Sitting of 14 August 1889

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND-MR. M'DERMOTT, R.M.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether it is a fact that, in the case of the three men in custody charged with shooting at a man named Trahan, near Pullorglin, County Kerry, Mr. M'Dermott, R.M., has refused their solicitor permission to see them; and, if so, why, and by what authority?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this question until another day. I have not yet obtained the information that would enable me to answer it.

  DERRY GAOL—THE DEATH OF M'GEE.
  MR. SEXTON: I observe in the newspapers to-day that the Coroner's inquest upon the body of M'Gee, who died on his release from Derry Gaol, has been adjourned until the 22nd instant. Will the Solicitor General be good enough, before that date, to lay on the Table all the information he can in regard to the illness of this man?
  MR. MADDEN: I will confer with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and will consider in what manner the information required by the right hon. Gentleman can be given.

  JAMAICA SUGAR ESTATES.
  Ordered—
  "Address for Returns of the quantity of land in the Island of Jamaica under cultivation of sugar cane, distinguishing the estates which are above 200 acres; above 100 acres and under 200 acres; above 50 acres and under 100 acres; above 10 acres and under 50 acres; and, of the holdings under 10 acres, those in canes of I acre and less than 3 acres; those in canes of 3 acres and less than 5 acres; those in canes of 5 acres and less than 7 acres."—(Mr. Alfred Pease.)

THE LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL AND THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. STOREY: Mr. Speaker, lam sorry that I feel it my duty to bring under your notice what I regard as a breach of the privileges of this House. I shall make no speech, but perhaps I had better read the letter which a number of the Members of the Committee have had the honour of addressing to you, Sir, yesterday:—
  "August 13, 1889.
  "MR. SPEAKER.—We, whose names are hereto appended, respectfully desire your advice and ruling: —

  "1. We are members of the Grand Committee on Trade, to which has been referred the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill.

  "2. At the beginning of to-day's sitting the Chairman announced: 'I will rule out of order every Amendment which is hostile to the Bill as a Bill.'

  "3. Various Amendments were so treated. As an illustration take the following:—Clause 4, Sub-section 2, reads thus, 'The Treasury may, subject to limitations as to amount in this Act contained, agree that the undertaking may be aided out of public money, either by a capital

  1223
  sum or by an annual payment, or partly in one way and partly in another.' The minority objected to grants of cash drawn even when this clause only proposed such to existing railways. But in the Committee the Government have accepted Amendments which bring mere promoters into the clause, and this has intensified the objections originally raised. Under these circumstances one of our number moved to omit the words:—' Either by a capital sum or,' so that the aid might be by annual payment only for a fixed term of years. The Solicitor General for Ireland rose to order, on the ground that the Amendment was hostile to the Bill, and thereupon the Chairman ruled the said Amendment out of order.

  "We desire your counsel and ruling on the following points:—(a) Are not the discussions in Grand Committee in lieu of discussions in Committee of the whole House, and therefore subject to the same rules? (b) Would not the above-stated Amendment have been a perfectly orderly and proper Amendment in Committee of the Whole House? (c) Whether the refusal to submit such Amendment was not in the mature of a breach of the privileges of Members of this House? (d) What is our remedy, so that this and other proper Amendments, even though hostile, may be discussed in Committee?
  "We are, Mr. Speaker, your obedient servants—

  "Samuel Storey,

  "Halley Stewart,

  "John Barran,

  "James Craig,

  "Arthur B. Winterbotham,

  "William Abraham,

  "Thomas Burt,

  "Joseph G. Biggar,

  "Handel Cossham,

  "Alexander Blane."

  I may say that there were two other hon. Members who left the House after giving their assent to this letter, and whose signatures we did not get in consequence. I refer to Mr. Robertson and Mr. George Howell. Those hon. Members are, however, in full accord with the action we have taken. Without any further remark, I beg, Sir, to ask for your ruling in the matter.
  MR. SPEAKEK: I received last night a letter signed by the hon. Gentleman, and a1 so a protest signed by himself and nine other Members of this House, and I gave it at once my most respectful consideration. I at once in dicated to him, and I have to inform
  1224
  the House now, that I do not regard the matter as one of privilege. At the most, it is only a question of order. But I should like to say, regarding as I do all questions of order that may be raised in Grand Committee upstairs, that I cannot allow appeals to be made to me on points of order rising in Grand Committees, there being no such appeal, in my opinion, from the decision of a duly-constituted Chairman of a Grand Committee. The hon. Member asks me whether, as a general rule, Amendments could be admitted which were hostile to the Bill. I cannot, on an abstract proposition, recognise the propriety of that statement. I do not know what were the circumstances that arose in Committee, or what the difficulties may have been; but, speaking without prejudice, I hope I may be allowed to say that I cannot admit that, as a general rule, Amendments hostile to the Bill may not be admitted. I may instance the feeling I have in the matter by saying that, in regard to the particular Amendment which the hon. Member has just brought under my notice— namely, to omit the words "either by capital sum," so as to leave the amount to be granted out of the Consolidated Fund by annual payment instead of by one capital sum—I see no reason why that Amendment, though hostile to a portion of the Bill, should not have been admitted. It is clearly within the powers of a money clause passed by this House, and the money powers given to the Committee. The Committee, I think, would not have exceeded its powers; but they wished to restrain the Bill within such limits as they thought proper. Under these circumstances, I wish to say that I should have admitted an Amendment of that kind. The hon. Gentleman further asks me what remedy there is. I can only say that I think the remedy would be that when the Bill comes back to this House from the Grand Committee, on Report it would be competent for the hon. Gentleman and those who act with him— or, indeed, for any hon. Gentleman— to move such Amendments as may be thought fit, and, indeed, the hon. Member can move the particular Amendment to Sub-section 2 of Clause 4 to which reference has been made. The hon. Gentleman asks me if the proceedings in Grand Committees are not in lieu of the proceedings in Committee of the

  1225
  whole House. They are so far in lieu of proceedings in Committee of the whole House that there is no stage of Committee of the Whole House in the case of a Bill which has been referred to a Grand Committee. When the Bill comes up on Report there will be ample opportunity for any Member who considers himself damnified or the cause he has in hand injured in the Grand Committee to move such Amendments as he considers necessary, and then full opportunity will be given him of redressing any grievance under which he may consider himself to labour. I hope the matter will not go further now. It is not, as I have said, one of privilege. At the most, it is one of order, and I think I have answered categorically all the questions which have been put to me.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think, Sir, it will be useful to the House if we can have your ruling upon another point. You have stated that the proceedings of the Grand Committee are in lieu of the proceedings of a Committee of the Whole House to this extent— that when a Bill has been referred to a Grand Committee there can be no Committee of the Whole House upon it. Will you also give us your ruling as to whether or not the rules which govern this House when in Committee with reference to Amendments on various points should be, and are, precisely the same rules as those which govern the consideration of Amendments in a Grand Committee?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that the rules which are applicable to proceedings in Committee of the Whole House cannot be altogether applicable to proceedings in a Grand Committee, seeing that there are powers possessed by the Chairman of Committees which could not be exercised by the Chairman of a Grand Committee. In accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, the course of proceeding applicable to a Standing Committee is that which regulates the proceedings of a Select Committee, and as far as the Rules of this House can be applicable, they are applicable to the proceedings of Grand Committees in the way I have indicated.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The material point I wish to raise is whether the rule which governs the admissibility or
  1226
  otherwise of Amendments in Committee of the Whole House is one which should also govern Amendments proposed in a Grand Committee.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that would be so. As a general rule, the same regulations which would apply to Committees of the Whole House would, in this respect, apply to the Grand Committees.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH): May I ask you, Sir, in connection with this matter, whether the Chairman of a Standing Committee has not a discretion to refuse to put Amendments which are obviously frivolous, and intended merely to delay the consideration of a Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter upon which I think I ought to decline to express an opinion. The question of discretion is a very difficult one. A very large amount of discretion is necessarily vested in a duly-constituted Chairman selected and appointed by a Committee which enjoys the confidence of the House. I should be sorry to express an opinion that the large discretionary powers entrusted by the House to the Chairman of a Grand Committee can be otherwise than properly exercised.
  MR. STOREY: I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for the information you have given to the House, and I have no desire to carry the matter further. There is only one question which I will venture to ask. The position in which we are in is this. The serious and operative clause has already been passed without discussion.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I rise to order. I would ask you, Sir, if the hon. Member has any right to discuss the matter after you have ruled that it is not a question of privilege?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am clearly of opinion that it would be out of order to discuss the matter now. The hon. Member must wait until the Committee have reported.
  MR. STOREY: The question I was going to ask has nothing to do with the proceedings of the Committee. I wish to know if it will be competent when the Committee present their Report to move that the Bill be re-committed, so that it may be considered by a Committee of the Whole House?
  MR. SPEAKER: A Motion would have to be made to suspend the Standing Order.
  MR. STOREY: Then I beg to intimate, under those circumstances, on behalf of myself and the other Members of the Committee with whom I am acting, without exception, that we intend, with the full consent of our leader, to withdraw from the Committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL. (No. 272.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after the words "may be," to insert the words "if he (the tithe owner) has not distrained for the same."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: May I venture to ask you, Mr. Courtney, whether we are to understand that by your ruling yesterday, the question of the entire abolition of distraint having been discussed upon an Instruction, it cannot be discussed again?
  THE CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I wish to say that the ruling I gave last night was that it was out of the power of the Committee to do away with the remedy of distress altogether, but that the Amendment of the Home Secretary gives an alternative remedy—namely, of suing in the County Court.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: Then I would venture to submit that if your ruling is correct—[cries of "Order!"] Then I must really ask for the ruling of the Chair.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is quite irregular.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I only wish to put the matter in this way. If, in spite of the arguments, Mr. Courtney, which have been placed before you, you still adhere to that ruling that we are debarred from considering the question of doing away with distraint, I am at a loss to see how the present Amendment
  1228
  can be put, because it does, to a certain extent, withdraw the power of restraint.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I explained this point to the Committee at considerable length last night, and I pointed out that my ruling was supported by what took place in the House itself upon the Instruction. The House entertained a Motion that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to provide in the Bill that tithe rent-charge shall be recoverable against the owner only. If that Instruction had been carried, it would have been in the power of the Committee to make the alteration, but the present Amendment leaves the power of distraint as it now stands, and does-not remove it. The process provided by the clause now under discussion is-not a process forced on the owner which he is bound to take, but one which is offered as an alternative. In my opinion, the Committee, although-they have no power without an Instruction from the House to take away, absolutely, the power of distress, are entitled to provide an alternative upon which the tithe-owner may elect to proceed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I understand that the question which hon. Members desire to discuss is whether or not there shall be an alternative remedy —namely, the remedy by distraint, or the remedy by suing in the County Court. Now, I do not think that that question can be fairly discussed upon the present Amendment. I would therefore suggest that the matter should be deferred! till the Committee have considered the more important question of "owner" or "occupier," which will arise a few lines lower down in the clause. I do not think we can usefully discuss the question whether there is to be an alternative remedy, and to what extent it is to go, until we have decided, in the first place, whether the County Court process is to go against the owner or the occupier.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand the ruling of the Chairman to be that we cannot discuss the question at all—that, in point of fact, the result of the course taken by the Government upon the Instruction is, no discussion can take place upon the matter, but that distraint must remain.

  1229
  in full force as it did before, with the addition of an alternative. That is the ruling we have just heard. I bow to it, although, I confess, that I do not understand it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. There is no objection, in point of form, to the discussion of the question to which he refers.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am glad to hear it. That, however, was the express subject of the Instruction.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The object of the Amendment, as I understand it, is to help the Committee by inserting a few words in the clause. Of course, the word "owner," which is to be discussed later, is of the utmost importance.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It is right that I should say that the Government are disposed to accept the Amendment to substitute the word "owner" for the word "occupier," so as to make the owner primarily liable for the payment of the tithe. The result will be that a good many of the Amendments which have been put down on the Paper for the purpose of altering the Bill so that the remedy may be against the owner, and not against the occupier, will become, of course, unnecessary. The Government will be ready to insert certain other clauses, in order to meet the cases where the tithes are greater than the rent, which have been referred to by so many Members, so that the owner should only be liable to the extent of the rent received. In these circumstances, I would suggest that we should postpone the present Amendment until this alteration can be made.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have to express my gratification at the announcement of the Attorney General. It shows that the patient and arduous exertions of the Opposition have not been in vain. I will say nothing about the reproaches which have been addressed to me. I will say no more than that, as we are going to have a new Bill, I am very happy to think that none of the Instructions that have been rejected by narrow majorities will stand in the way of reconstituting the Bill altogether in its most material particulars. But I am not sure that the owner is to be substituted in the Bill for the occupier, as the Attorney General has not explained
  1230
  what the new clauses are that will be inserted. A whole scheme will be necessary, and, therefore, I think that the best course would be to postpone the further progress of the Bill. Indeed, I am not sure whether, under these circumstances, before we waste a morning that may be given to more useful work, we ought not to hear something of the new clauses which will bring about so material a change. Therefore, to put myself in order, I will conclude with a Motion, that you, Sir, do report Progress. The Government have already pointed out that the change made in the Bill by putting the onus of the payment of tithes directly upon the occupier is a great and material alteration in the Act of 1836, which declared that the owner should not deal with any person whatever. The action under this Bill primâ facie and entirely is against the occupier, although with restrictions as to the manner in which judgment is to be levied, and we think that is an unjust and unfair proceeding. The principle for which we have been contending for so many days is that if an action is to be brought personally against anybody it should not be against the occupier but against the owner. That principle, I am happy to say, has been recognised by the Government, who thus acknowledge that the view we have been maintaining is a right one. The primâ facie liability is upon the occupier, and from that point of view, if a judgment is to be levied upon the property of the occupier, the process is a simple one. But if the Government are going to change that and to levy the judgment upon the owner, who is not in possession and has no goods on which judgment can be levied, it is quite plain that an entirely new mode of procedure is to be inaugurated. At present I am in the dark as to the new clauses of the Attorney General. That the tithe charge upon the land should be borne by the owner is obviously fair, and after this announcement on the part of the Government it is only too plain that they are going to make an entire change in the whole system, which represents immense interests and millions of money in this country. Before we postpone so great and material an Amendment like the one before the Committee, the least we can ask of the Government is that the new Tithes Bill,

  1231
  founded upon new principles, shall appear on the Paper. Therefore, I move, Sir, that you do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir W. Harcourt.)
  MR. C. W. GRAY: The statement we have heard from the Attorney General so materially alters the character of the Bill that I shall at once support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman to report Progress. At the same time, I may take this opportunity of saying that the proposal to throw the onus of payment upon the landlord is a principle which I entirely approve.
  MR. HUNTER: We have now arrived at a point in regard to the Bill when I would recommend the Government to consult the learned Lord Advocate, seeing that they have accepted a principle that has been imposed in Scotland for hundreds of years —namely, that the landlords should pay the tithes. The Scotch system is based upon the principle that if the landlord does not pay he has always a representative—namely, the tenant whose rent is due or becoming due, and a simple process of attachment is put in force. There is, consequently, a double security for the tithe owner.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I feel obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) for the reference he has made to my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. I am sure that the experience which the House has had of the great ability of my right hon. Friend fully justifies the reference of the hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge that it is only reasonable that the Motion which has been made should be conceded by the Government. We shall lose no time in putting those clauses on the Paper which are necessary to give effect to the proposal which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. Under these circumstances, I trust that the House will now lose no further public time, but will at once proceed to the consideration of the other business standing on the Paper.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I wish to take this early opportunity, as
  1232
  one of those who have urged the Government to convert the Bill from a bad one into a good one, to express my great gratification at the changed position of affairs. I trust the Government will lose no time in pushing on the Bill in its new shape, and will devote sufficient time to it to make it a good measure.
  MR. LEIGHTON: I have no objection to the-alteration which the Government propose to make in the Bill; but when the Government first began the Bill, they announced that they would proceed with, it de die in diem. I hope that that promise will be kept, and that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) will say whether he is prepared to proceed with the Bill to-morrow.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I think the departure on the part of the Government practically opens out a new Bill for discussion. There is a feeling, not alone on this side of the House, as-to whether the opportunity for reporting Progress ought not to be utilised to-put off the Bill until next Session.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to put a question in reference to the remaining business upon the Paper, because if no satisfactory arrangement is made it will be open for any hon. Member to move, when the Speaker takes the Chair, that the House do now adjourn. We went into Committee on this Bill on the understanding that the Government proposed to take the Bill de die in diem; but they have now abandoned that course.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I should like to say how heartily I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hob-house) This measure has always been viewed by me with but "partial affection," omitting, as it does, that most important provision—namely, that tithe should be paid direct by the landowner to the tithe owner. This I have always contended for, and the clause or power now to be added is, in my opinion, worth the whole Bill put together. No measure will ever be complete, however, that does not provide for the redemption, of tithes.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: The hon. and learned Member for Longford must remember that there are other Members of the House besides-Irish Members. The convenience of.

  1233
  Irish Members is a very important matter, and I agree that the Government ought to consult it; but I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will bear in mind that many English Members have given up many engagements, and stayed in the House at great inconvenience to themselves, in order to support the Government in passing this Bill, which they believe to be a necessary Bill. I therefore hope we may be able to get through the Bill without any unreasonable delay.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the section of the House most deeply affected by this Bill when it is likely to be taken again; and, further, I hope he will give us an opportunity of considering this entirely new Bill before we come to discuss it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is impossible to go on with the Bill to-morrow. The Amendments will not be on the Paper until to-morrow morning, and of course the question is a very grave one. It affects very large interests, and we cannot be expected to pronounce an opinion offhand.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: I at once acknowledge that I am very glad the Government propose to make this change. I think, however, that the loyal supporters of the Government have got much to complain of. The Government have put their supporters in a very false position by saying and arguing most strongly that the method proposed in the Bill is the only way the thing can be carried out, and then, without the slightest notice, making a change of front. However good the change may be in itself, that is not a fair way to treat their supporters. For my part I want a complete measure on this subject, dealing especially with redemption. It now appears we are going to have a half-and-half measure in consequence of expressions of opinion from all parts of the House—opinions which, with very little trouble, my right hon. Friend might have learnt long ago. I repeat that that is not fair treatment to the supporters of the Government, and I hope we shall never see it again. The change the Government propose is great, grave, and important, and I hope the clauses inserted will be
  1234
  such as will be fair, reasonable, and just to those concerned.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend was in the House when I stated that the interests to which he referred should be protected. I am to a certain extent personally responsible for not making the announcement earlier; but it seems to me it is not unreasonable that we should put upon the Paper clauses which will protect the landlord, who is to be called upon to pay. One of our clauses will, of course, reserve to the landlord his remedies against the tenants under existing contracts.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I should like to point out to my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir W. Barttelot) that there is another Motion that could be made on this subject—perhaps the most pertinent Motion—on which all the questions he desires to raise could be discussed— namely, that the Order for the Bill be discharged. The Attorney General has said quite truly that he is personally responsible, for he has been arguing with all his legal knowledge and ability that the tithe could not be levied on the owner.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: My speeches are fortunately on record. I never said anything of the kind.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then, no doubt, the mistake is due to the natural obtuseness which prevails on this side of the House. However, it may perhaps be better that we should report Progress now. When the Bill comes on for consideration again, and we have seen the Amendments of the Government, then, if the Government think it worth while to prolong the Session for the purpose of passing the Bill, hon. Members can consider whether a Motion should not be made to discharge the Order for the Bill, and whether a great measure such as this should not be postponed to a future Session.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I have taken a great deal of interest in this Bill from the commencement, although I have not addressed the House upon it so far. But I desire to express the opinion that this Committee should have, before Progress is reported, some definite statement from the Government as to what their real and ultimate intentions are. When the Bill was introduced it was comparatively simple and

  1235
  limited in its character. We have had one or two very important modifications of its provisions, and now the Attorney General has made an announcement of very critical importance, of such great importance that he and the First Lord of the Treasury admit it is reasonable the Committee should ask for a suspension of the consideration of the Bill until the situation is thoroughly recognised. The Attorney General has intimated that certain clauses are to be introduced, one with regard to the limitation of the liability of the landlord to the amount of the rent. I would ask him to tell us if he proposes also to limit the liability of the tenant as to the payment of the tithe rent-charge to the amount of the rent payable by him. I think, too, the Government ought to give us some information as to the general course of business.
  MR. G. O. MORGAN: I appeal to the Government to consider whether, under the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, it would not be better to drop the Bill altogether. It is now the middle of August, and we are confronted with a new Bill which will require many days to properly discuss. If the Government persevere in their present intention the House will probably be kept sitting until the end of September.
  MR. A. S. HILL: A great many of us are afraid that by the present measure the additional power of recovery will increase the capital value of tithes. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will be prepared next Session to bring in a Bill so that this measure may not have this effect?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I wish to congratulate the Government on the step they have taken, and also to congratulate the House on the effect of its decisions and deliberations. Then I want to know whether the Government will embody in the new Bill some of the clauses proposed by Lord Salisbury in the Bill of 1887? If the Government are going to transfer payment to the owner, I think they ought to protect him to some extent as well as the occupier. Will the Government insert clauses in the new Bill dealing with the case where there is no rent to pay tithe?
  MR. SEXTON: I think the best thing for the Government to do is to inform the House what is to be the course of public business to-day and tomorrow. Is it intended, after having suddenly suspended the consideration of the Irish Votes, as suddenly to take them up again? Do the Government propose to take Supply to day and the Tithe Bill to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the Irish Members object to take the Irish Votes which are on the Paper to-day the Government will not press them. Then it is only reasonable that the Government should not proceed with the Tithe Bill to-morrow. We hope to put down on the Paper to-morrow the Amendments which are to be proposed, and I hope it will be possible to proceed with the Bill on Friday. Arrangements will be made, as far as possible, to meet the views of hon. Members who desire to consider the Estimates, and in making the arrangements last week for the consideration of the Irish Estimates the Government had entertained the hope that four days would have been sufficient for their consideration. I admit that the hope was an illusory one, but such was the expectation last week. In the course of the afternoon I will endeavour to come to an arrangement for the convenience of hon. Members as to the business for to-morrow, and I will state at the close of the Sitting what the business will be. In making the changes proposed we have endeavoured to meet what we believe to be the general desire of both sides of the House, but circumstances have rendered it unavoidable that these changes should be announced without much notice to the House. I appeal to hon. Members to give fair consideration to the proposals made by the Government, because they will be framed in such a manner as will meet all the objections against the measure, and conciliate the support of those hon. Gentlemen who sit behind the Government and all those who desire to see such a measure connected with tithe carried. In these circumstances, I ask the Committee to consent to report Progress.
  MR. A. S. HILL: What is to be done as to future legislation?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is quite enough for the Government to deal with the business they have in hand at present.
  MR. MURPHY: When are we to understand the Irish Estimates will be taken?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The Government are anxious to consult hon. Members from Ireland as to the order in which the Estimates should be taken. I understand that the Irish Members wish to take the Vote for the Land Commission first, and after that to take the Votes in their natural order—that is to say, the Lord Lieutenant's Vote and the Chief Secretary's Vote and so on.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: Do the Government intend to take to-day the Interpretation Bill and the Technical Instruction Bill? With regard to the Interpretation Bill, I must offer the strongest opposition to one of the clauses; and with respect to the Technical Education Bill, I understand many hon. Members on this side of the House have objections either to the Bill itself or to certain clauses.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The first-named Bill is important, and I think the hon. Member stands alone in his objection to any portion of that measure. It is not generally opposed in any part of the House. Strong representations have been made to me by hon. Friends of the hon. Gentleman regarding the Technical Instruction Bill, and pointing out that it should be passed this Session. I am anxious that an opportunity should be afforded for the consideration of the Bill; but if the measure is strongly objected to the Government, of course, must give way.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

  COINAGE (LIGHT GOLD) BILL. (No. 321.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause (Defacing gold coin under weight not to be obligatory).— (Mr. Montagu.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE CHAIRMANcalled on Sir R. Fowler.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: On a point of order, Sir, I beg to remind you that I was in possession last night at 12 o'clock when the discussion closed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no right to resume Debate on that account.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I merely wish, in relation to this clause, to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the very bad state in which a great deal of the gold coinage in circulation is at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, quite aware of this, and I will only mention it as a question of some gravity, to which I hope during the Recess the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give attention, and that he will see his way to deal with the subject next Session.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand that last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the insertion of this clause, and I confess I think his objection was well founded, for the clause would destroy altogether such security as we have against the circulation of depreciated gold coins and damaged gold coins, which certainly it is very necessary to maintain. There is no doubt the condition of the coinage of the country has fallen into a state not creditable to the greatest commercial country in the world. Everybody must admit that. For a short time when I was at the Exchequer I had to consider the subject, and I certainly thought it required immediate attention. The estimate made at that time of the sum that would be required to put the gold coinage in a proper condition was between £600,000 and £700,000, and no doubt the three years that have since elapsed have still further deteriorated the coins and they are in a worse condition, so that the sum required is still larger. It is not creditable to England which has a gold currency—aud I am very glad we have—that we should have this gold currency depreciated to the amount of half a million sterling. Our gold coinage has been for a long time the basis of the monetary system of, I may say, the whole world, and I think one of the first duties of the Government should be to put that coinage into a proper condition. I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has begun this duty, though in a tentative and experimental way, for, of course, it is only with a small part of

  1239
  the question that this Bill deals. I am glad of it, for many reasons, but particularly because it indicates that the Chancellor of the Exchequer still intends that we shall keep gold as the basis of the currency of the country, and that he has not adopted any new-fangled ideas of bi-metallism, which would certainly have the effect of driving gold from the country, and all the money spent on the restoration of the gold coinage would be so much wasted expenditure. This Bill can only be justified on the assumption that the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to maintain gold as the basis of our currency. Of course, the first question the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to consider is, who is to bear the cost of restoring the gold coinage of the country?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but he is not speaking to the clause before the Committee.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I would ask indulgence at this time of the Session, otherwise I must move the postponement of the Bill, in order that I may have more latitude in discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware that I have forwarded the progress of this Bill, and I understood that I should have the opportunity of making a statement on this subject; but, unfortunately, there seem to be so many restrictions surrounding us now, that I scarcely know how it is possible to express an opinion on this or any other subject.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the opportunity for a general statement is on the Second Reading, and it arises again on the Third Reading; but a general statement cannot be made on the question of inserting a particular clause.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is useless to talk of discussion upon the Third Reading, because, at this period of the Session that stage is an idle form. I should have thought that one might have been allowed to make some observations on this clause; but if that is not so, I can only regret that a Bill which is certainly of very considerable importance should be passed without discussion in the House of Commons.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I regret that at this stage it is not competent for the right hon. Gentleman to pursue this interesting topic, but probably
  1240
  he will find the opportunity to do so on the consideration of the Report. In regard to the clause which it is proposed to add, I desire to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the very reasonable character of the proposal embodied in it. At present the law in regard to light gold coins is of a very extraordinary character. Anyone being tendered a gold coin below a certain standard of weight is bound there and then, being provided —and the law contemplates that he shall be provided— with a pair of scales, to take out the scales and weigh the coin.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Sir, I rise to order. This is the very argument I was trying to pursue on this clause. It was upon the liability to replace-light gold coins that I was speaking, and I thought it was most material in reference to this clause which proposes that no person shall have imposed upon him the liability to destroy a light gold coin, as is the law now; I had agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in opposing the clause, and was about to refer to what had been done in former times when you, Sir, stopped me. I was speaking on this clause, as I thought, in the most legitimate way.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and interrupted him in the discussion of the clause. I confess I was greatly deceived, for I thought he was entering upon a wider discussion embracing such questions as bi-metallism, the maintenance of a gold currency and the cost of restoring the gold coinage. If he was discussing the clause, which I confess I thought he was not, he has a. perfect right to continue to do so.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I had made a parenthetical remark upon bi-metallism and had passed away from that and was discussing the question of who was to pay for the replacing of light gold, and at the moment you stopped me, Sir, I was about to refer to the policy of Sir Robert Peel, and what had been done in previous periods.
  THE CHAIRMAN: To discuss the point is scarcely relevant, for I have invited the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I was observing upon the conditions imposed by the existing law whereby any person being

  1241
  tendered a piece of light gold is then and there required to weigh, cut, break or deface it. That is an obligation thrown upon every member of the community, which I will venture to say in 999 cases out of a 1,000 it is perfectly impossible to discharge. It is an obligation the discharge of which is attended with considerable risk; in point of fact, it is an obligation impossible to discharge. But see the absurd position in which the Government may be placed under the existing law. If I cash at a post office an order for £1 and receive the money from an agent of the Government, I am not only entitled, but I am bound to examine the money, and if it is light, as it very often is, I am required to deface the coin. Suppose, therefore, an individual goes to a post office and defaces, in accordance with the directions of the Statute, the money which the Government hand him in discharge of their fiscal obligation, what is the position of the Government? They will be bound to replace at their own expense this coin so defaced, unless, indeed, they prefer to make the unfortuate postmaster responsible for the money he is using on their account, they not having supplied him with money of standard weight. The whole position is perfectly unreasonable, and may be made by those who choose to indulge in this kind of freak perfectly ridiculous. The Post Office would be placed in a very inconsistent and embarrassing position if this, which is open to any member of the community, were actually done. What can be the use of perpetuating this clause of the Act of 1870? There is no practical benefit arising from it, and, under the circumstances, I think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, is one that ought to commend itself to the Government.
  MR. BARING: I only want to point out one thing. I am quite aware that the law is as the hon. Member for Donegal has stated it, and that the obligation lies upon all persons, but, as a matter of fact, it is attended to by no one except the Bank of England. Now, if this clause is passed, the Bank of England will be morally prevented from doing what it now does to keep the currency of the country in as good a state as by this means is possible. If we pass this clause the Bank of Eng-
  1242
  land will be bound to return light gold to its depositors instead of making it unfit for circulation, and thus to assist in the circulation of light gold, and I do not think that is desirable.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: The hon. Member behind me has in a very few words-stated the main objection to the clause moved by the hon. Member opposite. I admit there are such imperfections in the law that it has broken down to a great extent; but still there remains the security that the Bank of England does watch over the gold circulation, and does not allow light gold to get into circulation. As we are dealing with only a small part of the question it would not be wise to repeal the existing safeguards against the circulation of light gold. The right hon. Member for Derby shares the view that the present protection ought to be maintained. Large sums might in light sovereigns be sent from abroad, and might pass-into circulation; but these are now clipped when received, and so their passing into circulation is stopped. The removal of the existing protection would, increase the amount of light gold current in the country, and thus aggravate? the evil which we are now attempting, to deal with. Therefore I cannot accept the clause now proposed. No doubt the three years that have passed since the estimate was made of the loss from, gold coinage have aggravated the evil, and have caused it to be somewhat greater than it was calculated to be at that time. I should be glad if it were possible to put down the Third Reading of the Bill at a time when the right hon. Member for Derby could speak on the interesting subject of the coinage; but in the present state of business I cannot pledge myself to any such arrangement, although I gladly acknowledge the assistance I have received from the right hon. Gentleman, and should be happy if I could return his courtesy by affording him a fuller opportunity of discussion than is afforded by this clause.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: What about, the position of the Post Office?
  SIR R, FOWLER: May I suggest that if the Bill were set down as the first order to be taken after midnight it would give the right hon. Gentle-

  1243
  man the opportunity for making that interesting speech, to which I am sure we should be glad to listen.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have no desire to make an interesting speech; what I want to do is to discuss the clause, and that has been my object from the first. This clause, as I understand, is directed to the question of relieving the holders of light gold from liability in respect to its being below standard weight, and on that I was desirous of making some observations, and will endeavour to do so, and if I have the misfortune to be out of order I will sit down again. Under the present law the last holder is responsible for the lightness of a sovereign. I can remember the extreme inconvenience people sustained when Sir R. Peel put the coinage in order more than 40 years ago, and when shopkeepers kept scales, weighed sovereigns, and charged customers 6d. or 8d. for depreciation. It is not possible to return to a system like that now. Even under the pressure of the American War, when Lord North replaced the coinage, the State bore the cost, not the last holder, and that was also done in the time of William III., when Sir Isaac Newton was Master of the Mint. The cost now will not be much larger than it was in the time of Lord North. This Bill adopts the principle that the State is to bear the cost of replacing the coin. This clause proposes to discharge everybody, including the Bank of Ragland, from liability in respect of light coin. When light gold comes to the Bank of England it is clipped and taken out of circulation. The coinage would not have been in its present condition if the Bank of England had discharged that duty better and more extensively. When I was at the Exchequer I found the Government itself issuing light sovereigns—a most improper proceeding. That is to say light coins were paid into the Post Office, the Customs, and the Inland Revenue in large quantities, and of course the first duty of the Government is to obey the Act, and either to pay the light gold into the Bank of England or see that it is not repaid by the Government. I gave stringent orders that no Government Department should re-issue any light gold. The difficulty in the pro-evinces is that in many great towns there are no branches of the Bank of England,
  1244
  and therefore money received by the Post Offices and other public departments is paid into private banks, which re-issue the light gold. The country bankers keep all the best sovereigns and send them to the Bank of England, and the light sovereigns they pay to the public. That is one of the reasons why the coinage has got into such a bad state, and this clause would make it worse by relieving the Bank of England from any obligation whatever in this respect. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baring), who upon this subject speaks with some authority, will allow me to observe that I think the Bank of England, in reference to the coinage as well as to other matters, ought to render more service to the public in having more branches in the country. There is no other country in which national banks do not offer greater facilities by means of branches than the Bank of England does in this; and it ought to do more in return for the remuneration it receives from the State and the advantages it enjoys under its charter. All Governments in succession have been responsible for the coinage being in its present condition, as it is more than 40 years since anything has been done to replace light coins. The life of a coin may be said to be 20 years, and after that it begins to be light to a slight extent, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not too soon in beginning to do something. But, after all, the coinage of 50 years ago being dealt with, there will remain coinage since then in almost as bad a condition. I was about to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of what fund he proposes to meet the cost or what he proposes to do, and perhaps I may be allowed to say this—The Chancellor of the Exchequer has at his disposal a considerable fund, derived from the profit he at present obtains upon silver and upon copper, and amounting now to about £130,000, and out of that he could perfectly well keep the gold coinage in good order. It is a great windfall to have got this great surplus at the Mint. There is another thing not altogether alien to this question. Everybody knows that the coinage of England, from its high standard and universal currency, is sought for all over the world; but it is sought for not only as coinage but as bullion. People are glad to get English sovereigns which

  1245
  carry assurance of their value, and send them to be melted for bullion abroad, so that, in point of fact, we are assaying bullion for foreign merchants. I shall be glad of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear this in mind when he is considering the whole question, and consider if any further security can be taken that the English Mint shall not be employed in assaying for foreign countries for melting purposes. It is obvious that there is a great loss on the coinage by this means. While I concur with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opposing this clause, I agree with others that the responsibility for the lightness of coins ought not to be put upon the last holder; but as this is only a temporary measure, it is not expedient to discharge everybody from the liability of endeavouring to protect the coinage. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take these larger matters into consideration, and, when he is able to place the gold coinage in a sound condition, that he will take every precaution against its ever falling again into its present condition, and to prevent its being used illegitimately by being melted into bullion as soon as coined.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Perhaps I may say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that I am quite favourable to taking these larger questions into consideration. But it would be premature to lay before the House the plans of the Government before I have reduced them into proper form. I fully admit the importance of dealing with the question to which the right hon. Gentleman has called attention with regard to the taking of gold coins from this country, but, perhaps, exaggerated ideas of the loss sustained will be avoided if I say that the total annual cost of the coinage of gold is not much more than £2,000 a year. We ought not to lose sight of the advantages we gain by the high standard and the universal currency of our sovereign. Next Session I hope to introduce a measure dealing with the incidence of the loss on light coins.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the issue of light coins by the Post Office. The Customs no longer receive light gold as they did some years ago, but the Post Office Authorities still issue light gold in direct contravention of the Statute.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not propose to make any change in the law; but the hon. Gentleman, as I understand, calls on me to make a change in the practice. His proposal, as it seems to me, would make it necessary that the Post Offices generally should clip the coins, and I am bound to say I think it would give rise to a good deal of complaint to introduce that practice just upon the eve of our dealing with the whole question. I think it would cause considerable dissatisfaction, and I doubt whether the advantage that would arise from the adoption of that practice for six months would be equal to the public inconvenience it would cause. Of course it would be necessary to supply the post offices with the necessary plant, and to instruct the officials as to how to use it, and I am doubtful whether the cost of doing so would not equal the saving that might arise from taking of the light gold out of circulation at the expense of the holders.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer altogether appreciated the point of my hon. Friend's remarks. It is not thought necessary that the Post Office should clip the sovereigns and charge the last holder for it, but that when the Post Office receives light gold it should pay it into the Bank of England, and allow the Bank of England to charge the Department with the loss. It it were paid into the Bank it would not be re-issued. I understand that the practice of the Post Office is to pay it into local banks. If that course is followed, of course the local banks re-issue it. The objection that has always been urged against my proposal is that there are no branches of the Bank of England into which the Post Offices can pay the money. I am quite opposed to the Post Offices having scales and marking the gold when received. I do not think the public would stand such an inconvenience as that. I do think, however, it is an evil that any public department should be the means of re-circulating light gold.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I appreciate the point put by the hon. Member and emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman. If the law were revised now it would doubtless be the duty of the Government to deal with this matter. I certainly think it would be unwise to enforce the law strictly with regard to clipping coin,

  1247
  but I will once more with pleasure look into the question of the responsibility of Post Offices for the re-issue of light -coin. I will see what regulations can be made on the subject. It may be difficult to carry out the suggested practice in the smaller Post Offices; but, at any rate, I will take the matter into my consideration.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: The point I wish to bring out is, that the last holder when he takes his money to the Bank of England is penalised to the extent of the loss of weight, but he might protect himself if he followed the provisions of the existing law. The Post Office Authorities are breaking the law, because they do not avail themselves of that same provision, and they are still saddling this charge on the unfortunate private holder.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Several verbal Amendments agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  INTERPRETATION BILL. [Lords] (No. 364.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th August], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: In asking the House to read this Bill a second time, I wish to say that it is a measure which has been received with almost universal approval. It has been introduced in order to make it clear, without putting in technical clauses, that Acts of Parliament should have a certain meaning. An hon. Gentleman opposite has objected, with regard to future Acts, to the word "England" including "Wales." Of course I cannot myself express much sympathy with his view, but if the hon. Member will kindly put down such Amendments as he thinks necessary to carry out his meaning, I will endeavour to see whether the operation of the Act can be made entirely retrospective. Subject to this, I hope the House will consent to the Second Reading, the Bill being one which I am very desirous of seeing passed.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I am glad the hon. and learned Member has made this concession. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) last year said he had no objection to a similar proposal, and it was inserted in the Local Government Act of last year. I desire to say that unless the Amendment be inserted in this Bill, I shall oppose it on its future stages.
  MR. DILLWYN: I quite sympathise with the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and I am sorry to hear the Attorney General say he does not sympathise with the national feeling of Wales on this subject. There is a strong feeling that Wales is more distinct from England than probably any other parts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I hope that, if this point affecting the national feeling of Wales can be satisfactorily settled, no further opposition will be offered to this Bill. It is a most valuable measure, calculated not only to save the time and trouble of Members of this House, but also the public time and money by reducing the bulk of our voluminous Statute Book.
  MR. S. RENDEL: I desire to confirm what has fallen from my hon. colleagues, and to assure the Government that there is a very widespread feeling on this matter in Wales. If that feeling is not satisfied it will be our painful duty to make our voices heard on the subject.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  ARBITRATION BILL [LORDS.] (No. 267.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th August], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Question put, and agreed to (Queen's Consent signified).
  Bill read the third time, and passe with an Amendment.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 350.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th August], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope that the House will consent to the Bill being now read a second time. There1 is, I think, a general desire to see it pass into law.
  MR. M'LAREN: I should like to ask a question as to the interpretation of this Bill and as to its scope. It is a Bill of which I cordially approve, and I rejoice that the Government are making up their minds to pass it. I wish to know, however, whether it will be competent under it for the Local Authorities to make grants for the purposes of dairy and agricultural education? The whole tenour of the Bill deals with the Science and Art Department. I believe that the £5,000 which the House voted last year for agricultural education was placed in the hands of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council, and I fear very much that, unless a very wide interpretation is given to the 5th section of this Bill, we shall find ourselves tied up to those classes of instruction which are under the Department of Science and Art. The Government have now for the first time adopted the principle of giving grants to agricultural education, but there is no reason, I think, why Local Authorities should not be allowed to vote money out of the rates, with the full consent of the ratepayers, for the support of agricultural education. Dairy schools are springing up in a satisfactory and even a surprising manner, and the £5,000 voted last year for agricultural education has been largely expended; but, in my opinion, it would be far more satisfactory if Local Authorities were distinctly allowed to support schools, giving the technical instruction they desire. To take my own county, I do not know why the Cheshire County Council should not be allowed to support agricultural and dairy education throughout the county, as much as other technical education for the mechanics of Crewe or the chemical workers of Northwich. The matter could be dealt with in Committee, but we are anxious that the Bill should get through Committee after 12 o'clock at night, so that we wish all contested points cleared away. If there are any differences they should be disposed of now, when the Bill cannot be stopped by a formal ob-
  1250
  jection. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to say whether it would be possible to extend this education to agricultural subjects within the terms of the Bill as they at present stand, or, if not, whether he would allow me to insert some words to provide that agriculture shall be included within the scope of the measure. All that would be necessary would be to add after the Department of Science and Art the words "and Board of Agriculture," or whatever the exact designation of the new Department may be. If the right hon. hon. Gentleman would agree to that, it would be largely availed of and would prove an immense boon to the agricultural community of the country. There is a growing feeling on the part of the farmers, and country people generally, that we ought to do something to improve our knowledge of agriculture and dairy produce. We spend a fabulously large amount in this country in buying foreign dairy produce, and most of that money might be retained at home if dairy technical instruction were properly developed. There is an indefinite and almost infinite amount of dairy produce required in this country. I cannot help expressing regret that the School Boards are not to be one of the Local Authorities to take this matter in hand. They would be, it seems to me, a much better authority than that proposed where they exist. Where they do not exist, I should be willing to try any other authority. I know that that is a point upon which the Government will not give way; therefore I hope the matter will not be pressed. We must make the best of it, and trust that, at some future time, the Act may be extended to School Boards, and made wider in its application.
  THE VICE PEESIDENT or the COUNCIL for EDUCATION (Sir W. HARE DYKE,: By the leave of the House I would explain this point. The difficulty in the hon. Member's mind no doubt arises from the ancient difficulty of drawing up any exact definition of technical instruction. The Definition Clause first mentions the different species of instruction already sanctioned by the Science and Art Department to which grants are given, and then come the words "or any other form of instruction which may for the

  1251
  time being be sanctioned by the Department." I presume that the point to which the hon. Member refers will be favourably received by the Department when a demand is made for the recognition of that particular form of instruction. As I understand, the fact of the Government having given a grant already in favour of dairy farming will not prevent such instruction being extended under the Bill.
  MR. MATHER: In rising to support the Bill as it is to be amended, I desire to say that in its present form it could not have been acceptable to this side of the House. I am happy to say, however, that the Government have accepted Amendments which will touch the point raised by the Member for Crewe, and will in no way interfere with the present functions performed by School Board districts, while at the same time they will enable the Bill to be of the greatest use in country districts where no School Board Authority exists. I feel that it is important that we should at this period of the Session come to an unanimous decision to pass the SECOND READING of the Bill to-day, in order that we may at the earliest time make a commencement in that new departure in practical education, which is so necessary for the welfare of the country. I deplore, as most of my friends deplore the fact that the Bill of the hon. Member for South Manchester was not accepted by the House. It was a Bill comprehensive in its scope and wide enough to take in all questions of manual and technical instruction, from education in infant schools to higher and secondary education. But, of course, it is difficult in a Bill of that kind, raising contentious points, to get the House generally to agree to it, particularly at a late period of the Session. The Government, as I understand, have now introduced a Bill which eliminates for the time being the questions of denominational and School Board education, and which starts from the point at which science and art teaching and technical instruction may be undertaken by Local Authorities, constituting themselves authorities for the purpose, or by School Boards, or, failing the one or the other, by Local Authorities under a rate of 1d. in the£1. I can assure the House that if the Bill passes with the
  1252
  Amendments which have been suggested to the Government, it will become at once a very great boon to our industrial and manufacturing districts, and also to those districts which the Member for Crewe represents. I have taken it for granted from the first that schools necessary to promote the interests of the agricultural classes are included in this Bill. Some of my friends consider that the Bill constitutes another educational authority in large towns and School Board districts. If I thought so, it would be impossible for me to support the Bill; but the Government have undertaken that Amendments shall be put into it providing that where School Boards exist, and are now exercising such authority as is necessary to promote technical education, they shall have the power to demand from the Local Authority such means as they may require, in order to promote the well-being of their schools. The School Boards of our large towns have already undertaken very important work in that direction, and the Science and Art Department receive now a grant in aid for the work they do in connection with the higher branches of technical instruction. But there is a want of funds, and the fees are so high that the working classes cannot avail themselves as much as is desirable of the benefits which such schools are capable of supplying. Instead of there being some hundreds of children of from 14 to 17 years of age attending the night schools, and also the schools that the School Boards have established for technical instruction, very few boys from the elementary schools are able to attend, consequently very little good is done. But there will be an opportunity of extending this work into other branches of education. There will be laboratories and manual training, and the technical training of various kinds will be adapted to the wants of the different districts. Under these circumstances we can all appreciate the enormous advantages that will accrue to the industrial classes from the passage of this Bill during the present Sesssion. I fully sympathise with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council that this Bill should be read a second time to-day without any undue discussion. I sincerely trust that we may this afternoon be enabled to obtain an expression of opinion both from those who

  1253
  support the Bill and from those who are in doubt with regard to the Amendment which, we are told, will be accepted, in order that the House may hereafter have an opportunity of making the measure one that will be satisfactory not only to the friends of education generally, but to the country at large.
  MR. ROWLANDS: There are some of us on this side of the House who are in a difficulty with regard to this measure. As the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken admits, it is not so perfect as to enable him to give it his full support in its present form, although he says he is prepared to vote for the Second Reading, because in private conferences he has had with the heads of the Educational Department they promised to insert Amendments which, in his opinion, will render the Measure acceptable to the House.
  MR. MATHER: Allow me to say there were no private conferences at all. What has taken place has been the result of long negotiations with hon. Members on this side of the House who have for many years been connected with the movement in favour of technical education, who have been Members of the Royal Commission on Technical Education, and who have had this question much more at heart than many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches.
  MR. ROWLANDS: I was not a member of the Royal Commission on Technical Education, but at the same time I may say that I have made myself conversant with the needs of the working classes on this subject, and, having passed through the workshop myself, I think I have some knowledge of what is required. We have at the present time a grand school in the Technical Institute, and I have taken an active part in that work. The mistake which has been made is that a certain number of Gentlemen constitute themselves the guardians of technical instruction, and act by themselves, whereas they might have taken us into their confidence and allowed us to have something to say on the subject. Well, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mather) tells us he has arrived at some conclusion in consultation with his friends that will tend to make the Bill complete, and I think that before we read it a second time—I do not suggest that we should be responsible for throwing it out, because technical instruction
  1254
  is a very important matter—we ought to have some indication as to the way in which it is proposed to amend the measure. We have, however, learnt that it is intended to put the Educational Authorities throughout the country in what is said to be their proper place, by sweeping away those that have existed since 1870, and placing in their stead Local Authorities, who at present have nothing to do with education. This, to me, is a most surprising proposition, and one that renders the Bill thoroughly objectionable. If, however, the Amendments that are to be accepted will have the effect of putting the Local Authorities of the great towns in their proper position, I should be glad to accede to them; but we ought at least to know how far this result will be achieved. It would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman would state to the House before the Bill is read a second time what are the Amendments the Government are prepared to accept.
  MR. H. STEWART: I would point out that we are now discussing an Amended Bill that has been altered in order to meet the wishes of many hon. Members, but I may say, for myself, that I have been no party to what has been arranged, and therefore do not feel myself bound by it. I would remind the House that we are now entirely re-opening the question as settled by the Education Act of 1870. I desire to see whatever powers may be granted by this Bill placed under the control of educational authorities elected by the people. We are simply anxious to continue the development of the educational work commenced in 1870, and we want to see an efficient control given to the elected educational authorities of the towns and districts in which the education is to be given. If this be the spirit of the Amendment conceded by the right hon. Gentleman, it will, I think, not only commend itself to the House; but to all who feel the slightest interest in this important matter.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I congratulate the Government and the House on the manner in which this Bill has been received. The Government have indicated that they are prepared to accept Amendments which hon. Members opposite are desirous of inserting in the Bill, and I think there is reason to hope that there will be no

  1255
  real difficulty in coming to an amicable adjustment, but at the same time I think it only right to say that we on these Benches cannot absolutely commit ourselves to the acceptance of any Amendments which we have not had the opportunity of seeing and considering.
  MR. BROADHURST: I think, Sir, that this is a Bill which ought to have been introduced at the commencement of the Session, and that it should not have been left over until we have arrived at the fag-end of our business, so that we find ourselves in the very awkward position that we must either accept the measure without Debate or do without it altogether. I was quite willing to give my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton credit for having arranged a satisfactory compromise with the Government; but I noticed at the time this was alluded to that there was an expression of dissent from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. Moreover, the noble Lord, opposite, who is a prominent and leading supporter of Her Majesty's Government, has risen in his place and stated that hon. Members on that side of the House cannot commit themselves to the Amendments referred to, because they have not seen them—or, at any rate, have not had sufficient time to consider them. Well, Sir, I ask, are we to read this Bill a second time today on the assurance of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, and after that are the Government or their friends to be at liberty to repudiate these Amendments, or so to modify or cut them down that they will not accomplish the object desired? This is a very important consideration; and the Government have brought all this criticism on themselves by the confused manner in which they have proceeded with their work. One point of objection on our part is that the Bill creates two or three separate authorities to whom the educational work it will promote is to be confided. Now, the kind of education we are discussing is most important to the interests of this country, and yet it is proposed to place it in the hands of Local Authorities, some of whom are described as the Rural Sanitary Authorities within the meaning of the Public Health Act. We may accept the assurances of my hon. Friend as far as they go; but we ought to be doubly assured that this important
  1256
  question of technical education is not to be left in the hands of an Urban or Rural Authority who will divide their attention between drainage works and technical education. It is absurd to think we can accept the Bill without some definite assurance from the Government that they will agree to the Amendments of my hon. Friend. I am disposed to accept his assurance, because I know the good and kindly labour he has expended on this work; but I say that I and others have also expended time and labour upon it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Rowlands), I have felt the want of technical instruction, and, although we have not had time to deal with the matter in the manner we should have desired, we are aware of the practical necessities requiring to be met, and, consequently, we have been agitating for legislation on the subject for many years. What we want is a good, thorough, honest, and comprehensive measure, to be placed, as far as possible, in the hands of educational, and not drainage, authorities. I recognise the importance of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren), who, if he looks at Clause 5—the Definition Clause—will see that the agricultural authorities in every part of the country have only to make a representation to the Central Authority in order to obtain the fullest and most complete powers for providing instruction in butter or cheese making, or in any other agricultural industry. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has acted wisely in providing that it shall not include the teaching or practice of every trade, industry, or employment, and here he will see that I have something to say in praise of the Bill as well as in criticism of the Government policy with regard to it. Had the right hon. Gentleman not inserted this proviso, he would have bad the whole of the skilled trades at him. I should have opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, but for the assurance of the hon. Member for Gorton that all reasonable protection will be given to the constituted educational authorities, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will say what are the proposals he intends to accept.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am exceedingly anxious that there should be a

  1257
  perfect understanding on this question. We have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorton in perfect good faith, and that hon. Member is perfectly aware of the fact that the Government are desirous of giving expression to his wishes. If the Amendment is not accepted in perfect good faith, the Bill will be dropped. We intend to ask the House to accept the Bill, and have no intention of departing from the arrangement which has been entered into. I hope I have satisfied the House on this point. With regard to the details of the Amendments we are willing to accept, the proper time for discussing them will be when we have the clauses before us in the Committee stage, and if they are not found to be satisfactory to the House, it will be for the House to say so. I trust that, under these circumstances, the House will now be prepared to read the Bill a second time.
  MR. H. COSSHAM: As one who is intensely anxious to see a good system of technical education established, I desire to say a few words. The promotion of this kind of education has been one of the labours of my life. I do not know what are the Amendments my hon. Friend wishes to introduce, and it may be that they will remove my objections to the Bill; but as it now stands the measure is one which I cannot accept. I hold in my hand a letter from one of the most distinguished educational authorities in the country, Mr. Lyulph Stanley, and he says the Bill is a bad Bill, and gives his reasons for so saying. The difficulty in which we are placed at the present moment is that we do not know what Amendments are to be put into the Bill. The noble Lord opposite says he cannot accept Amendments he has not seen, and we, on this side, say we want to know what the Amendments are to be. I shall not, however, oppose the Second Reading of the Bill; but in agreeing to the Motion I accept it on the personal authority of my hon. Friend, who assures me that it will remove the difficulty which exists in many of our minds.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: The statement we have heard as to the Amendments to be accepted by Her Majesty's Government considerably modifies the objections we should otherwise entertain to
  1258
  the Bill; but until we more thoroughly understand what the Amendments are, we cannot be sure that they will entirely remove those objections. I rise mainly in order to express a hope that, when the Bill gets into Committee, we shall have a fuller opportunity of thoroughly understanding how far the Government are prepared to meet us. As far as lean understand them, the intended Amendments will modify but not altogether remove our objections to the Bill, In regard to what has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst), with regard to entrusting the control of technical education to the Rural Sanitary Authorities, I entirely agree with him. It seems a most extraordinary idea to give Boards of Guardians the charge of Technical Education. I hope we shall hereafter have ample opportunity of going into the whole question and of stating at length our objection to the School Board being ousted as the educational authority. I want to know why the School Board should not be made the educational authority; and, if we cannot ensure that, I should like to know why the School Board should not be represented on the Body which is to deal with the matter. In some way or other I think we ought to secure that.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £285,376, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890, for Public Education in Scotland."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P.B. ROBERTSON,: It is now my duty, as briefly as possible, to state to the House the figures belonging to this Estimate, and in doing so it will not be necessary for me to occupy much of the time of the House. The total amount of the Estimate is £575,376, which is only an apparent rise of £7,054 on the

    1259
    amount asked for last year. But it is right to point out that the actual increase is £14,930, the reason being that the drawing grant of £7,500 is withdrawn from the Vote of the Science and Art Department. The main item of increase is in the day and evening schools, namely, £12,161, and the balance of the increase is distributed over smaller miscellaneous items. The Committee will remember that the increase depends on two elements—first, the average number of children in attendance; and, secondly, the amount gained from the scholars. As regards the first item, the numbers estimated for the year are 512,720; last year's estimate, which was not quite realised, being 510,328. Under the second head the grant per scholar is estimated at 19s., which is the same as was paid last year, although the amount estimated for that year was 18s. 11d. This is accidental. The total expenditure on maintenance is £1,100,000, and of the £575,376, £475,000 goes to the maintenance of schools; but the aggregate local contribution is not limited to maintenance. Of the money paid by the rating authorities to the School Boards, amounting to £502,579, one-half is for the cost of providing schools, instalments, and interest upon loans. The total liabilities of this nature on the 15th May, 1889, were £3,125,236. The number of children for whom school accommodation has been provided is 696,528, and that is practically sufficient to meet the educational requirements of the whole of Scotland. The figures show that the progress of education in State-aided schools in Scotland has been satisfactory, and the increased grant is an evidence of this, while there are other circumstances which support an encouraging view. The attendance, no doubt, continues to be very defective in certain districts, and the age at which the higher standards are reached is still unduly late. It must be allowed that the characteristic of school attendance in Scotland is that it does not begin so early as it should. In England the attendance of infants is very much larger than in Scotland, and I suppose it must be recognised as not a pleasant feature, that there is nothing like the desire on the part of parents in Scotland to send very young children to school which seems to prevail in England.
    1260
    The figures, so far, show an unfavourable contrast with England, but they must be checked by the fact that between the ages of 6 and 12, which are the most important years in elementary education, Scotland is not behind England, on the contrary it is slightly ahead of this country. With regard to the-Highlands, there are extra grants this year to the amount of £4,343, and the conditions of the Minute which are necessary for the acquisition of these grants have been fulfilled in 520 out of 671 schools. Under the Minute of the 21st December, 1888, there have been applications from 15 School Boards, of which 13 were admitted and two refused. With regard to secondary schools. 49 schools have been inspected under Section 67 of the Act of 1872. Of these, 21 were higher class public schools, 19 were endowed schools, and nine were voluntary schools. The leaving certificates were fair and uniform. As to the endowed schools, opportunity should be taken to acknowledge the valuable service rendered by the Commissioners, whose office will come to an end on the 31st December, 1889. They have done* a large amount of work since 1882, having prepared as many as 473 schemes, which have been the result of prolonged and intricate energy. Of these, 354 have been approved by the Department; and 323 have received the approval of Her Majesty, 16 being still under consideration. I am not aware that I have anything to add at the present moment, but I shall be glad to answer any questions that may be asked.
    MR CALDWELL: Many of the Scotch Members who take a strong interest in this question will have been somewhat surprised at the Report that has been issued by the Education Department which deals with progress of education in Scotland since the year 1872. They give the results in a statistical form, and beyond this, they furnish a comparative statement of the results achieved in 1888 as against those of 1872. A tabular statement of this kind enables the public to draw inferences; but the inferences which they are likely to draw from it are exactly the reverse of th8 true state of affairs. They are such as tend most completely to mislead the public, inasmuch as they are likely to create an im-

    1261
    pression which the Education Department must know is inconsistent with the facts. The figures thus put before us state that in 1872 there were 225,000 children in the different schools, and that since that date, and up to 1888, the number increased to 557,191. Then with regard to average attendance, it is stated that in 1872 the average attendance of day scholars was 213,549, and that that number increased in 1888 to 496,139; but the Committee will be surprised to hear that the actual increase, instead of being upwards of 280,000, has only been about 60,000. How, then, does this discrepancy arise? It arises in this way. Comparisons have been made in cases in which the conditions have been utterly unequal. Only a limited number of the schools were inspected in 1872, and the Department compared the schools under inspection in that year with the large number that were under inspection in 1888. But, fortunately, we have the means of checking the figures given in this Report. In 1872 the Scotch Education Board took stock of the existing state of affairs, and they found that there were 546,000 children attending school in that year, when the Education Act came into operation; but only 225,000 were receiving State aid, because it was only a limited number of schools which applied to be on the roll of State-aided schools. Since then the natural increase of population has amounted to about 100,000, and one would have expected that in 1888 the number would have reached 648,000 or 650,000. But what is the fact? At the present moment there are on the Register 641,000 children. About two years ago we had statistics as to all the children who attended the non-State-aided schools, as well as those attending schools that were State-aided, and from them we are able to draw a comparison for ourselves. We find that, taking the State-aided and non-State-aided schools together, there were in 1872, 546,000 children attending school, the total increase in 1888 being only 60,000, and yet the Department goes on year after year presenting to Scotland and to this House a tabulated statement showing that in 1872 there were so many State-aided schools, which at that time really did not represent one-half of the children receiving education in Scotland,
    1262
    and they compare that with the number on the Register now. We are, I think, entitled to complain of the Department issuing a table from which we are supposed to draw reliable inferences, when in reality those inferences are the very reverse of the truth and altogether misleading. But we have fortunately another means of getting at the facts. We find that in 1871, before the Education Act was passed, the Census taken in Scotland showed that there were 542,000 children in receipt of education in that country between the ages of 5 and 15. We know that the natural increase of population was l·065, and that ought to have brought us to this— that there should have been on the register in Scotland to day 642,000 children, all of them in receipt of education. But there are only 700,000 children altogether to deal with in Scotland; and we find that in Scotland, where we spend half a million of the money of the ratepayers and about the same sum in Imperial Grants for educational purposes, we have only an increase of about 60,000 children under education since the year 1872. The result is that by the Education Act we have 35,000 more children under education than if there had been no such Act. We have enacted provisions for Scotland, under which no child below 13 years of age is allowed to work full time in any factory, no matter what standard it has passed. We have also increased the compulsory age in Scotland to 14 years, with the provision that no child who has not passed the Fifth Standard is allowed to work until he has attained the age of 14. Moreover, the compulsory standard in Scotland is the Fifth Standard, whereas in England it is between the Third and the Sixth. Scotland being regarded as so important an educational centre, we should naturally have expected that the number of children attending schools in Scotland would be largely in excess of the number attending schools in England in proportion to the population. But what is the fact? We find that in England there are on the School Register 16·38 of the population, while on the other hand, in Scotland the percentage on the Register is only 16. Again, if we take the average daily attendance, we find that in England, it is 12·7 of the total population, whereas

    1263
    in Scotland it is 12·3; so that, while in Scotland we have a higher standard than England and an increased age, the number of children in school attendance is proportionately less than in England at the present moment. This is a result which cannot be termed very satisfactory. Another point has reference to the school supply. The Scotch Education Department tell us that, in 1882, there was accommodation for 274,000 children. In 1872 the Board of Education took statistics as to the amount of school accommodation in Scotland, and they divided it under three different heads— namely, good, bad, and indifferent. These facts were most carefully tabulated; but we have it represented here by the Department as if the figures only related the amount of accommodation provided in the State-aided schools, whereas it was known there were other schools superior to those on the annual great list which gave accommodation of a kind that could not be impeached. If the Scotch Education Department wished to make a fair comparison they had nothing more to do than to give us the statistics of the Board of Education, which set forth the amount of accommodation existing in 1872, and then to compare that with the accommodation now provided. It is not as if the Scotch Education Department were not aware of this. Their attention has been called to it for years, and the only explanation of their action is that they are wilfully persisting in a wrong system. At the end of their Report they give us a table which is very significant, and shows the fallacious principle on which their statistics are made up. They say that about one seventh of the children in Scotland attend the higher schools in which the payment is paid a week and upwards. Well, the Scotch Department know that that is not true. By a Return issued about a year ago it was shown that the number was not much more than one-half of that. This table brings them to a most extraordinary result. If this table is correct, there is not a single child in Scotland between the ages of 7 and 12 who is not attending school, deducting of course the one-seventh found in the higher schools. That is a most marvellous result. I venture to say it is a result which is unprecedented in any part of the world. But that is not all. To show the perfec-
    1264
    tion with which the Scotch Education Department work their statistics let me also point out that there are on the school registers, 23,885 more children between the ages of 7 and 12 than there are children of such ages in Scotland. The Department have had their attention called to this because they have taken the trouble to calculate the percentage of the children on the school register compared with the children in existence. The Department know quite well that there are not one-seventh of the children between the ages of 7 and 12 in non-State-aided schools. They know that for years past the School Board system has been working down all the private schools, indeed, they themselves have issued a Return showing clearly that there are not more than 70,000 or 80,000 children in non State-aided schools, whereas they represent that there are between 120,000 and 130,000 children in such schools. The Department themselves find great fault with the school attendance, but perhaps, before dealing with the question of school attendance I may refer to that of the school supply. I find that last year the average attendance increased by 4,500, while the school supply was increased by 9,500 places. If one looks-back at the Reports of the Department he finds that, according to the Department, the school supply in Scotland is practically complete. In Scotland the school accommodation is a heavy burden upon the local ratepayers, and in the Highlands especially is the cause of the distress in school matters. We are told that there is in Scotland school accommodation for 687,000, and yet the-average attendance is only 496,000. That is to say, we have accommodation for 200,000 more children than there are in average attendance, and this, too, after we have increased the space requisite to 10 square feet per child. This state of things represents an enormous-waste in the shape of interest on money expended, and is the cause of a considerable amount of hardship throughout Scotland. With regard to school attendance, the Department tell us they calculated there would be 804,625 children on the Register, and 670,000 in average daily attendance. I should like to know how in the world under present conditions, or under any similar conditions, could the Scotch Education

    1265
    Department expect there would be so many as 804,625 on the Register? According to the Education Act, a child is required to pass Standard V. in order to be relieved from school attendance. Standard V. may be passed in six years. That is a well understood fact, because the attendance necessary in order to pass a standard is 125 full-day attendances, or 250 half-day attendances. A standard may be easily passed by a child of ordinary intelligence who makes the attendance I have mentioned. Taking children of from five to 12 years of age, I find that the total number of children in Scotland is 661,000, so that if you put the children in non-State-aided schools at 60,000, you have 600,000 who naturally ought to be at school. If you have your educational system in proper working order in Scotland, the utmost number you should have on the roll in State-aided schools in Scotland would be about 600,000. In order to get the average attendance you would have to make a deduction of about 23 per cent., but we find we are not getting the results we might reasonably expect. In comparing England and Scotland we have to take into consideration the differences between the two countries. The standard of education varies, and, whilst in Scotland the compulsory age has been raised to 14 years, in England it remains at only 13 years. Another important factor in the situation is that in England the schools are limited by the Act of 1870 to elementary education, whilst in Scotland there is no such limit. We might, therefore, reasonably expect that we should have in Scotland a higher percentage of passes in the higher standards. We find, however, that England far surpasses Scotland in this respect. I find that last year the increase in passes in the standards from four upwards amounted in England to 36 per cent, whilst in Scotland the increase was only 17·6 per cent. If England were to adopt the law of Scotland, making Standard V. compulsory, and if it were also to adopt the provision of the Scotch Factory Act that no child shall be allowed to work full time in a factory until it has reached the age of 13, or passed Standard V., it would completely surpass Scotland in the matter of education.
    1266
    There is one curious result to be ascertained from the Returns. For instance, I find that in Standards III. and IV. during the past year there has been an actual deficiency in presentation. The Scotch schools keep back some of the children, whereas the English schools present all they have. During the past year the average attendance in Scotland has increased by 4,500, and yet the number of children presented to the Inspector has decreased by 2,000. If the Scotch teacher is so cautious as to take care that children who are not likely to pass are not presented when the Inspector makes the examination, of course the percentage will go up. During the past year, whilst 14·8 per cent of the population were presented in England, only 14 per cent were presented in Scotland. England presents 90 per cent of her register, and Scotland 77 per cent of her register. Another curious fact is that whilst Standards III. and IV. have increased during the past year, Standards V. and VI. have not increased. It shows that in Scotland you are working down the secondary schools, and the children are being sent into the Board Schools. You consequently have an increase of the passes in the standards above the compulsory standard, owing to the class of children you are getting into the Board Schools. The increase is therefore not one which we should rejoice at. It means that you are reducing the number of private schools in Scotland year by year, and that the children who have been attending private schools are now swelling the numbers of those who are passing out of the compulsory standards. What is more significant still is the fact that when we deal with Standards III. and IV., in which we might expect to find a great improvement as regards the mass of the population, we actually find a decrease this year. This leads one to consider the effect of the action of the Scotch Education Department upon the secondary or private schools in Scotland at the present moment. Those who are interested in private schools denied for a long time that secondary education was on a decline in Scotland, and I remember the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) bringing forward a whole host of statistics to-

    1267
    show that that was not the case. The Government Department had, however, eventually to confess that secondary education was on the decline in Scotland, and they appointed a Departmental Committee to investigate the subject, with the result that the Committee had to confess that it was on the decline. There can be no doubt that the School Boards have been competing with the secondary schools in such a way as to render it practically impossible that secondary education can exist. Take the case of Glasgow. According to the tables of the Scotch Education Department, we should have expected that one-seventh of the children in Glasgow would have been found in the higher schools, and paying about 9d. per week. There are about 84,000 children in the City of Glasgow, and, therefore, 12,000 ought to be in the higher schools. As a matter of fact, the number is only 3,800, and that number includes about 2,300 who receive their education at the expense of endowments or at the cost of the ratepayers. Therefore, only about 1,500 children are receiving education at the sole expense of the parents, and paying above 9d. per week. Even the 1,500 do not all come from the City of Glasgow, because about half of them are brought in from country districts. I say, then, that the whole of the education in Glasgow is being centred in the School Board, and private enterprise now finds it practically impossible to exist. Some of the private schools have now only a nominal existence, because it is impossible for them to provide satisfactory teachers. The children who are driven out of the private schools are necessarily going into the Board Schools, and have necessarily increased the attendance, and the higher standard passes in those schools. It has been the policy of the Scotch Education Department to kill out the secondary schools. How is it done in Glasgow? In order to get over the objection of parents to allowing their children to attend schools which every other class of children attend, the Glasgow School Board have graded the schools socially. Standards I. to V. are taught at 1d. a week in one school, whilst in another for the same standards, two or three times that amount is charged, and in another, four or five times that amount. The object
    1268
    is to get certain classes of the community in certain schools. The unfortunate result is that the bursaries and scholarships which were intended for the poor are being given to the richer classes. At the same time the secondary schools are going back year after year, and the attendance at the Universities is getting less and less. This is probably a rough but significant way of testing the results of your educational system in Scotland. If your system were on the basis that you are going on improving your elementary education, it would reflect itself in the secondary education, and again in University education. But the reverse is the case, your secondary education and your University education are going down, and as for your elementary system, you are taking children out of it by bringing in secondary education; you are taking from one and putting on to the other, just as you did with your school attendance. There are various means of improving secondary education proposed by the Department. They propose that we shall have secondary schools in Scotland, and how are they to be properly maintained? No doubt theoretically, a man sitting in his office in London and looking at the educational question, and bent on some means of improving secondary education would think "if we get secondary schools with proper appliances and the attendance of children we shall get better results than we can in elementary schools." This may seem so in theory, but then we have to consider the habits of the people and the sparse population in many parts of Scotland. You may have secondary schools here and there, but the problem is how to get the children into them. We have experience of the system of John Knox under which the teacher was a man of education, who looked forward to secondary education as the ultimate end of all his teaching, and it was his greatest ambition to lead his pupils on and send as many as possible to the Universities. The teacher inspired an enthusiasm for secondary education in his scholars. It would be a great mistake to suppose that all you have to do is to open secondary schools, have teachers and appliances, and conclude that parents, knowing the value of secondary education, will send their

    1269
    children there. Nothing of the kind. It will be found, as regards the children who were sent to the Universities in the olden time, that they were picked out as the ablest by the teachers, and their education was worked up to a certain point, because the teacher inspired in his pupils an enthusiasm to go on into higher education. But that is exactly what you are killing in Scotland at the present moment. You may establish well-equipped secondary schools, but the most important element is to get the children into those schools. Let us see how your free education system works in regard to secondary schools. The Lord Advocate admits that secondary schools are badly manned and equipped, and are not in an efficient state, but if the secondary schools find it hard to exist now existence will be doubly hard under the new system. You will widen the gulf between secondary and Board Schools to such an extent that hard as it has been for secondary schools to exist in competition with Board Schools it will become impossible within the next few years. So we have this matter clearly brought out, that the system under which you are proceeding is not a system tending to educational improvement, it is simply a reversal of the system that has made Scotch education what it is, and your new system is practically ruining secondary education and University education. Reference has been made to the examinations going on of secondary schools in Scotland. I admit that the Department must satisfy itself as to the state of these schools, and I have no doubt that all the schools will claim to be inspected, because they know that without it existence would be impossible under present circumstances, that they could not possibly be worse off, and their only hope is that if they submit to inspection they will have some claim for Government assistance. I can quite understand how Scotch teachers recognise their own interest in this way, and place their schools under the inspection of the Department; but I must say I do not view with any great confidence this system of inspection. The result will be that certain educational results will be brought out, and it may seem paradoxical that anyone should say that
    1270
    inspection could possibly do any harm. It will be said inspection may possibly do no good, but it could do no harm. But I apprehend it may do harm, and in this way: the inspection practically fixes the teaching of the whole school, and the teacher has not that free hand which is so essential in a proper educational system, because he will have regard to the important fact that the examination will take place at the end of the y ear, and that he must make his teaching subservient to the passing of his scholars at the end of the year. That will be the result of the Department getting the whole of the education of Scotland into their clutches. [Cries of "Divide!"] I am sorry to try the patience of some hon. Members; but be it remembered that we have not had an opportunity of discussing this Vote for three years, and there are special circumstances that make discussion desirable now. There is another point to mention in regard to school inspection. The Scotch Department have got it into their heads that if they can get hold of a man with an English Degree he must necessarily be a better man for an Inspector than another with a Scotch University degree. It would be interesting to have a Return showing how much stress is laid upon this point, and how often, as between men of equal ability and experience, the English Degree gets the preference. We had an experience of the result in the appointment of an Inspector in Stirlingshire whose want of practical sense and experience to an almost ludicrous extent, University "don" though he was, set the whole district in rebellion. It is pretty generally known that the Scotch Education Department is really a one man department, that the Secretary for Scotland is the Education Department. Though naturally there is a Board of Education, yet in point of fact the members only formally meet and pass such matters as are put before them. This is one reason for the strong feeling that exists in Scotland as to the mismanagement of educational matters, because there is not that free discussion there should be from the presence in the Department of men of independent views in relation to matters in which it cannot be supposed that the Secretary for Scotland is especially interested and

    1271
    specially understands. Nobody supposes that he will go into details sufficiently, and so it is that the man who possesses a certain Degree is marked for promotion as Inspector. Now, I will venture to say that all those who have been through the University know perfectly well how little value should be attached to a Degree. When a man is young he applies himself to working up for the Degree, and when he secures it, that is a mark of his ability then. But the taking of the Degree is no mark of success in later life. The taking of a Degree represents an amount of industry for the time being, but more important are the practical experience and the industry that follow the University life. Yet these are ignored in favour of those men who happened to have secured a Degree, especially an English Degree. There is much complaint on this account among the teaching profession. Therefore, I maintain that this educational report which the Department have issued, instead of being a report calculated to give the public a fair and true knowledge of the progress of education in Scotland, is of a most misleading character. I have endeavoured to point out that the effect of the educational system being pursued in Scotland is killing the secondary schools. I do not intend to divide the Committee, or put any issue before them, but I think it is for the interest of education that these matters should be discussed, and I do not think that Scotch education has ever occupied an undue share of the time of the House.
    MR. MARK STEWART: I will not imitate the hon. Member in the length of my remarks, for I am well aware there are many Members interested in this subject. The hon. Member has complained of the Scotch Department in London, and be said there are great grievances felt in Scotland in regard to the action of the Department. But I do not agree with him there. I have taken the trouble to sift different allegations made as to mismanagement by the Scotch Education Department, and those who are supposed to be principal actors in the work of the Department, and in almost every case I have found that the Department have taken the greatest trouble to arrive at a right and true
    1272
    understanding of questions before them I have found that good sense has prevailed, and that what has been done by the Department has been done with all the care and discrimination that might be anticipated. The hon. Member has-referred to the appointment of Inspectors, and this is one of the matter I have taken the trouble to inquire into, and the result of my inquiries is that I have found that where they have appointed men with University Degrees the Department have selected the very best men they could find to fill the position of Inspectors. You cannot blame the Department if, in making a selection among men equally qualified, they choose the man with a Degree, passing over others not so distinguished. They have generally taken the best men as Inspectors, though I confess I atone time shared the view of the hon. Member, but inquiry dispelled that impression. I would like to see the Scotch Education Department combined with South Kensington, for I believe that by that arrangement a very large sum of public money would be saved, and education would be advanced, especially technical education. When the working of the Department is blamed it should be remembered that the main lines upon which they work have been laid down by Parliament, and if there is blame it should not fall upon the Department. There is one grievance to which I wish to call the attention of the Lord Advocate—that is the proposal to stop the grant for cookery and drawing unless the two are combined. We cannot expect to have cookery universally taught, whereas it is different in the case of drawing. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will continue the grant for cookery and also a separate grant for drawing. I take it that this is a matter for the Treasury rather than for the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use-his influence in this direction with the Treasury. I am sure if he will accede to my suggestion it will have the approval of all School Boards, certainly those in the country districts. I should have liked to have said a word or two upon secondary education, but I will refrain. I will only say that I do not think it is on a satisfactory basis. There is a great want springing up, one that is felt

    1273
    every day, for some place in the country districts to which to send children after the elementary school and before sending them to a University, or to which, even if they do not go to a University, they may be sent to continue their education. Such a school might be established in certain groups of parishes, or in a large parish. There are many parents in the position of land agents, and others, who really want to give their children a better education, but cannot send them far from home because of the expense and difficulty.
    DR. CLARK: There is a question I should like to ask in reference to Section No. 32 A. I put the question some time ago and I should now like to know what has occurred since. As I understand this Section 32 A, it suspends the 17s. 6d. limit in reference to Highland parishes. In the Code for 1886, by some means Caithness and Sutherland were dropped out and four counties only were exempted. The Secretary for Scotland admitted this was an error, and, with the assent of the House, these grants have been made in the counties I have mentioned until the present year, when, as I understand, the Auditor General has expressed doubts as to the legality of the payments, although made with the assent of the House and of the Treasury. In consequence of the question raised by the Auditor General, the grants have ceased in Caithness and Sutherlandshire, and the schools there, expecting these grants and not getting them, are in rather a bad condition. I should like to know why it is these grants have been stopped, and whether the Treasury will issue a Minute or take means of removing the scruples of the Auditor General, and placing the legality of the payments beyond doubt.
    MR.A. SUTHERLAND: There is an increase in the Vote of £ 14,554; but I am not going to criticise that. I am sorry I have not the Report of the Educational Department with me, for I intended to make some remarks thereupon; but I may observe generally that I do not attach much importance to the various statistics, though, no doubt, they relate to important matters of administration. I look more at the new departure of the Department in reference to inspection, and I hope that
    1274
    the policy will be in the direction of a relaxation of the rules that are applied to both Inspectors and teachers. I agree that there is great difficulty in carrying these changes out when money grants depend upon the work done in the schools; but I hold that the more we trust to the teachers and Inspectors the more will it to be the interest of education in Scotland. A great deal has been said as to the qualifications of the Inspectorate. I have no doubt that some years ago preference was given to candidates from the English Universities, and that it was a great grievance amongst teachers of experience and high qualification that they should be subject to inspection by men of this kind. The complaint was made that the Inspectorships were not open to teachers with the necessary experience and qualifications, but I understand that to a considerable extent this grievance has been removed. The complaints one used to hear are now not so frequent. I consider that the educational policy which should obtain in Scotland, necessitates the appointment of Inspectors from amongst the body of teachers, in whom the public generally have the greatest confidence. I hope and trust that the future policy of the Scottish Education Department, will be to throw more responsibility on the Inspectors, and not to tie them down in such a way as to make them, mere machines. I am sorry I do not notice on the part of the Education; Department any tendency to make a new departure in this regard. I had hoped, further, that the Department would have indicated some policy in regard to doing away altogether with denominational training colleges. I do not say that, they are not performing their work in a very efficient manner. Efficiency is not the question, but I think that something ought to be done in the direction of nationalising the training colleges, as at present a great waste of money is involved in the maintenance of so many institutions for the training of teachers. The number of denominational schools might also be reduced with advantage, having regard to the costly public, machinery for education existing everywhere in Scotland. It is a source of satisfaction to me to see that these schools are diminishing in number to some extent, but I should like to see

    1275
    a greater diminution, but I think the Department might offer inducements in that direction. These schools should be under the School Boards. As to secondary education, I am not aware that anything can be done to advance it by trying to engraft it on primary education. It is, to my mind, a matter that deserves a distinct policy of its own. Moreover, I think it should be dealt with without delay, and I hope, therefore, that it will be one of the matters which the Education Department will now take into consideration. As to one of the points brought under the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member for Caithness, I am bound to say it took me very much by surprise. It astonished me very much to hear that the County of Sutherland, as well as Caithness, was excepted from the grant which the Education Department took such credit to itself for having obtained for the assistance of the Highlands. I cannot approve of the policy of the Department in the matter, neither can I approve of their action in treating Lewis exceptionally. The control of the Schools there is taken out of the hands of the elected Board, for what reason I cannot conceive. The Department may say that, considering that they are making extra grants, they ought to have extra control, but I cannot see the justice of the demand, and am clearly of opinion that the Local Authorities should have the same control as here to fore. On the whole I must say I regard the Report of the Education Department as satisfactory on all points, except the one to which I have referred. On the whole, I see no reason for anything but congratulation.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I rise to move the reduction of one item, namely, the grant for Denominational Training Colleges, but before proceeding to deal with that subject, I should like to make a passing allusion to one or two points mentioned by previous speakers. With reference to the reflections that have been made on the Scotch Education Department, I desire to enter my protest against the entire system of the management of that Department. I do not believe that the people of Scotland will long submit to a system whereby the control of one of the most important interests in Scotland is
    1276
    practically in the hands of a few professionals who live and move and have their being in London. I object to the State subvention which is the basis of the Report before us. The system of giving grants out of the Imperial Exchequer to Local Boards misleads the people, who think they get their education paid for, whereas it is like taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. That delusion is the only ground on which the present system rests. I do not believe education in Scotland will be satisfactory so long as it is managed by a body of professionals in London. With regard to the specific complaint that has been brought forward in reference to the appointment of Inspectors, I can only say that the matter is the subject of general complaint in Scotland. I do not know whether, as has been stated, the matter has mended in any degree of late. I do not know why it is that persons with English University Degrees are selected for the office of Inspector. The mere fact of a person possessing a Degree— even a London Degree—is not a disqualication, but I want to know why such persons should be selected in preference to teachers of high standing in Scotland? Surely men who have risen by sheer merit to prominent positions in the teaching profession in their own country have a right to aspire to those positions, and are the persons best qualified to fill them in the interest of education. I cannot for the life of me see how the Government can justify the appointment to the position of Inspectors of young English graduates who come to their work in a state of abject ignorance of its practical necessities. I do not think matters have in any way mended in this respect. My information is to the contrary. I am not aware that any single master has yet been appointed Chief Inspector, although one or two may have been given the post of Sub-Inspector. I think if the appointments of Inspectors were to be examined into we should be able to trace them distinctly to University influence other than Scotch. I now beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £28,706, the amount of the grant for training colleges. The Debate has come upon us by surprise, and the result is that we are compelled to discuss this important matter in an empty House.
    MR. HUNTER: On a point of order, and in order that we may not be shut out from discussing the question of Inspectors, I beg to move an Amendment to reduce the vote for Sub-inspectors and Inspectors by £100. This raises a question of considerable interest to schoolmasters and School Boards in Scotland, and I believe there exists an almost unanimous opinion in Scotland against the system of taking English graduates as Inspectors of schools, and relegating teachers to the lower ranks of Assistant and Sub-inspectors. Anyone who has experience of the working of our system of inspection knows very well that the distinction between Inspector, and Sub-inspector, and Assistant Inspector, is very hollow— that the only distinction is in the payment they receive and not in the nature of the work they do. It is impossible to grade the work of inspection in such a way as to justify for one single moment the inequality of payment. Therefore, this system of inspection may be looked at from two points of view. From one point of view it is a mode of saving the State expense by substituting inferior for superior Inspectors and giving inadequate salaries instead of adequate salaries; and the other point of view is that the salaries of teachers are low, and, therefore, they can be made assistants without getting as much as they would if they acted in the capacity of Inspectors. We have great complaints made of the present system of inspection. It is notorious that some of the Inspectors make the Assistant Inspectors do the work, and it appears to me that the whole of that system should be swept away. We ought to have only one class of Inspectors, and each Inspector should be put in charge of a district sufficient for him to overlook. I do not say that the salaries of the Chief Inspectors are not too high. Some of them, I think, are decidedly too high, but at any rate the whole principle on which the thing proceeds is ridiculously wrong. So far from experience as a teacher being, as at present, a disqualification for the office of Inspector, I hold that no man ought to be allowed to become an Inspector who has not had some years' experience as an elementary teacher. There can be no doubt that the present system of inspection is open
    1278
    to many objections, principally on account of the want of experience of the gentlemen who are appointed, and who laboriously endeavour, at the expense of the public, to learn the business they ought to have known before their appointment. There are difficulties constantly arising between the teachers and the Inspectors because of the capricious and varying standards the Inspectors adopt. It certainly seems to me, in the interest of the profession of teaching, that promotion to the office of Inspector should be open to all the teachers in Scotland. Every teacher of an elementary school ought, so to speak, to carry the baton of any Inspector in his knapsack. The possibility of rising to that position ought to be before every teacher when he commences his career, because I hold that the difficulty of obtaining the best class of men to become teachers of elementary schools arises from the lack of promotion. It seems to me that to give them this prospect of promotion would be greatly to improve the system of education. For these among other reasons I have moved the reduction of the Vote. I must express my regret that the Government should have taken the Scotch Members unawares by bringing on the Scotch Vote to-day, when we have not the facts, figures, and materials to hand for the discussion. It was a great scandal that the Scotch Votes should be brought on so late as August 14. The mismanagement of our business in this House is rapidly approaching a crisis. These Votes ought to have been taken a long time ago, and not left over to a time when there are not one-sixth of the Scotch Members present.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C, Salaries of Inspectors, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Hunter.)
    MR. HOZIER: I am strongly of opinion that schoolmasters should be eligible for promotion to Inspectorships, and should be so promoted as often as possible. Every profession ought, in my opinion, to have its own prizes, and I see no reason for the scholastic profession being an exception. Such a system of promotion would be of direct advantage not only to the profession, but also to the country. There is no doubt that In-

    1279
    spectors who come straight from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge have a very curious idea as to what the standards ought to be; and I, for one, most certainly think the Inspectors should be chosen from among those who have experience of teaching.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not know whether schoolmasters will make the best Inspectors or not, but I am perfectly certain that young graduates do not. They are the out—come of a bad system of education. For many years past I have never met an intelligent, well-educated young friend, without a particular trade or ^profession, who did not want an Inspectorship of schools. In the circumstances, I do hope Her Majesty's Government will hold out some prospect that in future the Inspectors will be men of mature experience.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is an error to suppose that inexperienced men are appointed to Inspectorships in Scotland. As a matter of fact, no Inspector has recently been appointed who has not had practical experience as a teacher. It is said that it is most desirable that the teachers in public schools should be able to look forward to the position of Inspectors. I would point out that they are in nowise precluded from that office; but it should be understood that no rigid rule is followed by the Department in these appointments, or it would narrow the selection. It is not considered expedient to promote by seniority, but the Department hold a free hand, and no class is excluded from consideration. It is not the fact that the present Inspectors are inexperienced, for there is not one of them who has not been engaged in teaching. With regard to the Sub-inspectors, they do not possess the same powers as the Inspectors, being unable even to make a report without the countenance of the Chief Inspectors. The intermediate grade between the Inspectors and Sub-inspectors was established by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). These Assistant Inspectors are chosen from the certificated teachers, and there is thus communication established between the two bodies—the Inspectors and the teachers.
    MR. CALDWELL: As an instance of the manner in which the appointments to Inspectorships are made, I would point out as a remarkable fact that two head-masters of a school on the Duke of Richmond's estate were successively appointed to be Inspectors. The selection is based not so much on qualification as upon influence. Though it is true that teachers are appointed to be Assistant Inspectors, there is no movement upwards from the one class to the other. I put a question to the late Lord Advocate on the subject, but all I could get out of the Department was "We are appointing Assistant Inspectors. "I never could learn that anything was being done to enable these men to rise higher. The Department says, "We appoint the best men." We want to ascertain whether there is such a thing as gradations of service. And we are entitled to know whether, when seniority is disregarded, there is any special reason for passing it by. If there be any special reason, then the public will be satisfied. Undoubtedly the onus lies upon the Department to substantiate the usefulness of their appointments. As regards Sub-inspectors, we find that they do the whole work of the Inspectors, except merely signing the documents; and the complaint is that Sub-inspectors are not promoted to Inspectorships. I think the men who have been doing the work should have the chance of promotion, other things being equal, or unless there be special reason to the contrary. I ask the Lord Advocate whether within the last few years any Sub-Inspector has been appointed to an Inspectorship when a vacancy has arisen. When it is found that certain people in some parts of Scotland are appointed through influence, while others who have served for years are passed over, naturally public feeling is aroused in Scotland. I support the Amendment.
    MR. M'DONALD: There is one grievance which the people of the Highlands suffer from, and that is the appointment of Inspectors who do not speak Gaelic as well as

    1281
    English. It is impossible that the Inspector who does not know Gaelic can make allowance for children who do not speak English properly. Necessarily there must be deficiencies. Those Inspectors who know Gaelic can make allowances, and I hope in future that the Government will appoint Inspectors who are able to speak Gaelic. I have been a teacher myself in my day, and I have seen that the Inspector who could speak Gaelic was able to get more into sympathy with the children, who got along better with him than could the merely English-speaking Inspector. In reference to the promotion of Sub-inspectors in Scotland, I cannot understand the system at all. Is there any other branch of the Public Service where a man has not the hope of promotion from the lower to the higher ranks? The Sub-inspector in Scotland has no such hope. I join with my hon. Friend in asking whether any Sub-inspector has ever been appointed to an Inspectorship? Perhaps the Lord Advocate will explain. If the Sub-inspectors have not the necessary degree, let the Government tell them so; and if they have the hope of promotion, these men will qualify themselves for it. They could easily come to London to take the necessary degrees. But the Government tell them no such thing. The English M.A. is very much more thought of, and young men are appointed to the Inspectorships over the heads of men of 20 years' experience. I know one of the ablest men in the Sub-inspectorate of Scotland, who has been passed over in this way; all the life is taken out of him; he has to do the work of the Chief Inspector, who gets most part of the pay.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I should like to take note of the fact that in this discussion there has been an absolutely unanimous expression of opinion on the part of Scotch Members on this great education question. The principle of that unanimity—I am quoting almost the words of the hon. Member (Mr. Hozier), whose speech I was delighted to hear—is that the Inspectorships
    1282
    should be regarded as the prizes of the profession of the elementary teachers of Scotland. That is the principle which we are going to assert in this Division. Now, the statement of the Lord Advocate, although to some extent satisfactory, did not meet the principle I have stated. It may be that recent appointments have not been quite so bad, but the Lord Advocate did not assert that these appointments are made from among those who have had experience of teaching in other departments; nor has he given any assurance that the principle will be respected by the Scotch Educational Department in future.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Sir, while I am not prepared to agree with some of the remarks of hon. Members, I deprecate the system which shuts out Assistant Inspectors from rising to higher grades. I also deprecate the system of patronage which has been used in the appointments to higher offices. I know the case of a gentleman, already referred to by the hon. Member (Dr. M'Donald), who has been passed over repeatedly by his juniors who had nothing like his experience and knowledge, and who have given nothing like the useful service which he has rendered. To mark my want of sympathy with such a system I intend to vote with my hon. Friend.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In answer to the hon. Member (Dr. M'Donald), I have to state that there are on the staff of Inspectors five who have been promoted. Another point is of a personal character. Something has been said about the injustice of the appointment of Mr. Stewart by the Duke of Richmond. I find he was appointed solely on his merits, and that he had been 14 years an Inspector before he was promoted.
    MR. HUNTER: The right hon. Gentleman has hardly met the main point of the objection. We objected that the class of Assistant Inspectors had salaries which were far too low—beginning at £150, and rising to £300 a year. I find that 42 per cent of the schoolmasters in Scotland have salaries

    1283
    as good as have Assistant Inspectors, and, therefore, there is no promotion. Not only that, but I find that 180 of the teachers in Scotland have salaries above £100, which is the maximum salary of the Sub-inspectors. My objection is that Assistant Inspectors are under-paid and over-worked, and that in point of fact it is a mere subterfuge to pretend that teachers ought to be Inspectors, while you practically deny them the valuable appointments which are given to those who have not their qualifications. I should say that no man ought to be appointed an Inspector or a Sub-inspector who has not been seven years a teacher in an elementary school. From that class, and that class alone, ought Inspectors to be taken; and, moreover, there ought only to be two grades. I think the work is the same in all cases, and the pay ought to be the same.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: In Scotland I find they have some £25,000 as pay for 40 or 50 Inspectors, while in Ireland we have 83 Inspectors receiving only £30,000. I sympathise with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman and with his object to make the appointments of Inspectors from the class of persons who have had practical training in teaching.
    DR. CLARK: The Assistant Inspectors who do the work of examining schools begin at £150 a year, and the consequence is that you get young and inexperienced men to review and examine the work of teachers who are receiving double their pay, and who have had 20 years' experience. It is a matter worthy the consideration of the Treasury whether the salaries of these Assistant Inspectors should not be commenced at £200 a year in order that a better and more experienced class of men may be obtained. Their Reports would not display such ignorance as they do at present, and would have more effect on elementary teachers than they now have.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 135.—(Div. List, No. 306.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Edmund Robertson,)—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL. (No. 372).
  Consideration of the Lords' Amendment.
  Question proposed, "That the House do proceed with the consideration of the Lords' Amendments."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I hope the House will allow me to state the course which, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield, I propose to take with reference to these Amendments. The Amendments are bulky, apparently, in size, but they are easily divisible into three classes—verbal Amendments, Amendments of procedure, and Amendments in substance. So far as the verbal Amendments and Amendments in procedure are concerned, they have been inserted in the Bill mainly at the instance and under the supervision of Lord Herschell and with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, and I think the House may be content to accept these improvements of verbal phraseology and procedure without discussion. There might, of course, be some criticism possible on the procedure Amendments; but I would exceedingly deprecate any friend of the Bill raising a question of that kind. That brings me to the three Amendments in substance which the House of Lords have made in this Bill. The first is in reference to the hours in which children are to be allowed to sell newspapers and other articles in the streets. As the Bill left this House, the hours after which children were not to be employed in the streets were fixed at 10 o'clock at night in summer and 8 o'clock in winter. The House of Lords has thought fit to fix 10 o'clock as the hour all the year round. Some objection might, no doubt, be made to this alteration; but it must be borne in mind that power is

  1285
  reserved to the Local Authority to further extend or restrict the hours, and those of us who are anxious that this clause should work with as little friction as possible will be satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the Local Authority. The next Amendment of substance is with regard to the position of a wife in regard to giving evidence against her husband. As the Bill left this House it provided that the wife should be a competent and compellable witness. The House of Lords has seen fit to alter that; and as the amended clause was drawn by Lord Herschell, I think the words are entitled to great weight. What is now proposed is that the wife shall be required to attend the Court and be competent as a witness; but, upon her refusal to give evidence, shall not be compellable. There is a great deal to be said on both sides, and I should be sorry to express any dogmatic opinion. When men of the eminence of Lord Herschell and the Lord Chancellor think this the most desirable manner of dealing with this point, I do not think it would be well to ask the House of Commons to disagree with the Amendment. That brings me to the third, and really the only, substantial alteration that has been made in this Bill, and that is with reference to the licensing of children under 10 years of age for theatrical performances. The House will recollect that we carried by large majorities, both in Committee and on the Report, a provision that no child under 10 should, under any circumstances, be allowed to sing or play for profit, either in a theatre or in a circus. We applied the Factory Act to theatrical performances. I am not going to justify what the House did on that occasion; but the alteration which the House of Lords has made is this—although it leaves the clause precisely as it was with reference to children under seven years, of age, as to children between 7 and 10, power is given to a Petty Sessional Court to grant licenses for such employment. No Magistrate would be able to grant a license at his residence; it must be done in a public Petty Sessional Court, and the license will be subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Court may think fit to impose. Now, I regret that Amendment; but we have to deal with
  1286
  this matter as practical men. I would not only ask the House to attach some weight to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield, but I would also urge them to accept that of a gentleman who is largely responsible for the outside opinion which has produced this Bill—I mean the Rev. Mr. Waugh. I think, too, I have some claim to be heard on this question; for when it was originally proposed to exempt theatrical performances from the operation of the Bill, I led the revolt. Of course, my sympathy goes in the direction of extending this clause as far as possible; but, looking to the state of public business and the fact that this Amendment had the support of Her Majesty's Government in the other House and that they are not likely to assent to its abandonment, I would urge that these Amendments be assented to. I do not wish to reflect in any way on the action of the Government. I think, as a matter of common justice, that if this passes into law, all of us who are deeply interested in it will be very much indebted not only to the First Lord of the Treasury, but also to the Attorney General, without whose assistance the Bill could not have been passed this Session. Therefore I am not reflecting on the action of the Government when I say I am persuaded that the majority of this House would decline to upset this compromise. If this Amendment is not agreed to by the House of Commons, the result will be a wrangle between the two Houses and the inevitable loss of the measure. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that this is a vexed question upon which many people just as philanthropic as ourselves take different views, and that a fair compromise has been obtained, I hope that the House will, as a matter of wise and judicious policy, agree with the Amendment, and thus permit the Bill, which will be a great boon to the children of this country, to become law without any further delay.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords' Amendments, considered.
  On Amendment with regard to the employment of children in theatres,
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I ask the indulgence of

  1287
  the House while I make a few remarks on this question. I have a very strong feeling about the mistake which, in my humble judgment, the House of Lords have made in introducing this particular Amendment; and I deeply regret the course that the House of Lords has adopted. Still I recognise the enormous advantages of the Bill, even as amended, and I will not take the responsibility of any risk of delaying its passing, and am therefore prepared to agree with the Lords' Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe also desires me to state that he will not move the Amendment standing in his name. And now I wish the House to allow me to say a few words on the moral question. I used words in this House on a recent occasion which I wish to withdraw. They are incapable of absolute proof. There is a great difference of opinion on the matter, and I find the statement is considered exaggerated by many persons who are as likely to be right as those on whose information I based it. As my words caused a great deal of pain to virtuous girls who follow this employment, I wish to withdraw the words I used to the effect "that the great majority, when they ended their dancing days, entered upon lives on the streets." I wish to withdraw publicly what I said publicly; but, at the same time, I do not desire to withdraw my grave protest against this door being specially opened to little girls to enter a profession full of danger to their purity and morality. With regard to this Amendment, I may add that, though it is agreed to at present, it will not prevent the fight from being renewed and carried on until the labour of all children under 10 years is, without exception, prohibited.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.

  COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL. (No. 366.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL. (No. 244.)
  Reported from the Select Committee.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 323.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 377.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."

  ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In accordance with the promise I made early in the afternoon, I desire now to state what will be the course of business. Tomorrow we propose to take Classes IV. and V. of the Civil Service Estimates, and as soon after 11 o'clock as possible progress will be reported to enable the Report of the Irish Vote for the Resident Magistrates to be taken.
  MR. SEXTON: When will the remaining Irish Votes be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government are anxious to consult the convenience of hon. Gentlemen as to the order of the Irish Vote. I propose to take the Vote for the Land Commission next, and the remaining Votes in their order, if that suits hon. Gentlemen from Ireland.
  SIR R. FOWLER: Is it intended to have a Saturday Sitting?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That must depend on the course of business tomorrow. I am sure the House is desirous of coming to a conclusion with public business as rapidly as possible, and without appealing to the House, or any section of it, to take any business to which they have strong objection, I think it may be necessary to ask hon. Members to sit on Saturday for business which may not be strenuously opposed.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Will the Tithe Bill be taken on Friday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; that is our intention.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it would not meet the views of all sections of the House to drop the Tithes Bill?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock.