With regard to payment by results I should like to offer some remarks on the Report; I should also wish to make some observations as to the grievances of the teachers in regard to the Inspectors. May I now ask whether the Government intend to promote a national providence scheme for the benefit of the teachers?
      SIR W. HART DYKE: I will answer these questions to-morrow.
      Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
      MR. DE LISLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord promise that before the new Code is introduced he will afford the House ample opportunity for discussing the last Report of the Royal Commission on Education? Otherwise some of us will feel compelled to obstruct in every way the passing of the new measure into law.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: The Report of the Vote will be put down for to-morrow. I cannot undertake at this advanced period of the Session to give a day when the Report of the Commission on Education shall be considered.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  ARBITRATION BILL [LORDS]. (No. 267.)
  As amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time: "—Debate arising.
  It being Midnight the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 360.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  MR. CHANNING: The Amendment which I have put on the Paper is rather in the form of a suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade. The original proposal of the
  422
  Bill had gone farther than necessary in taking power to enforce special systems of coupling. The Amendment would give the Board of Trade power to compel railway companies and owners of private trucks to adopt something like the light three link coupling now used on the Midland and, I believe, the North Western Railway. It would practically mean the universal adoption of the coupling pole, would be the very cheapest alteration possible, and would, I believe, result in a great saving of life. Hon. Members who have studied this question must be aware that there has been a diminution in the number of accidents since the Midland Company have adopted the coupling pole, and I sincerely trust, therefore, that this very moderate suggestion will be adopted.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 24, insert—
  "To provide for such of their vehicles employed in goods and mineral trains as cannot be coupled and uncoupled from the sides of the trains, such improved apparatus for coupling and uncoupling as shall make it unnecessary for men to go between the vehicles for the purpose of coupling or uncoupling, such order shall require every owner of any such vehicles used on the railway to adopt some improved apparatus for coupling or uncoupling which shall make it unnecessary for men to go between them for the purpose of coupling or uncoupling."—(Mr. Channing.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I fully appreciate the moderate tone in which the hon. Member has raised this question, but it is impossible for me to accept the Amendment in view of the pledges I gave when I brought in this Bill. I will, however, assure the hon. Member that the matter shall not escape my attention.
  MR. CHANNING: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a Parliamentary Return now being completed on the subject of railway couplings which will greatly strengthen his hands in dealing with this question. After the assurances given to the House, I will not press the Amendment, although I am exceedingly anxious to see it carried.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANNING: The next Amendment, which stands in my name, is so drawn as to cover one or two notorious cases to which I have drawn the attention of the House several times. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept it I will withdraw it.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, line 24, insert—
  "To provide a subway, bridge, or footway at any station of the company where it shall appear that any considerable number of persons, whether passengers, or railway servants, or others, are daily compelled to cross the lines in passing from one part of such station to another part thereof;
  "To provide all passenger trains with an efficient means of communication between the passengers and the guard and driver."—(Mr. Channing.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I I can only say I feel myself bound on this Amendment as on the former one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. W. M. MURPHY: This Bill was not read a second time till Friday night, and although I desire the insertion of several Amendments, I only had the opportuinty of putting them down to-night, and I think it is very desirable that they should appear on the Paper. Therefore, while I have no desire to delay or obstruct the Bill, I beg to move to report Progress. My Amendments are proposed in the interests of weak companies.
  Motion made, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: May I point out to the hon. Member that the Question has already been put that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, and if, as I understand, his Amendments are to that clause, it is too late to put them? If he will place them on the Paper, or in any way communicate with me, I shall be happy to consider them. I may explain that I have already altered the wording of the clause in order to meet the very cases to which the hon. Member refers, and I would ask him to let the clause pass so that we may proceed with the Bill as far as possible.
  MR. R. K. CAUSTON: I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that I have myself given notice of a new clause to this Bill with the object of securing the printing of fares on passenger tickets, and upon which I should like to take the opinion of the
  424
  House if the right hon. Gentleman, cannot accept it.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLA: I rise to appeal to the hon. Gentleman to let this Bill proceed, and I may remind him that there is no part of Her Majesty's dominions where a Bill of this kind is more required.
  MR. MURPHY: I have said before I have no desire to obstruct the Bill. I think, however, we should have an opportunity of discussing the Amendments, and, therefore, I cannot withdraw my Motion.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark, I do not think the question of printing fares on tickets is of first-rate importance. I hope he will not press it so as to defeat the Bill. I would also ask the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin to place his Amendment on the Paper.
  MR. MURPHY: I have done so.
  Committee Report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL (No. 294.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported; Bill, as amended, to be printed [Bill 366]; re-committed for Wednesday.
  TRUCK AMENDMENT ACT (1887)

    AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL (No. 99.)
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

  SUCK DRAINAGE BILL (No. 260.)
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  SUCK DRAINAGE [PROVISION OF FUNDS.]
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a portion of the Costs, Charges, and Expenses which have been or may be incurred by the Drainage Board for the River Suck Drainage District; and of making other provision in relation thereto (Queen's recommendation signified) to-morrow.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

WINDWARD ISLANDS APPEAL COURT BILL. (No. 156.)
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL. (No. 155.)
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
FACTORS BILL. (No. 122.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
SWEATING SYSTEM.
Fourth Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee), made, and to be printed. Minutes of Evidence, together with an Appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. (No. 207.)
PAYMASTER GENERAL BILL. (No. 208)
  REVENUE BILL. (No. 209.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LAND CHARGES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 118.)
  Order for the Second Reading on Thursday next discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  PRIVATE BILLS (ALTERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION.)
  Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have directed the Select Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to—
  "Consider and report under what circumstances or under what conditions, if any, Private Bills altering the terms of the memorandum of association of companies ought to be allowed to pass,"
  to meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room, Tomorrow at Twelve o'clock.
  Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Committee appointed by the Commons in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room To-morrow at Twelve o'clock.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.

  COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1888, AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 187.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
EGYPT—MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST THE DERVISHES.

  OBSEEVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in whose name there stood upon the Paper a notice "to call attention to the hostilities on the Nile, and the general condition of affairs in Egypt," said: I have only within the last hour or two received a letter from my noble Friend

  271
  the Prime Minister, stating that it is impossible for him to be present in the House this afternoon, and under these circumstances I think your Lordships will consider that I am exercising a sound discretion in postponing the notice standing in my name. But I cannot do this without one word as to the news that has reached us this morning. We have heard once more of a signal and complete victory; once again English valour and skill have triumphed; and although, as far as we can judge from the reports, the brunt of the contest has fallen upon the Egyptian troops, those troops have been led and officered by Englishmen. It is impossible not to feel for the fanatical and courageous sons of the desert, whose blood has been poured out so lavishly on this occasion. At the same time, every one must rejoice at the victory which has been achieved; and every one must hope that, for the present at all events, it is conclusive. Every one must hope this in the interests of humanity, as well as in the interests of the country, but I am bound to say that I cannot regard it as likely to be final. There is a much larger question even than that of these hostilities, which this victory, conclusive as it is, will not settle. It would be impossible, however, to enter upon this question in the absence of the Prime Minister, and I will therefore postpone my notice till Friday next. As this matter has been mentioned, perhaps I may be allowed to ask my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to give us on this subject in addition to that which has appeared in the newspapers this morning?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): I was quite sure that my noble Friend would not desire to enter into questions relating to foreign policy in the absence of my noble Friend the Prime Minister. But as he has called the attention of your Lordships to the victory which has been obtained in Egypt, it is only right that I should express on the part of Her Majesty's Government their great satisfaction at the report we have received, which shows alike that the soldiers were worthy of being led by a gallant English officer, and that that officer showed a skill and strategy which were worthy of the occasion, and that in the conflict
  272
  ensued there was so little loss of life, while, at the same time, there was unhappily very severe loss on the other side, which was necessary under the circumstances. I am sure that your Lordships will deeply regret that the few who are mentioned should have suffered, and especially one distinguished and gallant English officer. I believe that the wanton invasion of Egypt—for it was a wanton invasion—has been stopped, and that for a time, at all events, it will not be repeated. What will be the future policy of this country with regard to this whole subject I will not now venture to remark, but I feel that I am speaking the sense of your Lordships when I congratulate the distinguished officer who has won this battle and the soldiers who fought under him.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I certainly will not depart from the judicious course which both the noble Lords have taken of avoiding any political discussion in the absence of the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary; but perhaps I may be allowed to associate myself completely with what they have both stated with regard to our admiration of the manner in which this battle has been conducted. It is extremely satisfactory to note the admirable strategy with which General Grenfell conducted this operation, the manner in which he was supported by Colonel Kitchener and Colonel Wood-house, and a special and additional circumstance of satisfaction is the good conduct of the Egyptian troops under his command.
  THE UNDER SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): The only additional information which I can give your Lordships is as to the number of killed and wounded. Of 17 killed, one was a British soldier, and the 131 wounded include Brigade-Major Hunter, of the Lancashire Regiment, and Lieutenant Cotton, of the Shropshire Light Infantry (the latter severely wounded), and four British soldiers. A reconnaissance at day-break on August 4th showed the Dervish force to be completely broken up, the few fighting-men remaining being pursued by cavalry. General Grenfell adds that only one Emir, and that an unimportant one, remains alive.

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL, now PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL. (No. 160.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, in reference to the Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name, I would like to explain that the Parliamentary Agent for several Scotch societies asked me to take charge of them, as there was no other means of bringing them before the House.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 5, after the word "who," to insert the words "being the parent or."
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think this Amendment is really necessary, because the words "person having the custody, control, or charge of the child" include the parent when the parent is such person. The wider words were only put in in case the parent should not be such person.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not understand that these Amendments refer especially to Scotland; they refer to the whole Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD HERSCHELL, in moving after the word "ill-treats," to insert the word "neglect," said: As by this Amendment I propose to restore a word which was struck out, on Division, by a very narrow majority in the Committee, I propose to state the reasons why I ask your Lordships to restore the word. I think it was omitted under some misapprehension as to its effect. It was supposed that it would cover cases of neglect which ought not to be covered by such a provision, but I think those who take that view omit to see the force of the word "wilfully," which precedes the word "neglect." A wilful neglect always must be an intentional act. It is essential to restore this word not only because without it the cases would not be met which we desire to meet, but really the clause, so far as it consists in the words "wilfully neglects," is but a re-enactment, because there exists at the present time a provision in the Poor Law Amendment Act which renders
  274
  liable to penalties and imprisonment upon summary conviction any case of wilful neglect of children. The only reason for inserting it here is that all the provisions should be found together. It will be observed that by the latter part of the Bill, Section 38 of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1868 is repealed, and the truth is, if this word be not inserted, the law will be made less efficient than it is at the present time.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I felt when we were in Committee very much what has been expressed by my noble and learned Friend; and it struck me, as it strikes me now, that it was wrong to take this word out, because it is quite clear that if wilful neglect took place and death ensued, it would be manslaughter; and, therefore, if there be wilful neglect which brings about injury to the child, it is unreasonable that it should not be punished when, under the General Law, it certainly would be punished if death ensued.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: As the noble Lord the Lord President appears to be in favour of this Amendment, it would of course be useless for me to divide upon it; but I may say that the only argument which has been used by my noble and learned Friend was used in Committee, and the Committee decided by nine to seven that this word should be struck out. One of the main objections is that it would make the section too wide, and might be made to apply to offences of an extremely trivial character.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am afraid it was my fault; but the point to which I have just drawn attention—namely, that this provision practically exists in an Act at the present time, which for consolidation purposes it is proposed to repeal, was not present to my mind in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not present when this matter was discussed in the Standing Committee. I was engaged in the service of your Lordships' House at the time; but undoubtedly I should have felt with the noble and learned Lord if I had been there. It seems to me it would be very wrong to omit such a provision as this, which is quite consistent with the objects of the Bill. It may be, as my noble Friend fairly says, that in the event of wilful neglect leading to death,

  275
  it would be manslaughter, and I think it would be, undoubtedly; but suppose death does not ensue, is the wilful neglect to go without punishment at all? It seems to me that it is an essential feature of this Bill, at all events with reference to wilful cruelty, that that should be made a specific misdemeanour.
  On Question, that the word "neglect" be inserted, agreed to.
  LORD NORTON: The next Amendment is one in my name, and it is to omit the Proviso at the end of the clause. The Proviso as it now stands would be very little short of a legislative demoralisation of public opinion The category of crimes and punishments dealt with in this Bill as it now stands is this—for ordinary cruelty to a child, a fine of £100; for persistent cruelty by a parent under the consciousness that he will make pecuniary gain out of the death of the child, £200; for causing the child to beg in the streets, or play in a pantomime, £25. Now, I maintain that the old Saxon system of pecuniary compensation for crime was never drawn upon so absurd and mischievous a classification as this. It is horrible that such should be the state of public morality in this country that it should be possible that a parent should be willing to maltreat his child under the influence of a pecuniary interest in the child's death. If death occur, it is murder, and murder of the most vile and horrible kind. If it were possible to make the standard of public morality still lower in this relation, it would be by a Parliamentary enactment making such horrible crime stand in the same category with ordinary domestic severity or cruelty, or with causing children to be hired out for theatrical purposes. I would ask whether, at this moment, cruelty to a child, with such a motive, is not already dealt with in some of our criminal statutes? If not, and if it must be brought into this Bill, I am not lawyer enough to say how it should be dealt with; but I am perfectly certain that it ought not to be dealt with as is proposed in this Bill. It should certainly be made perfectly distinct from the minor crimes with which it is coupled. It should stand alone in a clause by itself as a very aggravated misdemeanour, if not ac-
  276
  tually a felony, as I think it ought to be. Perhaps a wider view altogether should be taken and a separate enactment passed dealing with the insurance of children by parents. However, I leave it to the noble and learned Lord opposite to say how it should be dealt with otherwise than by a mere proviso at the end of a clause dealing with lighter kinds of offence. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, as I understood him upon the Second Reading, the enormity of putting a crime, little short of the> worst kind of murder, amongst a much lighter category, and that not even by a clause to itself, but by a proviso tacked on to ordinary kinds of cruelty which might take place under harsh or severe parents at home. Not knowing exactly what the substitution ought to be, I move to omit the proviso altogether.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 21, to leave out from the word "months" to the end of the Clause.—(The Lord Norton.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think my noble Friend opposite has somewhat misapprehended the scope of this proviso. There is no doubt that if a person interested in the death of a child wilfully neglects it in order that that child may die, the person so neglecting the child is guilty of murder or manslaughter if death ensues. But we are here dealing with cases where the child is subjected to ill-treatment and neglect without such unhappy consequences resulting; and the question is, how such a person ought to be dealt with. I may at the outset say that this proviso does not merely relate to cases where parents have insured the child, and so have an interest in its death. It covers that, but it does not apply exclusively to that. There unhappily have come under our experience lately cases in which the parents, or those having the custody of the child, though they were not parents, had an interest in the death of the child not resulting from insurance at all, but from a settlement giving rights to the child in some money in which those who had the care of the child had a contingent interest, supposing the child did not survive till the age of 21 years. I am not talking of imaginary cases, but of more than one case which has actually

  277
  occurred. Therefore, no provision dealing simply with the question of insurance would cover the ground which this proviso seeks to cover. Now, what is the foundation of this proviso? I cannot see that it lowers any standard of morality at all. It says if you have an interest in this child suffering in its health, or becoming worse than it is, it is all the more disgraceful of you, inasmuch as you were interested in the child's death; and the clause seeks to do this, which perhaps is all that can be done—to say if there be on the one hand the stimulus to neglect and ill-treatment of the knowledge that that neglect and ill-treatment may ultimately result in a pecuniary advantage, the law will try at least to give a counter stimulus by the knowledge that that ill-treatment and neglect, if discovered, may lead to a pecuniary loss. That is the principle of the proviso, and it seems to me a sound principle. If you can impress upon these people that, under those circumstances, they may suffer a pecuniary loss, you diminish the temptation to ill-treatment on the ground that possibly it may produce a pecuniary gain. That seems to me a counter stimulus which the law may well give, and which is in accordance with sound principle.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess I am a little uneasy about this provision, although I quite follow what my noble Friend has said. I cannot help thinking that either this proves a motive to do the thing or it is irrelevant to the amount of punishment. It seems to me very difficult to get rid of that dilemma. If it is a mere accident that there was pecuniary gain involved in the death of the child, there is no reason why there should be an aggravation of the punishment. If, on the other hand, it is some evidence of a motive, it must be evidence that the Court is to act upon that there has been an intentional exhibition of foul play on the part of the parent or guardian who has the custody of the child, and who has a pecuniary interest in its death. At the same time, I am not prepared to say that I will take the responsibility of voting with my noble Friend behind me (Lord Norton). I am content to say, by way of protest, that I think this provision is insufficient. It is now 30 years ago since I heard that very learned and cautious Judge,
  278
  Mr. Justice Wightman, express an earnest hope that the Legislature would sooner or later deal with the question of insurance upon infant life. That is now 30 years ago and nothing has been done, and I hope something may speedily be done in that direction. One objection I have to a provision of this sort is, that it appears to get rid of the necessity for dealing with the whole subject. Although I quite follow my noble Friend that this does not only apply to cases of insurance, it appears popularly to cover the ground, and I suppose the argument in men's minds would be—if the parent or guardian has in his mind the notion that he may get something by the child's death, the increase of the fine which may be imposed by the tribunal may act as a counter motive, pointing out to him that he may be deprived by the fine of all that he would get by the insurance. But it seems to me that that is insufficient. I know it is said that it is a very hard case upon parents that they may not be permitted to insure against the expenses of burial. I think it is quite possible for the Legislature to take care that no money should pass into the hands of the parents or guardians so interested, while, nevertheless, it might be possible to have an indemnity against the expenses of the funeral. I say this, because it appears to me that the proviso as it stands will lead to the impression that it is meant to meet that evil which has prevailed for 30 years. However, under the circumstances, I shall not take upon myself the responsibility of rejecting it, or of voting with my noble Friend behind me.
  LORD NORTON: May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will go so far to meet my view as to allow this proviso to be a separate clause? It is quite clear that if it has any meaning, its meaning is that there is a motive in the persistent neglect of the child—namely, the pecuniary interest in its death. The motive is the whole thing that gives any distinctive meaning to the proviso; and I think I may at least ask the noble and learned Lord, and I will be satisfied if he will so far concede my point, to make this proviso a separate clause, so that it may not appear to deal with a higher stage of the much minor crime connected with it, but with

  279
  a separate crime of the greatest possible aggravation by the implied motive.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think it would make any difference, and therefore I do not object to its being a separate clause. In fact, perhaps it may be more convenient, because I have another Amendment to propose lower down in accordance with my promise before the Standing Committee. It was pointed out, and I think rightly, that if there are any circumstances alleged which might add to the punishment, there ought to be notice of it in the indictment, and with that view I have framed another Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Lord HERSCHELL, the Proviso was amended to read as follows:—
  "Provided that if it be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a person was convicted on indictment as aforesaid was interested," &c.,
  and the Proviso was made a separate clause, and numbered 2.
  Amendment moved to add to the Proviso the words—
  "Such interest aforesaid in any sum of money accruable or payable in the event of the death of the child shall be charged in the indictment, and put to the jury in the same way, as far as may be, as a previous conviction is now charged and put."
  A Noble LORD: Would it be possible for the noble Lord to substitute a fixed imprisonment in the event of the fine not being paid at once?
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think it is done already in the Bill, because there is power, as an alternative for the fine, to give imprisonment.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I would point out that if the question is to be left to the jury, the words "to the satisfaction of the Court" should be omitted.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think it is quite intelligible as it is, but I have no objection to leaving out the words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in line 1 of the Proviso, to omit the words "to the satisfaction of the Court."
  Agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended (now Clauses 1 and 2), agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Clause 2 in the Bill).
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, it will be necessary for me to say a few words to your Lordships in explanation of my Amendment, and in explanation of my reasons for placing this Amendment before your Lordships instead of the Amendment which I moved before the Committee. I, on that occasion, moved an Amendment the effect of which would have been to have excepted from the operation of this Bill all theatres and music halls and soon; and I am still of opinion that that would have been perhaps the wisest course to pursue. I suggested that course, because I object to the provisions of this Bill applying to theatres and music halls, holding that it is totally unnecessary, that it is not in consonance with the general tendency of our legislation, that it is without precedent in this country or in any country, and that it would inflict a great and cruel hardship upon the children, who would be deprived of the means of making an honest living. I entertain those objections just as strongly now, but I believe that my object and end can be gained as well by the Amendment which I shall presently move as by the Amendment that I moved in Committee. I object to this legislation applying to children employed in theatres for the reasons that I have mentioned. It has been said that it is necessary to apply it to theatres because we have legislated to prevent young children being employed in factories and workshops, and even in agricultural pursuits but I must point out to your Lordships that there really is no analogy whatever in the two cases. In the first place, the first legislation affecting young children at all prevented children being employed under a certain age in textile factories. That was afterwards extended, to other trades and workshops. But, my Lords, there is nothing whatever analogous in the working of children of eight or ten years of age in factories and workshops, and allowing children to appear, generally speaking, for only a few moments upon the stage. What do these children have to do? Sometimes they may sing a few verses in chorus, but, as a general rule, all they have to do is to group themselves upon, the stage, to act sometimes as vegetables,

  281
  in pantomimes, and so on, and in fact the work, such as it is, ought not properly to be called work at all. It is to the children an amusement—they look upon it as an amusement—and it enables them to earn in some cases very good wages indeed. As far as agriculture is concerned, I must point out to your Lordships that children under eight were prevented working in gangs purely and solely on account of the immorality and the evil examples set to the children by the grown persons working in gangs; and, as far as present legislation is concerned, the sole object of preventing young children from pursuing certain agricultural pursuits is that it interferes with their education, and exception is made in cases where there is no school in the vicinity, and exception is made also with respect to harvest time. I submit to your Lordships that, as far as education is concerned in the first place the theatrical training is positively beneficial to the children from an educational point of view; and, in the second place, that if it is not, and if the education of the children is interfered with in any degree, the Education Act, I submit, is quite strong enough as it is, and there is no reason whatever, from an educational point of view, for depriving children of this means of earning an honest living. As to the value of the children's earnings, it is very considerable. I have known and heard of cases where children under 10 years of age have earned £3, £4, or £5 a week. In other cases they may earn perhaps a shilling or two, or three shillings a day; but in many cases there can be no doubt—in not a few exceptional cases, but in many hundreds and hundreds of cases throughout the country—these children are able, without any damage to themselves, but with positive benefit to themselves, very largely to contribute to a family support, and in many cases are practically the bread-winners of a family, and are enabled to keep their families when the proper bread-winners are disabled by sickness, or some other cause, for a time, at any rate. As to the benefit to the children, I would like to read to your Lordships one or two quotations. I have a letter from Mr. Irving to a correspondent which I will ask permission to read, in which the case is
  282
  stated very clearly and fairly, I think. Mr. Irving says:—
  "I am not speaking from theory when I say that these children are educated, are well cared for, and are prepared for their struggle in life. Education is not entirely an affair of blackboards and the rule of three. There is a good deal in practical example, and the kindness with which the little ones are treated in the theatre, the discipline, order, and cleanliness enforced upon them."
  My Lords, I think the whole matter is contained in that letter. The habits of discipline, the cleanliness, the order, and at the same time the kindness with, which the children are treated cannot fail to have a most beneficial effect upon them from an educational point of view. I may read also an extract from a letter that appeared in print from Mr. Runciman, than whom no one has had a larger experience as a school teacher in the City of London. He says—
  "A good many little fellows came to the school after the pantomimes were over, and I was always glad to have them, for, without exception, they were far beyond the average in quickness, politeness, and, above all, in cleanliness."
  I could multiply instances of that kind; but I think, quoting those two authorities—Mr. Runciman, who has had such great experience in teaching, and Mr. Irving—I have quoted quite enough to show your Lordships that the theatrical training is beneficial to these children. Then, as to the hardship involved, if your Lordships understood and knew the kind of work which the children do, and the small amount of labour that is entailed upon them, your Lordships would see in a moment that really there is no common sense—no sense whatever of any kind—in the argument that anything approaching to cruelty can be inflicted upon the children. As a general rule, the children are out of the theatre by 10 o'clock. It is very rarely the occasion that they are kept later than that. As I have already said, what they have to do is, generally speaking, merely to appear for a few minutes upon the stage; sometimes they may have to sing a little, sometimes they may have a line or two to say; but, as a rule, the labour involved is absolutely infinitesimal, and I defy anyone to put before your Lordships any case to show that anything in the minutest degree approaching cruelty is

  283
  involved in the employment of children in theatres. Then, my Lords, what is the alternative position of these children? Your Lordships must not suppose that if these children did not go to the theatres they would be all at home and put quietly to bed. I would like on that point also just to read an extract from a letter which describes very well the circumstances in which these children would generally be. That is a letter from Mrs. Ellicott, the wife of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. She says, speaking of Gloucester—
  "I have, when returning home from a party, seen, as late as half-past 11, little children, some in arms, some clinging to their mothers' skirts, emerging from public-houses in the streets of Gloucester; other poor little wretches huddled together on doorsteps, waiting for their tipsy parents."
  As a matter of fact, if these children are not in the theatres, they are, in the generality of cases, in the gutter. It is perfectly true that some of them are the children of stage carpenters and other persons employed in the theatres. In those cases they are looked after very well by their mothers. They are under their fathers' or their mothers' eyes the whole time; but in the great majority of cases these children would be in the gutters in the back slums of London; and I need not describe to your Lordships the kind of scenes that they would see, the sort of language that they would hear, or the lessons in morality that they would be likely to learn. As a matter of fact, the theatres are doing a great and beneficent work; and if your Lordships have the wish to benefit the children in the poorer slums of London, and in our great towns, what you ought, in my opinion, to do, if it were possible, to multiply it a hundred or a thousand-fold. It must be remembered that this Bill, if not amended, will affect a vast multitude of children. I do not know how many may be employed in theatres, perhaps 2,000 or 3,000; but this Bill will affect thousands and thousands of children who now sing in out-of-door concerts at the Crystal Palace. I have seen the programmes for this year, and the number of children singing will come to something like 30,000. The choral concerts will employ 3,000 children in the Noncon-
  284
  formist Union Choir; the London Sunday School Choirs, 5,000; the Association of Tonic sol fa Choir, 4,000; the National Temperance League, 5,000; the Church Sunday School Choirs, 5,000; the Tonic sol fa Association, 3,000; the Catholic Total Abstinence League of the Cross, 5,000; the National Co-operative Festival, 5,000. Of course, I do not mean to say that all those children are under 10 years of age; a great many of them are older, but there is no question about it that a very large number of them are under 10 years of age, and if your Lordships legislate so as to prevent those children singing, you will, practically speaking, put a stop to these festivals altogether. These festivals are looked upon as the one great holiday of the year by these children; they prepare for them during all the year, and I do not think your Lordships, after considering the matter, would wish to deprive these children of the pleasure and advantage of singing in these concerts. It has been stated also that there is legislation of this kind in other countries. I wish to correct that mistake. I did so before the Committee, but your Lordships will excuse me if I repeat it before the House. There is no legislation of this kind whatever in France; anybody can employ children under 10 years of age in theatres, provided it does not interfere with their education; and, further than that, not only is there no law prohibiting their employment in France, but the law compels the managers of the State subsidised theatres and the Grand Opera to employ children under 10 years of age. There is no law in Belgium, there is no law in Italy, none in Germany, none in Russia, none as far as I know in any European country. There is no law of the kind in the United States. It is true that in the State of New York as I mentioned before the Committee and also in the State of California, as I did not at that time know, children are prohibited under 16 years of age from playing, but leave can be given for their employment in case of singing. At the same time I must point out to your Lordships that in the State of New York there is also a law which prevents children, male or female, I think it is under the age of 16, from going to a great number of places of

  285
  entertainment, in public houses or anything of that kind where entertainments are going on; in fact, places answering to a great extent to many of our music halls. There is a law preventing children visiting them in any way unless accompanied by their parents or guardians. Well, I do not think your Lordships would take as a precedent legislation of such a great-great-great-grandmotherly description as that which would prohibit boys of 14 years of age from going into a music hall at all. Then, my Lords, the advantages of this early training have been mentioned, and the noble Lord opposite said that it could not amount to much because many of our best actors and actresses had not played at this early age. But on that point also I would like to read a short extract from another letter of Mr. Irving's. He says—
  "The earliest years in a theatre are often of infinite value to members of our calling, and I do not hesitate to say that some of our most distinguished actresses owe their success very largely to the fact that they were brought up in a theatre, and that the stage was to them both a nursery and a school-room."
  That is an opinion which I do not think ought very lightly to be set aside. You must remember that Miss Kate Terry, Miss Ellen Terry, and Mrs. Kendal, Miss Bateman, Mrs. Bancroft, and I dare say many others all played upon "the stage as very small children. Your Lordships may, perhaps, have seen a letter from Mrs. Bancroft, the other day to the Daily Telegraph. Writing from the Engadine, she says—
  "As since my earliest childhood I have been associated with the stage, I may, perhaps, be permitted to speak on this vexed question as to the employment of little children in theatres. I fail to understand what baneful influence there can be in their atmosphere to affect the moralnature of any child. My experience of our theatres is that the children are there so petted and made much of, so fondled and cared for, that when the run of a play in which they have been employed comes to an end, the little creatures often cry bitterly at the thought of being taken away, probably in their hearts dreading the return to the squalor, neglect, or rough treatment."
  I received also a letter which I read before the Committee, and which I would like to read to your Lordships' House from a lady who wrote to me enclosing a communication she had had from a friend, asking this lady to make interest with her brother, who is a member
  286
  of your Lordships' House, not to allow this clause to come into operation. She says—
  "Owing to my niece and nephew having entered the dramatic profession two years ago, I have seen a great deal of the life of stage children, and can assure you that in all my experience I have never seen any of the evils put forward by those who are pressing that Bill, but I know that it will fall most heavily upon hundreds of children who are now gaining an easy and honest livelihood under careful supervision."
  I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with any more extracts and quotations. I might multiply them if necessary, but I think I have quoted enough, and from sufficiently high authority to convince your Lordships that not only are the children enabled to earn a good living by theatrical employment, but that it is not harmful to them, but decidedly beneficial to them, and, above all, that there is nothing in any shape or kind resembling cruelty involved. It is quite true that the title of this Bill has been changed, but changing the title does not change the contents of this Bill, and the whole meaning and object of the Bill is to protect children against absolute physical suffering and cruelty; and I appeal to your Lordships whether it is just to persons who employ these children, or whether it is at all consistent with our general course of legislation to enact that children may not be employed in theatres, in a Bill which, although it is called the Protection to Children Bill, is in reality aimed at preventing actual physical suffering and cruelty. If this Bill were to become law as it is, there would be injustice done in certain minor degrees that I could mention. It would be necessary for children to produce their certificates of birth. Now, to obtain a copy of the certificate costs, I believe, a shilling. Your Lordships must remember that in the pantomime season, I suppose for one child that gets employment probably three children apply, and in all eases those children will have to spend a shilling in order to get a copy of their certificate. A shilling is not intrinsically a very large sum, but a shilling is a very considerable sum in the family economy of hundreds of families whose children are employed in pantomimes. The practical effect of this Bill would be to make bogus certificates rise in the market, and to put stunted children at

  287
  a premium. You would have children of diminutive size pretending to be under 10 years of age, or children who are not properly developed supplying the places of children, who are now on the stage at four or five years of age; in fact, I believe the practical effect would be that it would become a dead letter, and I think there is nothing so unwise in legislation as to allow an Act to remain on the Statute Book containing such provisions that, although a great part of the Act may be exceedingly good, those provisions turn the whole of the Act into ridicule, and tend to make it practically of no effect. Those, my Lords, are the reasons why I object altogether to applying this legislation to theatres and music halls. But I am perfectly content to deal with the matter in the way I proposed; that is to say, by practically licensing the managers of these places to employ children. I am perfectly convinced and certain that in all cases they will have no difficulty whatever in showing to the satisfaction of any competent authority that every provision is made for the children's welfare and comfort, and that no possible harm can come to them, and therefore if your Lordships will agree to my Amendment I am satisfied that the object which I have in view will be carried out. I may be wrong, but my impression, so far as I could judge, was that if I insisted upon my original Amendment and succeeded in persuading your Lordships to admit it, there would be some danger that the Bill might not become law at all this Session. There is so much in the Bill which is excellent that I should be very sorry that it did not become law this Session, and that practically is the reason why, instead of pressing my original Amendment, the effect of which was to prevent the application of the Bill at all to theatres, I prefer to move the present Amendment, which will enable managers to obtain leave to employ such children. I think I have now given all my reasons to your Lordships, and I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment moved, at the end of Clause 2 (now Clause 3), to insert the following Proviso:—
  "Provided also, that in the case of any entertainment or series of entertainments to
  288
  take place in premises licensed according to law for public entertainments, where it is shown to the satisfaction of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction that proper provision has been made to secure the health and kind treatment of any children proposed to be employed thereat, it shall be lawful for the said Court, anything in this Act notwithstanding, to order that any child, of whose fitness to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments without injury the said Court is satisfied, be permitted to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments, and such order may at any time be varied, added to, or rescinded by the said Court upon sufficient cause being shown; and such order shall be sufficient protection to all persons acting under or in accordance with the same."—(The Lord Kenry, Earl Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not propose to trouble your Lordships at any length upon what I may call the main, question of this Amendment—namely, the general argument as to the expediency or inexpediency of such a prohibition as is proposed by the Bill, because the matter was discussed, and I expressed my views upon it on the Second Reading, and I have seen no reason to alter those views, and I have no desire to trouble your Lordships with a repetition of what I then said. I cannot admit that this provision, if a proper one at all, is out of place in this Bill. The title of the Bill has been so changed as not exclusively to relate to cruelty to children, and, therefore, without in the slightest degree charging that these acts committed with regard to children under 10 are cruelty (I never have put the case in that light, and I do not now), nevertheless it is quite open to say that a Bill for the better protection of children may well include a provision which, in the opinion of those who advocate it, will save many children from suffering. I know perfectly well that there is a considerable difference of opinion as to the expediency of such a provision as this, but certainly many of the arguments that are used against it were used with just as much force against legislation to which the Legislature of this country is, I believe, irretrievably committed. In saying irretrievably I do not mean to cast a doubt for a moment on the expediency of that legislation, but even those who are opposed to it must admit that it would be hopeless to expect to retrace our steps with regard to it. And I cannot see that if it be right to insist that children shall not work in factories

  289
  or workshops at this tender age, it can be otherwise than right to insist that they shall not occupy themselves in such work as some of them are engaged in in theatres. As far as one can judge one's self, I must say I believe it to be just as likely to be injurious to their health, and indeed more likely than some of the operations which are at the present time prohibited. In the case of agriculture, I believe children might more safely be employed at a tender age and without injury to themselves, and with equal benefit to their parents, and equally in the interests of those who desire to employ them, as they could be in the ease of theatres. Therefore the question really is, is there any sufficient reason shown for making an exception in the case of theatres from the legislation which prevails with regard to other occupations. My noble Friend opposite has said that these children, if not so employed, would not be at their homes, but would be in the gutter or upon the streets. That that may be so with some of the children I do not for a moment deny, but from all I can learn there is no reason for supposing that that is an accurate statement as regards the bulk of the children employed. I have heard very different statements, that they are taken mostly from children of what may be termed the lower middle class, who might be perfectly well at home cared for and tended if not occupied in the way which is aimed at by this provision. No doubt in the case of some children it may be important for their parents that the money which they get by acting should be received, but I doubt very much whether that is so in the case of the large majority of the children. And I think noble Lords will see in a moment that that is likely to be the case, because a manager who has to train such children for the stage will naturally seek out those who have had some little education, some little training, some little cultivation, more likely to be amenable to discipline and more likely to be easily taught. The consequence is, I believe, that the last to be engaged would be those who may be called the gutter children. With reference to the education of these children, it has been suggested that it will benefit by this employment, and my noble Friend opposite has read the opinion of one
  290
  authority to that effect. I have been furnished with the opinion of authorities I believe equally entitled to speak and to be listened to on the subject who take an entirely different view. I had representations made to me in a memorial signed by a very large number of members of the London School Board, who, looking at the matter from an educational point of view, were of opinion that the education of the children suffered, and that it was impossible for children to comply with the law and make the required school attendances without which their employment is absolutely unlawful, and at the same time be occupied in this way out of school hours. I will trouble your Lordships no more upon the general question, but proceed to say a few words upon the particular Amendment moved, and to state to your Lordships the course which I purpose taking with regard to it. I shall myself ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment, but in view of the possibility that that course may not be taken, I shall first endeavour to amend it, as I believe it is competent for me to do, by limiting to some extent its scope. Now when my noble and learned Friend opposite, the Lord Chancellor, moved his Amendment in the Standing Committee, he limited the dispensing power as I will call it, to children over seven, that is to say between seven and ten, and he permitted the clause to be absolutely effective as regards all children under seven years of age. I venture to think that if there is to be a dispensing power at all, it is time enough to begin when the children have reached seven years of age: even if you are not prepared to prohibit this employment up to the age often, you may well insist that children shall not be allowed to perform in public for profit during the tender years of their life between seven and ten. Therefore I shall ask your Lordships to insert after the word "children" in line 5, the words "exceeding seven years of age." Then I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the tribunal which the noble Earl suggests as the proper dispensing power, because it is really a tribunal and it does not seem, to me to be a very fitting mode of carrying, out his views. Application may be made to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and where it is shown to the satisfaction of such a Court that the child

  291
  will be properly cared for, and is not likely to be injured, then dispensation may be given. Now a Court of Summary Jurisdiction means any Justice of the Peace, and it is not necessarily confined to Justices sitting in Petty Sessions. Therefore, so far as I can see it would be competent for a theatre manager, we will say, desiring dispensation to go to a Magistrate, and if the first Magistrate he went to refused the license, to go to another Magistrate, and then go the round of the Magistrates until at last he found a Justice who took the same views as himself, and get his sanction to the performance. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the fact that one Justice has decided that the license shall not be granted to prevent another taking a different view and granting it. I cannot think that that is expedient or desirable. You might have a large majority of the Justices having jurisdiction in the place where the theatre is determining that it will be injurious to the health of a child and inexpedient to allow it to perform there, and if the manager can get any one Justice within whose jurisdiction the theatre is situate to fall in with his views, he can give the license and the child will be allowed to perform. That is my strong reason for objecting to the whole machinery of this clause as proposed by the noble Earl opposite. I do not think it necessary to say anything further upon the clause at present.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Perhaps it will be convenient for me at once to express my regret at my ignorance, and to say that I did not know that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction could consist of one Magistrate. What I meant was the Magistrates in Petty Sessions or a Police Court.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Unfortunately the Summary Jurisdiction Act defines "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" as "any Justice."
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I will readily assent to any Amendment of my Amendment which puts that matter right.
  THE EARL OF POWIS: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord to consider whether if he maintains Clause 2 in its present shape, it would not be fair both to the children employed, and to the employers that some rather more distant date than that of the Bill re-
  292
  ceiving the Royal Assent should be fixed for this clause to come into operation. It would be very hard on the children in many cases earning valuable money to be deprived of it at a day's notice; it would also be hard on the employers of those children, especially those who are moving about the country, if the piece is to be summarily put an end to by a number of the young persons employed in it being suddenly forbidden to act any longer.
  LORD HERSCHELL: With reference to the appeal of the noble Earl, I shall be quite prepared to provide that this clause shall not come into operation until the 1st of November.
  LORD WATSON: I should like to say upon this clause that in Scotland a Court of Summary Jurisdiction consists only of the Sheriff or the Sheriff Substitute. Therefore I take it these provisions would not be open to the objection stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench. The authority constituted by the clause moved by the noble Earl in Scotland is the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Sessions, and in England or Ireland the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor being present to speak for himself, I say nothing as to the Authority constituted for England and Ireland, but I do think that in Scotland the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session is not a proper body to which to refer any such duty as framing the rules for the admission of children either above or below seven years of age to act temporarily in theatres.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may point out that the noble Earl did not move that part of his Amendment. I had already pointed out to him the objections to it, and he agreed not to move it.
  LORD WATSON: I think it right that there should be some general rule throughout the country, and that some such authority as is referred in the last part of this clause ought to be established, but I would suggest that the authority constituted for Scotland should be the Secretary for Scotland, who has means at his command which will enable him to frame a proper system of rules that will ensure some degree of uniformity throughout the different counties and burghs in Scotland.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I would like to point out to the noble Earl beside me (the Earl of Dunraven) that the Amendment as it now stands would involve an almost intolerable amount of duty to be performed by the police Magistrates in London, because it would necessitate inquiry into the case of every individual child. As the clause stands, it is this:—
  "It shall be lawful for the said Court, anything in this Act notwithstanding, to order that any child of whose fitness to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments without injury the said Court is satisfied."
  That would necessitate an examination into the case of every individual child. I think the objections to the clause as it was originally proposed to be amended would be got over by this alteration—to make it read, "That any children under the said age be permitted to take part." Your Lordships will see that the Amendment goes on to state that it is always possible to obtain a revocation of the order in case of anything being proved to be injurious to the health or, I presume, the general well-being of the child. I venture to suggest that some Amendment of the Amendment is necessary if the noble Lord wishes to make his proposed clause workable. With regard to the observations of my noble and learned Friend opposite as to what constitutes a Court of Summary Jurisdiction I should advise the noble Earl beside me to insert instead of "a Court of Summary Jurisdiction" the words, "Two Justices sitting in Petty Sessions or a Stipendiary Magistrate."
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I cannot help expressing my regret that the noble and learned Lord has determined to oppose this proposed Amendment to part of the Bill. The Bill is a Bill for the protection of children, and from all that I have learnt these theatrical children do not stand in need of protection at all. I think it would be a great misfortune if the House took that extreme view of the matter. I believe that employment of this kind for children is the best thing in the world; it takes them out of all danger of evil of every sort, and I do not see any necessity for hurried legislation of this kind. There was a letter in this day's Times from Mrs. Jeune which impressed me very much. According to her own experience and that of others
  294
  with whom she acted and whose names she gave, this employment, so far from having an evil influence, had quite there verse on a great many of the children, and the statistics she gives show that the employment has been attended by beneficent and beneficial results. I hope the House will consider this Amendment, when its wording has been suitably altered, a most reasonable one in the interests of the children.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I was very unwilling to interrupt anything which might conduce to the amending of the Amendment itself, and the putting it in the best shape before your Lordships, but I hope we cannot be said to have quite done with the general question. The noble Earl behind me cast a very rosy stage light indeed over the condition of these children. It has been represented to us as a few minutes' easy and amusing trifling upon the stage at not a very late hour in the evening, as if that were the whole of what was involved; but inquiry shows there is a great deal of hard work connected with the getting up of those few minutes play-work even if a few minutes described this work of the children. We have the account given by Madame Katti Lanner, professional trainer to one of the greatest theatres in London, of the work of the children under her care. Madame Lanner says that the children were at school from nine, or, in the case of the younger ones, half-past nine till a quarter or half-past twelve, that is at their ordinary schooling. The rehearsals were taken between that time and a quarter to two. At two the children return to school, and at half-past four, for as long as is necessary, the rehearsals are resumed. When rehearsal is finished, and the time of the theatre begins, the theatre does not end at ten o'clock. It is eleven o'clock or twelve before the children leave; that is a day of fourteen or fifteen hours spent by these children between the preparation for school and the preparation for the stage or the stage itself. Then, if we inquire into what is the effect upon the whole of the children, it is not so merely a refreshment and recreation tending to their health and strength, as some believe. One of the leading children's physicians in London, who has given years of atten-

  295
  tion to the subject, writes, in a letter which has been forwarded to me, "that this night employment, and especially of girls, is necessarily injurious to bodily health, and in London a cause of disease." If your Lordships will look at the tabular statements of the excessive number of children suffering from nervous disease in the hospitals, I am sure your Lordships will think that these are not times in which children ought to be forced through a great deal of this nervous and exciting work. It is not merely that the child smiles when it is amused, the children are kept to the moment in a state of tension, and they are taught for hours beforehand to retain and keep themselves in a state of tension, till the very moment when they ought to laugh or till the very moment when they ought to frown. Now, I do not say at all that this kind of discipline is bad for children—far from it. But I say that the immense amount of it, taken in combination with what we are obliged to require from them at schools, is very injurious, in the opinion of the best physicians, to the health of the children. Then the mischief is not over when the theatre is over. The children have to leave the theatre for home. I see it stated in a fascinating and able letter which appeared this morning in the Times, that the children are sent from the theatres with an employé of the theatre to the train. That may be so now, but it was not the case a very short time ago, nor was it the case at one of the best places of public amusement. I have here the account of a lady who attended the pantomime at the Crystal Palace for the purpose of seeing what became of the children. She says:—
  "All the children left the theatre with the black on their eyes and the paint on their faces just as they had been on the stage. No one came to meet them at the theatre, and they divided up into groups and strolled about the Palace. My friend and I accompanied one of these groups into a 3rd class carriage of the train leaving for London at five minutes past 10; there were, perhaps, a dozen children of all ages in the compartment. The younger children were dreadfully fagged and evidently dead beat. They leant against the carriage or against each other in attitudes of complete exhaustion. None of those we spoke to had anyone to meet them at the Palace, and very few had anyone to meet them in London. They had to change trains for Ludgate Hill, some going to Drury Lane or Leicester Square, which they would reach about half-past 11."
  Then she goes on to describe the case of
  296
  a child who would have to take train to Glower Street and then get to Great Coram Street—
  "My friend went on with the child and found things exactly as she had said. She was left utterly unprotected and in an exhausted condition to find her way home. They arrived at Great Coram Street close on half-past 11, and the little thing thankfully took my friend's hand."
  I will not detain your Lordships further, but the lady goes on to give a similar account of her own experience. This is in mid-winter, late at night in the lonely streets, and with the children very lightly clad. A very different account indeed from the account which your Lordships will have read in the Times this morning. Well, I say this severe preparation for night work, and the nightly work itself, and the getting home afterwards are all bad for health. But then there is the next morning. The same children have to be at 9 o'clock in school, and that combination appears to me to be the worst feature of the whole case, as regards the children's health. My Lords, you would not let your own children even amuse themselves night after night by looking on at these performances; and if your Lordships know very well that the children would be exceedingly excited by the performances—if you know that they would be quite unfit for their ordinary lessons the next morning, what is it to these little children, not just standing still as "Vegetables," but with a great deal of running and dancing to-and-fro, and a great deal of exertion leading to the fatigue which is here described. Then I have taken pains—I thought it my duty—to inquire into what is the view of the children's condition from the school side. I have taken a very experienced elderly teacher who has had a life's experience, who is a well known man in the schools in London, knows them all, and is himself a principal teacher; and he tells me that the lessons of course are unlearned—that must be the case—there is not time to learn them. Moreover, the children when they come to school are too tired to learn there, at once restless and sleepy. Sometimes, as he says, he has scarcely had the heart, knowing that the wages they earn were so valuable (I am most anxious that there should be no exaggeration on the one side or the

  297
  other) not to ease everything to enable the children to go on, but he says it is a vain task, and practically he may state as a general rule that the boys do miss their year's standard, they are unable to pass at the end of the year, and that means that they are a year longer at school. Then when all that is over the race of life itself begins, and he says the best educated, and the best trained boys of course get the places that are to be had; they get the start in life, and the other children are hindered, not only in their school lessons, but are practically unfitted for their work in life by the time when they ought to enter upon industrial occupations or upon employment as clerks. I believe that we may say that the preparation for stage life itself is not worth thinking of, and could easily be made up at the age of 10 years if the children are really going to be devoted to the stage. But, my Lords, one of the worst things connected with it, is what was described to me by another of the witnesses I talked to, as the bogus schools. The children are taken away from their Board Schools, or National Schools, and a certificate is given by people who undertake to keep them at school and to teach them something, but in reality there is no teaching to speak of at all. Now, either the school is a serious thing or it is not. If it is not a serious thing, if it is a mere pretence, there is not one of your Lordships who would think it proper that a child should be treated in this manner, because it must be a great, interference with all that a child's education is intended to fit him for in life. If it is not a serious thing, if it is a pretence, it ought not to be allowed; and if it is a serious thing it involves excessive hours for children under 10 years of age of hard and continuous work. Then as to the profit to the family. That has been disregarded in all other cases. It may be hard; I sympathise with the hardness as much as possible; but it has been thought right to disregard it in all other cases in order that the child may be better fitted for its life, and that the parents may be really benefited by the child receiving a good education. Then we are told what good wages the children get in many cases. Yes, the very clever and able children do, but the ordinary payment for a child is only 7d. a night;
  298
  that is to say, four or five shillings a week, lasting over three months. That is what the mass gain, and that is the whole profit to the family. But I say it is no real profit if the boy loses a year and is disqualified for his work; and, again, I say it is still less of a profit if it ends, as I am sure it does very frequently, in nervous weakness. It has been said that many of these children, or you might almost believe from what is said in the papers that all of them, are gutter children. Now, let me quote to you Mr. Oscar Barrett's statement. Mr. Oscar Barrett is the manager of the Crystal Palace Pantomimes. Upon a deputation at which he spoke, to meet objections urged against the system, he observed that "Theatrical children were far better off than ordinary children—they were supposed to be gutter children, but they were not." I have inquired of people who have devoted their whole lives to the service of the poor and to their children. I will not mention Mr. Waugh, lest it should be thought that he is an advocate, although I am sure that anyone who has read his statements will admit that there could not be a fairer-minded man. I might quote Miss Octavia Hill, who is intimately acquainted, in the minutest details, with the life of all these people, and who has devoted herself in a cool rational spirit to her good work, and another lady of the same surname. Miss Frances Davenport Hill. They have no knowledge whatever of invalid parents being maintained by children, or being kept out of the workhouse. They have knowledge of a very great number of families in which the earnings of the children are spent in drink. But, my Lords, these children are not really gutter children. The managers of theatres and pantomimes do not want half starved, emaciated, poor little bony children; they want the lithe, well-fleshed, well-formed, easily moving children; children already well mannered, in order to do the work of the stage. I know that there are two classes. There must be among them some exceedingly poor children. Of them I have spoken already. No doubt there will be loss there; but I am persuaded that the loss is very small indeed compared with the gain which it would be to all alike to be kept at school,

  299
  at any rate up to such a tender age as 10 years. Again, we have been told that if the children are not in the theatre they would be on the streets. I dare not venture to put my experience against the experience of others who have written and spoken on this subject; but I thought it worth while three or four weeks ago to walk through the lowest streets and alleys in Lambeth, and that is a very suitable place to walk about in, because there are three theatres there. In walking for about an hour, between the hours of 10 and half-past 11, I met 13 children. The majority of these were with their parents, or they were going to the shops, whose doors were still open, although the shutters were closed, to fetch things for their parents, all in the quietest and most simple manner. There were three children in the gutter, for three children were employed in picking up the remnants of some fruiterers' packages. There was no rioting or anything of the kind in the streets—in fact, the streets were much quieter than I expected to find them, but there were no children at all about who in any way answered to the description of gutter children, seeing, and hearing, and mixing in all sorts of monstrosities, and who would be better off in theatres. The fact is that these streets which I walked through simply swarm with children the whole day long, while at night there were, as I have said, only 13 children, the rest were in bed. I have no wish to say a word about the characters of those who I am persuaded are good and kind to the children. I believe that very large numbers of them are perfectly irreproachable; but there must be, and we know there is, a rank and file whose examples and contact cannot be very beneficial to the children, and we know also that there are such things as stage doors. However, I believe the profession generally to be neither worse nor better than other professions. But what I do feel is that I have satisfied myself on two points. The wages that these children earn are not worth such a sacrifice as that of health, and nerves; and the work itself is not healthful. The mixture of school work and stage work is I am persuaded most injurious, while the incidents of the children having to make their way home are still more trying to them.
  Amendment amended by leaving out the words "a Court of Summary Jurisdiction," and substituting the words—
  "A stipendiary Magistrate or Petty Sessional Court in England and in Scotland the Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute."
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I propose to leave out the words—
  "Any child of whose fitness to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments without injury the said Court is satisfied,"
  and in lieu thereof to insert the words "children under the said age."
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I shall be glad to accept that Amendment.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I very much prefer the words as they stand, because then it does require the Court to be satisfied that the child, as to whom the dispensation is given, is fit to take part in the entertainments. I shall certainly oppose this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I can quite understand my noble and learned Friend opposing it, because the Amendment would be perfectly unworkable if it is left as it is.
  On Question, "That those words stand part of the Amendment," their Lordships divided:—Contents 37; Not Contents 20.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I now move, in line 5, after the word "child," to insert the words "exceeding seven years of age."
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I cannot accept that Amendment. I think that every argument I have used already applies to that Amendment, and I will not trouble your Lordships by arguing the matter further.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should have thought that those who were most ardently in favour of omitting this occupation from the provisions of the Bill would have conceived that there was some age below which employment ought not to take place. Can it be really right to permit children below seven years of age to take part in these entertainments, and pursue their education at the same time?
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: The difficulty is reduced to an extent by the 8th clause, which reverses the usual procedure in Courts of Justice, where it is necessary for the prosecution to make out their case by providing that the de-

  301
  fendant must prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the child is above the actual age. That will stand enormously in the way of managers employing these young children. It is next to impossible to ascertain that these children are above the actual age. It would involve an enormous expense to them, and the difficulty would be so great as to render it impossible for managers to run the risk of prosecution, and they will therefore be bound to give up employing children altogether.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: This matter came before the Royal Commission on Education, and differing, as we did, upon many vital points with regard to that matter, upon this particular subject we were absolutely unanimous that these children wanted some protection. We had suggested some modification of the Factory Act. What your Lordships have inserted in the Bill would practically meet precisely the same point; but I do trust, on behalf of these young children under seven years of age, that the House will step in and protect them from what I am quite sure must in their case at all events result in cruelty.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: If the last Amendment had been carried the case would have been rather different; but your Lordships will remember now that the Courts have got to decide as to the fitness of every particular child. One child of only seven years of age may not be physically fit to play in a theatre, whereas another child may be perfectly fit. Your Lordships are aware that a great number of plays cannot be played if you insist upon this proviso—I refer to such plays as Claudian, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Winter's Tale, and so on.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I may say that the Midsummer Night's Dream is played in Germany frequently without children. I would really ask the noble Lord why that play cannot be played without very young children?
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: There must be small fairies.
  On Question, that those words be there inserted—agreed to.
  On Question, that the following words be inserted at the end of Clause 2 (now Clause 3):—
  "Provided also, that in the case of any entertainment or series of entertainments to
  302
  take place in premises licensed according to law for public entertainments, where it is shown, to the satisfaction of a Stipendiary Magistrate or Petty Sessional Court in England, or in Scotland the Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute, that proper provision has been made to secure the health and kind treatment of any children proposed to be employed thereat, it shall be lawful for the said Court, anything in this Act notwithstanding, to order that any child exceeding seven years of age of whose fitness to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments without injury, the said Court is satisfied, be permitted to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments, and such order may at any time be varied, added to, or rescinded by the said Court, upon sufficient cause being; shown; and such order shall be sufficient protection to all persons acting under or in accordance with the same."
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 31; Not Contents 24.
  Clause agreed to.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I do not wish to move an Amendment of this clause, but I cannot help calling attention to one particular part of it which, strikes me as very remarkable; that is to say, that if a man is committed for trial his child is taken away, and is placed with some other person to be taken charge of, and that if he is acquitted no compensation is paid to him at all; though he is not found guilty of any crime or offence, all that has been done during the time he has been waiting for trial he is made to condone, as it were, and to pay for, though it has been against his will, and though his child has been taken from him for no offence whatever.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I would point out that this is not compulsory at all. The clause merely gives the power in certain cases to remove the child from the custody of the parent when he is committed for trial. I think your Lordships will see that there are cases when it would be not only most expedient, but even necessary; for instance, if a parent were committed for trial, and were out on bail, the child might be intimidated, or might suffer seriously in consequence; therefore I think that the provision is perfectly right. But at the same time, I quite agree with the noble Viscount opposite that the provision as to the payment of any money ought to be had regard to. On Report I will propose an Amendment to meet this objection.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would also call attention to the fact that the phrase "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" appears here again. The noble and learned Lord will probably consider that on Report.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I have given notice, upon this clause, to move that the last three lines be omitted. The proposal in these three last lines is that the Secretary of State should make rules and regulations for the conduct of children in the foster homes to which they are committed by this Bill, and for the inspection of them. I think that that strikes at the whole principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is to place the foster parent in loco parentis: he is to take charge of the children, and to have all the responsibility of a natural parent. But under this clause the foster parent is relieved of responsibility, and the conduct of the child is put under the regulation, management, control, and inspection of the Secretary of State. Is the Secretary of State to regulate the homes of England, whether they are foster homes or the homes of natural parents? I protest against this. It destroys the feeling of parental responsibility, and it places the responsibility of home duties on the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State must regulate these foster homes à fortiori he ought to regulate the worse kinds of homes for which these foster homes are substituted; and the ultimate corollary to these three lines would be that the Secretary of State had better regulate every home in England. This point was discussed in the Standing Committee, and this proposal was defended as a parallel to rules made by Guardians in the case of boarded-out children. There is no parallel whatever between the two cases. Guardians boarding out children are obliged to make rules for the conduct of the children in the places where they send them, because they pay for their care, and have to account for an expenditure of public money. They, therefore, make some rules (which are, after all, very slight) for the schooling of the children, and their clothing, and so on. But in this case the foster parent will be invested with the whole of the responsibility: he will be put in the position of the
  304
  parent: he is the parent in the eye of the law, and is as much answerable to the law for any neglect or abuse of duty as any other parent. Nor is there any reason why the Secretary of State, if he should make regulations with regard to these foster homes, should not make similar regulations with regard to all the homes in the country. I think the State is already intruding a great deal too much upon the domestic life of this country. It is against the whole spirit of this nation that the State should be constantly interfering in domestic life. It is a foreign and not an English idea. In England we consider that a man's house is his castle, and that he may keep out the Secretary of State or anybody else, unless he abuses his position as a citizen; in which case he is amenable to the law, without special rules imposed. I say it would be a step in the wrong direction, and against the independent spirit of this country, if we passed the three lines at the end of this clause, which would relieve the foster parent of responsibility, and put it in the power of the Secretary of State to regulate the conduct of domestic life.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 4 (3), page 4, line 27, to leave out from "approves" to the end of the Clause.—(The Lord Norton.)
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: The arguments of the noble Lord who has moved the omission of these words, if they go for anything, go against the whole spirit of the clause; that is to say, the whole spirit of the clause is that the State does step in, and does interfere with the rights of the parent by taking away the child altogether. It appears to me that if the State takes the child from the parent, it may be bound to make such rules and regulations as shall ensure the proper custody of that child in the hands of those in whom it is placed. I hope, therefore, that the House will not agree to strike out these words, which, while casting no absolute duty upon the Secretary of State to make such rules, give him ample power if it be found necessary to make rules which will ensure the proper carrying out of the clause.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I quite agree that Parliament has power to authorise the Secretary of State to make rules for

  305
  the custody of these children who are to be entrusted to a sort of foster parents; but the question seems to me to be, is it expedient that the reasonable authority for the child, who is to be a sort of adopted or foster child, in default of the proper treatment and care of the child by the parent, should be vested in the Secretary of State? Is it likely to work well? Will it not disincline the most desirable foster parents to adopt these children and take care of them if a sort of notion gets abroad that they are subject to a number of vague rules and regulations? It seems to me, I must say, that if the foster parent is fit to have custody of the child, and to be placed in loco parentis, he should be entrusted with the whole duty and responsibility of its proper care. I entirely agree with my noble Friend who moves this Amendment.
  LORD NORTON: I would like to say one word in reply to the Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I could quite understand his argument if the State, in taking away the custody of the child, undertook the care of the child itself. Then the matter would be parallel to the boarding out of children by Boards of Guardians. But in this Bill the State takes away the child from the parent, and places it in the hands of a foster parent; and I say that when the State has once placed the child in the care of the foster parent, it weakens the sense of responsibility in that foster parent that the Secretary of State should undertake to regulate his conduct.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should be very much opposed to any interference with the foster parent beyond what is absolutely necessary to secure the proper treatment of the child committed to his charge. The provision contained in the clause does not really contemplate that the Secretary of State should undertake the management of the child, or dictate to the foster parent how it is to be managed. It gives to the Secretary of State the widest discretion to make such regulations in relation to these cases as he thinks necessary. I cannot but think that it would be desirable that at least there should be some record from time to time of where the children are who have been committed to a person other than the parent; because although the parent may have behaved ill, we will say, two, or three, or four years
  306
  before, nevertheless I am quite sure it would not be desired that the parent should be forbidden, if there were no objection to it, to have access to his child, to know something about its welfare, and where it was. Therefore, it would seem very reasonable that there should be, for example, such a rule as this: that at certain intervals (I do not want too make them too short) a Report should be made of the whereabouts of the child, so that if the parent desires to see the child or to have access to it, he may be able in some way or other to learn where the child is. I merely give that as an example; but I would point out that the whole thing is left to the Secretary of State; there is no compulsion upon him to make rules, it is a power given, and not an obligation upon him, and I have no doubt he will exercise it with care and discretion.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Perhaps if my noble and learned Friend would put in the words "may if he shall think fit," it would show that the matter was left to his discretion, and that might satisfy my noble Friend.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have no objection to it, although I still do not see that it is necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in line 27, after the word "may," to insert the words "if he shall think fit," agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: This is a clause to which I beg to call attention for a few moments. It refers to a matter which will, I am certain, give rise to considerable dissatisfaction amongst the working classes, and the poorer people of this country. It provides that any Justice of the Peace, on information made before him by any person—that is, any busybody who may take up a case of this kind—
  "Who in the opinion of the Justice is bona, fide acting in the interest of any child, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that such a child, being a boy under the age of 14 years, or a girl under the age of 16 years, has been or is being ill-treated or neglected in any place within the jurisdiction of such Justice"
  (the word "neglected," as I said just now with regard to another clause, is not

  307
  one of very clear application and meaning, it might mean any kind of neglect which this person should think prejudicial to the health of the child)—
  "such Justice may issue a warrant authorising any person named therein"
  (that might be the busybody in question)
  "to search for such child, and if it is found to have been or to be illtreated or neglected in manner aforesaid to take it to and detain it in a place of safety."
  Now, my Lords, all Justices are, unhappily, not persons of sound discretion; yet a man who is an enthusiast may go to any one Justice and get power to search any home for a child; and, if he finds him, he may carry him off forcibly from his parents in order to place him in what he calls a place of safety. But that is not all. By the 3rd sub-section there is a provision that—
  "Any person authorised by warrant under this section to search for any child may enter if need be by force any house, building, or other place specified in the warrant, and may remove the child therefrom,"
  that is to say, that this person who succeeds in getting round any Justice of the Peace may break into any working man's house, or one of your Lordships' houses, if it comes to that, at any hour of the day or the night, and wake a man up in the middle of the night, and may take, as it were, by force of arms, any child who may, in his judgment, be neglected or ill-treated. That seems to be a most startling power to give to any Justice; and I should have proposed to have omitted the clause altogether, but it has been suggested to me that there are certain cases of cruelty which go on here and there throughout the country, which could not be detected without some such clause as this. Therefore, I have not proposed to omit it altogether, although I still think perhaps that would be the wisest course to take; but I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the power should not be given to one Justice but to two Justices, or to a Stipendiary Magistrate. The clause, as it stands, has been copied word for word from a very ill-considered, and, as I think, mischievous measure called the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which has already caused a great deal of mischief, and perhaps will cause more; but it was passed, as your Lordships may
  308
  remember, in a panic, or something approaching to it, and was not very well considered. Therefore, I shall presently propose to limit the time at which a search warrant can be executed to the hours between 6 in the morning and 9 at night, which are the hours, as your Lordships know, which distinguish burglary from house breaking.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 3, after the word "Justice," to insert the words "or Justices."—(The Earl of Milltown).
  LORD HERSCHELL: If this Amendment were adopted, I think it would go far to defeat the object of the clause, because it is not always easy to get two Justices together on an emergency. Very often it becomes known that a child is being ill-treated, and perhaps dangerously ill-treated, and unless there can be immediate action that child may be sacrificed. Therefore, to require, as this Amendment proposes, a resort to two Justices would often render it impossible to put the provision in operation until it was really too late to effect the desired purpose. My noble Friend has quite truly said that a similar clause to this was inserted in the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. Whatever complaints may have been made of certain provisions in that Act, and there have been some, there has been no complaint that I am aware of of this particular provision, which has been in operation now for nearly four years. It it were applicable in the cases covered by that Act, it seems to me to be equally applicable in the present case; and the power is not only not more liable, but I should think less liable to abuse under this Bill than under the Act to which my noble Friend referred. If the noble Lord could have shown that complaint had been made of that particular clause, or that there had been abuse of it, he would have made out a strong case against inserting it in another Act of Parliament, but, failing that, my only desire being really to make this effective, and to protect the unfortunate children, I feel myself obliged to resist the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would suggest to my noble and learned Friend that it would perhaps effect his purpose, and I should think would satisfy the noble Earl behind me if that, which he

  309
  has given as a reason of his somewhat exceptional power, should be made part of the provision itself—namely, that the Magistrate should only issue such an Order upon his being satisfied upon oath that the case was one of emergency. My noble and learned Friend will observe that although no doubt that is the leading idea thoroughout the clause, it is not confined to it; and I think if he would make it a condition precedent to the operation of this clause that the Magistrates should judicially determine that the case was one of emergency calling for this extreme and unusual remedy, a great part of my noble Friend's objection would be got rid of.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: If that satisfies my noble and learned Friend, of course I can hardly venture to press my objection, but I still think that this power is a most objectionable one. I would like to ask this question: What remedy would a man have if his house is broken into at any hour of the day or the night because somebody has succeeded in persuading some philanthropic Magistrate that there is a child in that house under ill-treatment? How is he to recover damages? This clause even as modified is of such a character that if one case of malfeasance occurs under it, it would become a dead letter. My noble and learned Friend challenged me to find a case where this particular clause in the Criminal Law Amendment Act had produced abuse. I am not aware that there is any, and probably it has never been put in force; but I would point out that it is much less likely that error should occur in the detection of the crimes covered by that Act than in the detection of crimes which this Bill deals with, such as, for instance, the question where a child is or is not neglected in a particular house. I confess I would prefer to leave the matter to two Justices. The noble and learned Lord himself just now objected to one Justice of the Peace having jurisdiction; and I do not see why the same objection should not apply now. I do hope that my noble and learned Friend will accept my very simple Amendment. With regard to the question of Stipendiary Magistrate, I may say that this is a matter which would generally occur in large and populated districts where
  310
  there is always a Stipendiary Magistrate available.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should have no objection to having two Justices or a Stipendiary, provided that, in case of emergency, it may be done by one Justice. I would agree to that as a compromise. That would point, of course, to its being held to be a case of emergency.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Perhaps my noble and learned Friend would, upon the Report, introduce what he considers the proper wording. I may mention to him with a view to consideration on Report, also, that there are very extraordinary powers in this sub-section. Power is given, unless the Justice otherwise directs, that the person who makes the charge should be a party to the seizure, and be entitled to go into the house. That might be the means of introducing very objectionable people into a house, who could not go there in any other way. I think it is a thing which ought not to be left to any person. Let the Justice direct who shall go if he pleases; but I think it would be undesirable to allow any person who so desired to enter the house of his own free-will. I think it is a very formidable thing to have unknown persons admitted to other people's houses.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn, Clause agreed to.
  Amendment proposed in page 4, line 37, after the word "health" to insert the words "or is residing with common or reputed prostitutes or reputed thieves."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: This would be introducing a new head altogether into this Bill, which deals with the neglect of children and not with the question of morality. There are provisions already in other statutes dealing with the consorting of children with prostitutes, and I do not think it would be desirable to embody such a provision in this Bill, which does not really deal with that question at all.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, Sub-section 3 empowers any person authorised by warrant to search for any child, to enter by force any

  311
  house specified in the warrant and to remove the child therefrom. I cannot imagine anything likely to cause greater dissatisfaction, and just dissatisfaction, than such a power as this. It is surely a reasonable thing to say that this power shall only be exercised in daylight. It is a very strong thing to allow it to be done then; but to allow a house to be searched in order to see whether a child is there, and to ascertain if it is ill-treated, at any hour of the night, is really a most extraordinary proposition. I hope my noble and learned Friend will accept the very moderate limitation which I propose.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after the word "enter" to insert the words, "at any time between six o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock at night."—(The Marl of Milltown.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: My only reason for objecting is that I think there are cases in which this limitation would defeat the objects in view. If it is right for such purposes as this to enter between six in the morning and nine at night, I cannot see any magic that makes it wrong to enter at any hour. Those are the hours no doubt fixed with reference to the distinction between burglary and housebreaking; but is there any reason for such a limitation in the matter with which we are now dealing? When my noble Friend says that this is a provision which would be hateful, and strongly objected to by the people of this country, I must remind him that this particular clause comes to us in a Bill in its present form from those who are the representatives of this country other than those who are in the House of Peers. They are jealous of the rights of those whom they represent, and are likely to attend to anything that they think would seriously affect them. They represent the people who would be subjected to these provisions, and they, as their representatives, considered that it was worth while to yield up a portion of the rights of the community in that respect for the sake of securing a considerable and important end; and if they have been willing to do that, I do not see that your Lordships would do well to stand in the way.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I really do not at all admit the doctrine that the
  312
  House of Commons are the only representatives of the people. Your Lordships are, in many respects, far better representatives of the people. I should think it extremely doubtful whether anyone's attention in the House of Commons was called even to this particular point. If the noble and learned Lord's faith in the House of Commons is so profound, how is it that he has himself put sheet after sheet of Amendments into this Bill? The Bill is extremely ill-drafted; and if it were not for the corrections which your Lordships have put into it, the time of Her Majesty's Judges would have been entirely taken up by endeavouring to find out the meaning of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I will bear in. mind what the noble Viscount has said about the 4th Sub-section. It might be that one ought to turn the provision round and enable the person to be present if the Justice of the Peace so directs. The Amendment I now have to propose is to leave out the words "legally qualified," in order to insert the word "registered."
  Amendment moved, in Sub-Section 4, line 6, to leave out the words "legally qualified," and insert the words "registered."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE EARL OF POWIS: I would take this opportunity of asking the noble and learned Lord how he would make provision for the medical practitioner being properly paid, and what authority should fix the proper remuneration. In the case of a medical practitioner attending at an inquest, the Coroners' Act lays down the remuneration which he is to receive; he gets his guinea for attendance, and he gets his two guineas if he has a post mortem examination. It would be very undesirable to leave it at the mercy of the medical man to fix his own fee, and to make whatever charge he pleased.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My impression is that there will be no power to remunerate the medical men out of the public funds. There is no such provision here, but there are cases where the person making the information himself obtains the services of a medical

  313
  man, and it is a matter of arrangement with him what is the fee which the medical man shall receive. It would be necessary to fix the fee if it were a charge upon the public funds, but that is not the case here. I do not see that there is power given to the Justice of the Peace to insist upon any medical man being present; it is only to enable the Justice to allow the person to be accompanied by a medical practitioner; it does not enable the Justice to order a medical practitioner to attend.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  LORD HERSCHELL: This is a clause which raises a question of very considerable difficulty which has weighed upon my mind a good deal. It enables in the first instance the accused person to give evidence. As to that I do not think there is likely to be any difference of opinion, but it goes further, and it makes the husband or wife not merely competent to give evidence, but compellable to give evidence. Undoubtedly, that is a very great innovation, and one which under circumstances which I can conceive might give rise to a considerable amount of feeling. The object of inserting it is one with which I entirely agree. There are many wives who would feel it their duty to give evidence if summoned to do so for the protection of their children (and the same may be said, perhaps, of husbands too) who do not like to appear to volunteer. They would attend if summoned to attend as witnesses, but they do not like to offer themselves when they are not summoned. It affords a kind of protection which it is natural they should desire and which it is right, I think, to extend to them. But it, of course, covers the case of a witness, a wife we will suppose, attending unwillingly, and when asked questions which will incriminate her husband refusing to answer, and as the clause stands the Judge would have no alternative if the witness so refuses to answer but to send her to prison, and I think that, if such a case arises as a wife refusing to testify against her husband and being sent to prison in consequence of that act, there would be likely to be a very considerable sensation excited, and
  314
  I think it is not at all unlikely that the provision would be condemned. I have, therefore, sought to hit upon a middle course, one which will give all the protection which is desired, which will prevent the appearance of volunteering evidence on the part of the wife or husband, and at the same time prevent such an occurrence as I have just described. What I propose is this, that the clause be amended by providing (I will put the exact form of the Amendment in a moment) that the wife or husband of such a person shall be competent, and may be required to attend to give evidence as an ordinary witness in the case, but shall not be deemed to be in contempt for refusing; to answer a question tending to incriminate the accused person. That enables either a wife or a husband to be heard as an ordinary witness; but at the same time if he or she is unwilling to answer questions incriminating the accused person the Judge would not be under the obligation of sending the witness to prison. It seems to me that that is a middle course which is likely to secure all the advantages that the clause would have secured, without at the same time those disadvantages which might have brought discredit upon it.
  Amendment moved to leave out the word "compellable" in order to insert the words "may be required to attend," and at the end of the clause to add the words—
  "But shall not be deemed to be in contempt for refusing to answer a question tending to incriminate the accused person."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that this is a somewhat circuitous mode of meeting the case. Would it not be better at line 21 to strike out the word "and," and to insert the words "but not?"
  LORD HERSCHELL: I will explain why I did not do that. I want to insert the words "may be required to attend as an ordinary witness" That is, that a husband or wife may be summoned by the Court—that is really what is required for their protection. All I do is this: if in any case the witness says, "I will not answer that question because it will incriminate my husband," or "my wife," then I protect the witness, from the ordinary consequences of refusing to answer questions.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That would amount to this, that you would force the husband or wife into the witness box, and enforce upon them the duty of giving what may be the most cogent evidence, perhaps, against the incriminated person by declining to answer a question. I object to that sort of indirect admission of the husband or wife which you would force from their lips.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Then I should propose to leave the clause as it is.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: The object is to make the evidence of the husband or wife evidence for the defence, but not for the prosecution. It seems to me that if it should be evidence at all it should be evidence on either side. There are many cases of cruelty to children especially of which the wife is the only witness, and the husband continually escapes because she cannot be called. If you are going to do away with that anomaly, very well; but do it thoroughly, and enable the case to be proved by the only witness possible.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My provision would do that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It will satisfy me if my noble and learned Friend will consider this matter on Report. I myself should prefer the words "but not" substituted for the word "and."
  LORD HERSCHELL: Then we will leave the clause as it is till the Report Stage.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD HERSCHELL: When this clause was before the Standing Committee containing a provision which appeared in it, rendering a child who was examined in pursuance of the provisions of this clause liable to the penalties of perjury, but limiting the punishment to two years' imprisonment, it was felt by many that, considering that we were dealing with the case of a child, of tender years, there was something revolting in an express provision that such a child might be sentenced to two years' imprisonment; at the same time, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said, and I confess I shared his view, that it would not do to say that a child examined under this clause should not be liable to be indicted for
  316
  the offence of giving false evidence, because sometimes that might be the only way in which a person whose character had been affected by the child's evidence would be able to clear it. I feel myself, also, that it would be making a strange distinction to say that the child who could understand the nature of an oath and who told a falsehood should be liable to punishment, whilst a child who did not understand the nature of an oath, but knew that it ought to tell the truth and did not tell the truth, should be liable to no punishment. The result would be certainly to put a premium on the absence of theological knowledge, which seems to me indefencible in principle. But in order to meet the various views that were expressed in the Committee, I propose to add as Sub-section (b) at the bottom of page 5 these words—
  "Any such child whose evidence is received as aforesaid, and who shall wilfully give false evidence, shall be liable to be indicted and tried for such offence, and on conviction thereof may be adjudged such punishment as is provided for by Section 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, in the case of juvenile offenders."
  On Question, "That those words be inserted as a new Sub-section (b.); agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would point out to my noble and learned Friend that here again the words "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" occur.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  LORD WATSON: This clause is quite inapplicable to Scotch procedure.
  LORD HERSCHELL: There is an Amendment on the Paper to provide that Clauses 7 and 10 shall not apply to Scotland. I propse to assent to that.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  Amendment moved, that the following Clause be inserted after Clause 14:—"That Section 7 and Section 10 of this Act shall not apply to Scotland."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: On this clause I wish to move an Amendment as to child life insurance. Clause 1 touches upon the question of insurance, but only where there has been proceeding by indictment and a conviction. The Registrar General, or some other equally high authority on statistics, has spoken more than once of the great infant mortality owing to insurance, and the number of children that die on account of over-insurance is so great that in a Bill of this kind for the protection of children I think the clause proposed would not be out of place.
  Amendment proposed,
  "After the passing of this Act, it shall not be competent to insure the life of a child so that on its death occurring before it is 10 years of age any money shall become payable in the policy, without prejudice, however, to any insurance to the effect of providing decent and proper burial for such child."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: This Amendment, no doubt, raises an important question, but I think it is too large a question to be dealt with by a provision in this Bill—namely, the question of the insurance of infant life. I do not feel satisfied that if the matter were dealt with at all it ought to be dealt with upon the basis of prohibiting insurance under 10 years of age. For such a purpose I do not see why 10 years should be taken as the limit; but beyond that, the clause provides merely that it shall not be competent to insure the life of a child in the event of its death occurring before it is 10 years of age. I apprehend that at the present time a policy on the life of a child is void as much as the policy on the life of anyone else unless the person insuring is interested in the life—that is to say, no person can insure the life of another unless he is interested in that life. I have no doubt insurances are effected every day which would be void if those who insured the life chose to take the objection, but the truth is they do not take the objection—they find the business of insuring a profitable one, and its profits, of course, would entirely cease of they were to repudiate the insurance by refusing to complete their contracts on the ground that their contracts were void. Therefore, in saying that it shall not be competent to insure the life of a child under
  318
  10, unless you provide some machinery' something going beyond the present law, which really makes an insurance where there is no interest a void insurance, you will effect nothing at all. It is not competent in a sense at the present time, inasmuch as the liability could not be enforced unless an interest in the life could be proved. Therefore, to say that it shall not be competent would be absolutely ineffectual. If you are to deal with this matter at all, it must be dealt with in the way of making it absolutely penal on those who take part in it. That is the only possible way to secure it. Then I think it can, and ought, only to be made penal in cases where there is not an interest which justifies the insurance and not where the insurance does not exceed that interest. There are cases where it is very proper to insure an infant's life. It is done constantly without any impropriety in the cases of settlements and leases for life and in various other cases. Those who have any experience of the business of insurance offices know that the insurance of infant lives in that way is a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing. The abuse consists in the insuring of lives where those who insure have no interest which justifies the insurance. To insure a life in the proper sense is to insure from loss by reason of the death where you are insuring the life of another person. That is the only proper object of insurance. In order, therefore, to deal effectually with this evil, you must first of all limit your prohibition to the cases where insurances ought not to be effected, and then, having limited your prohibition in that way, you must make it effectual by proper penalties. Under these circumstances, strongly as I feel the importance of the question raised by this Amendment, it seems to me that it lacks altogether the machinery which would be necessary to give effect to its intention.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have already expressed an opinion upon this subject, and I must say I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend that this is an improper way of dealing with it. I believ it is a very important subject, and will have to be considered. As my noble Friend knows, everybody is supposed to have an insurable interest in his own life, and I believe the mode

  319
  in which these things are done is that the infant is supposed to insure its own life, and then those who represent it obtain by inheritance or representation that which belongs to the child. Therefore, the objection to its being void by reason of the absence of insurable interest would not apply. But I quite agree there is no machinery here applicable to it, or I should myself have taken charge of an Amendment having the same object. I believe it is a subject which must be hereafter dealt with in a complete way, and that it is one which cannot be dealt with in a fragmentary manner, as it would be if it were endeavoured to be grafted upon a Bill of this kind.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwithdrew the remainder of his Amendment.
  LORD WATSON: There is one Amendment of which the noble Lord had given notice, which seemed to be necessary in order to make Clause 15 complete, as in one part of Scotland, if not in others, there will be no Local Authority. The Amendment is on page 8, line 18, after the word "Council," to insert the words "as regards any police burgh in Scotland, the Commissioners of Police thereof."
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I altogether differ from my noble Friend and cannot accept his proposal, which would lead to great confusion. The police burghs in Scotland would be independent of the Council for this purpose only. The Amendment which I introduced in the Standing Committee was to the effect that after the passing of the Local Government Bill all the powers which are now in the Commissioners of Supply, or in the police burghs would be transferred to the County Council, and after the passing of that Bill there would inevitably be confusion if this Amendment were carried.
  LORD WATSON: These two Acts will run very nearly parallel. I should fancy it depends on who first obtains the Royal Assent. There is no reference in this clause to the supersession of the powers of the Commissioners of Supply by the County Council.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: But by the Local Government Bill the powers of the Police Commissioners would be entirely superseded.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The Local Government Bill does not come into operation until next year, so that there would be a certain hiatus which ought to be covered in some way.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: On Report I will introduce some words to> meet the case. Perhaps these words would do, "until the Local Government (Scotland) Act comes into existence."
  LORD HERSCHELL: It will probably be better to put in these words now, and we can amend them on Report if they are not satisfactory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17.
  Amendment moved, in page 8, line 20, after the word "the," to insert the words "prevention of cruelty to and,"—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I may mention that the noble Lord who first proposed an alteration in the title has authorised me to say that he is quite in favour of the new form which I propose, and as I think my noble and learned Friend who has charge of the Bill is also in favour of it, I shall not trouble your Lordships with any remark. The Amendment is for the purpose of bringing out the twofold aspect of the Bill and meeting some of the objections which have been raised with regard to the nomenclature.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Originally this-was called the "Prevention of Cruelty to Children" Bill. Then objection was taken to that title on the ground that it covered matters which were not properly within that description. Then it was changed to the "Protection to Children" Bill. Then I have learnt that some of those who are interested in this measure think that it will not be so effectual if it does not keep also the title of Prevention of Cruelty. There seems to be no objection to give it a title which covers both.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, in. the title, after the word "the," to insert, the words "Prevention of Cruelty to and,"—(The Earl of Aberdeen),—agreed, to.
  Bill reported.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as now amended (No. 211.)

JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 202.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the SECOND READING read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This is mainly a technical Bill providing for the re-arrangement of the position of two officers in Scotland, one of whom is called the Accountant of the Court of Sessions, and the other the Accountant in Bankruptcy. There are two main objects of the Bill. One is to consolidate the supervision of bankrupt estates, and other estates in the hands of the Scotch Courts, and the other is to subject to this supervision all estates without exception where an officer of the Court is an Administrator. The Bill is purely technical in its character, it has been considered by the most prominent legal bodies in Scotland, and many valuable suggestions which have been made by them have been incorporated into the Bill. I think I need not further explain to your Lordships the object of the Bill which I now move be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

  SETTLED LAND ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 203.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  PRINCE OF WALES'S CHILDREN BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow—(The Marquess of Salisbury). (No. 212.)

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Ker (M. Lothian) to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, for the consideration
  322
  of the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.