Sitting of 11 July 1889

QUESTIONS.

  VIVISECTION.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, since the passing of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, there have been any such Reports from licensees under the Act of the results of experiments as are contemplated by Section 9 of the Act; and, if so, what was the number, date, and nature of such Reports, and what were the names of the persons making them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. MATTHEWS,): Every licensee must, by the conditions attached to his license, keep a written record of every experiment, which is open for examination at any time by the Inspector. Besides this, licensees make a Report in January of each year to the Inspector on a prescribed form, setting out the number of experiments, the general purpose of experiments, and the experiments attended by pain. The names and number of licensees appear in Table 3 of the Inspector's Report for 1888. The number of these Reports corresponds with the number of the licensees. Where experiments are made under certificate, a Special Report is made at the time, also on a prescribed Form, giving a description of
  108
  the operation, the agents administered, and the mode of administration. The number of experiments performed under Certificates and the names of the licensees performing are also set out in the same Table 3 of the Report of 1888.

  SEAMEN AND THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that employés of the Board of Trade have visited seamen's boarding-houses in the Tyneside district, for the purpose of inducing seamen to ship on particular vessels; and, whether this practice has the sanction of the Board of Trade?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I understand that outdoor officers attached to certain mercantile marine offices on the Tyne, which are under the superintendence of local Marine Boards, have, in carrying into effect their duties under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, Section 127, occasionally visited seamen's boarding-houses with a view to getting seamen for ships about to go to sea. The practice has existed at North Shields for 38 years, but owing to the general superabundance of seamen waiting employment on the Tyne it is rarely exercised.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. BRADLAUGH,
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid: Of course I would prevent, supposing that I have power to do so, anything amounting to an improper interference with seamen. If the hon. Member or any of those who are interested in the matter, desire that any action should be taken by the Board of Trade, I must ask them to bring the matter under my consideration.

THE DIRECTOR OF ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what are the terms as to pension or otherwise upon which the late Director of Ordnance Factories vacated that post; and whether the appointment of his successor has yet been made?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The late Director General of Ordnance Factories resigned his ap-

109
pointment, and receives no pension in virtue of the office resigned. He retired at the same time from the Royal Artillery, on the retired pay to which his service in that corps entitled him. No successor has yet been appointed.

IRELAND—EXTRA POLICE IN WESTMEATH.
Mr. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, at the recent Assizes for the County of Westmeath, a presentment of £511 3s. 10d. was granted at the request of the Government for extra police in the county, notwithstanding that at the Presentment Sessions for the county at large, held previously, the charge was objected to by the assembled Magistrates and cesspayers, who caused a representation to that effect to be made to the Government; if he can state the grounds on which the Government forced the presentment, in opposition to the decision of the Magistrates and cesspayers; and what serious crime there is in the county?
THE CHIEF SECEETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No grounds having been stated by the Magistrates at Presentment Sessions for objecting to the claim, the usual certificate was laid before the Grand Jury, who offered no objection to the presentment. The extra force of the County of Westmeath now numbers 31, of whom 23 were appointed on the requisition of the local Magistrates, and eight only under the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation. It is now at the lowest point it has been for many years. A reduction of five was made in the number in February last. It is not practicable at the present time to make any further reductions.

THE LACE INDUSTRY IN IRELAND.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the cost of Mr. Alan Cole's lectures on lace-making and travelling to Ireland in the autumn of 1888; what was the sum fixed by the Treasury for 1889 which has been practically expended for the lectures given this spring; whether the application from lace centres for two sets of lectures this year have been supported by recom-
110
mendations to the Treasury from the Irish Government that a suitable provision should be made for the continuance of Mr. Cole's services; and whether, considering the information contained in the Thirty sixth Report (lately presented to Parliament) of the Department of Science and Art, sanction can be communicated to the Science and Art Department whereby the discouragement created by the difficulties raised by the Treasury in dealing with this form of technical education may be put an end to, and the efforts to develop the home industry of lace-making in Ireland be met in a more liberal spirit than at present by the Treasury?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The expenses of Mr. Alan Cole's visit to Ireland and of his lectures there in the autumn of 1888 amounted to £96 3s. 8d.; (2) the amount sanctioned by the Treasury for lectures this year was £100; (3) the Irish Government recommended that there should be two sets of lectures this year; (4) the hon. Member will scarcely expect me to agree that the Treasury had behaved ill-liberally or raised unnecessary difficulties about these lectures. They were in the nature of an experiment, and the question of their continuance will have to be considered with reference to other expenditure for similar objects.

THE EGYPTIAN DEBT.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the late refusal of the French Government to agree to a Scheme for the Conversion of the Egyptian Debt is a refusal to accept a Conversion of the Privileged Debt, pure and simple, or a refusal to accept a compound scheme embracing at the same time the raising of fresh loans?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON, Manchester, N.E.): The proposals to which the French Government have refused to agree were contained in a Circular addressed by the Egyptian Government to the Powers, parties to the Law of Liquidation. The assent of the Powers was asked to the draft of a Decree authorizing the creation of a Privileged Debt of 4 per cent to be applied to the Conversion of the 5 per

111
cent Privileged Debt, the repayment at par of the 4½ per cent loan of last year, and the advance of a sum of £1,200,000 to the Egyptian Government.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Have the French Government never been invited to convert the Privileged Debt?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: The French Government were asked to assent to the conversion of the Privileged Debt.

INDIAN EXCISE.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, whether complete effect has yet been given to that part of the Secretary of State's Dispatch of 19th April, 1888, on Indian Excise, in which he expresses
"The conclusion that some years ago the number of licensed outstills and liquor shops was unduly increased in some parts of Bengal,"
and the view that, in all places and tracts where the population is large and adequate means exist for controlling the distillery arrangements, a preference should be given to the modern fixed duty system,
"And every gallon of spirit passed into consumption must pay the full duty; whereas under the contract system, and still more under the outstill system, it is the interest and in the power of the distiller to make as much spirit and to push the sale thereof by cheapening liquor as far as he possibly can;"
whether, as a matter of fact, the system inculcated by the Secretary of State, which, after being in force for many years in all the populous districts under the Government of Bengal, and confirmed after a searching inquiry in 1871, was subsequently reversed, has oven yet been quite fully re-established in those provinces; whether the Government of India have made allowance to the Government of Bengal in the financial arrangements affecting the latter province for the loss of revenue that may result from the abolition of the system now condemned, or whether a financial difficulty still exists; and, why this part of the excise question, which originally gave rise to the discussion, is carefully avoided in the Indian Finance Minister's Statement for 1889–90, and is not reverted to in the Secretary of State's Despatch of 16th May, 1889?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): (1) Complete effect has not yet been given to the proposed
112
reforms in the Bengal Excise System, but the outstill system is being gradually abolished in one populous district after after another; (2) The system is not yet fully re-established; (3) Allowance for a loss of revenue from the change of system has been made to the Province of Bengal. But the Secretary of State cannot without reference to India state its amount.
SIR J. CAMPBELL: Is the Secretary of State of opinion that no financial difficulty now exists?
SIR J. GORST: There is none that we are aware of.

IRELAND—OUTRAGE BY ORANGEMEN.
Dr. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, on the night of the 1st instant, Orange bands paraded the roads in and around Strandtown, the Knock, and Bloomfield, immediately outside the borough boundary of Belfast, and that the persons accompanying them burst into the gardens of the residents along the county roads, and, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the owners, tore up the flowers, and carried them away; and, whether, under the circumstances, steps will be taken to have a sufficient force of police detailed for duty upon these roads during the remainder of the present month, in order to prevent further injury to the property of the inhabitants of the district.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the police did all in their power to prevent the mischief complained of in the question; but so great was the number of people following the procession that, in a few instances, they were unable to prevent the gardens being entered by the crowd. Every effort would be made to prevent a recurrence of such injury.

THE LAND COMMISSION.
MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the decisions given by the Chief Land Commissioners, Mr. Litton, Q.C., and Mr. Wrench, at Downpatrick, whether he is now aware that no alteration was made by them in the rents fixed by the Sub-Commission except to increase the rents so fixed; whether his attention has been called to the meetings of farmers held at Downpatrick, Lisburn,

113
Saintfield, and Newtownards, declaring their want of confidence in the Chief Land Commissioners, and calling upon the Government to add to the Commission some person who had the confidence of the farmers; and, whether, he will take steps to so alter the Commission as to give the farmers some confidence in that tribunal as a Court of Appeal from the Sub-Commissions?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, on the Downpatrick list there were 126 cases nominally listed for hearing before the Chief Commissioners, but of these 13 were cross appeals, leaving 113 cases to be really tried, of which 92 were landlords' appeals. Eight were tenants' appeals, and, as already stated, 13 were cases where both the landlord and tenant had appealed. Of the 92 landlords' appeals, in 53 cases the landlords failed; and the decision below was confirmed with costs against the landlord. In 13 cases the landlords' appeals were withdrawn. In 11 cases the rents fixed by the Sub-Commission were raised, each party abiding his own costs. Seven cases stand for inspection and judgment, and eight were adjourned for various causes. Of the eight tenants' appeals five were withdrawn, one had been dismissed below on a question of law, and the dismissal was confirmed. In two cases on questions of value the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were confirmed with costs against the tenants. Of the 13 cross-appeals, in six cases the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were raised, each party abiding his own costs, and in five cases the rents were confirmed. One case stands for inspection and judgment. One case has been adjourned for cause.

THE MAMLUTDARS.
Dr. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can yet inform the House if it is true, as stated in the Calcutta correspondence of the Times of the 24th ultimo, and repeated in the Calcutta telegram in the Times of the 1st instant, that the High Court of Judicature of Bombay has pronounced a judgment affirming that the currupt Mamlutdars and Magistrates are, by the operation of 49 Geo. 3, c. 125—
114
"Disabled persons in law to all intents and purposes to have, occupy, or enjoy the office or offices—"
For which they have paid bribes; also, whether it is true, as stated in the Times' Calcutta telegram of the 7th instant, that the Bombay Gazette, of 27th June, contains a notification, authorizing the clerks of eight Magistrates to exercise each the power of the Magistrate, under the Mamlutdars Court Act of 1876; if so, are the Magistrates referred to among those who swore that they had corruptly purchased their positions; what steps have been taken to secure the requisite legal knowledge on the part of the clerks thus called on to perform the duties of the Magistrates; and, what extra pay do they receive in consideration of the new duties imposed upon them?
MR. WALTER M'LAREN: Upon the same subject, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the statement is correct, as given in the Times' Indian telegram on the 8th instant, copied from the Bombay Gazette of June 27th, that—
"Authority is given to the clerks of eight Magistrates to exercise each the power of the Magistrates, under 'The Mamlutdars' Court Act of 1876;'"
Whether these eight Magistrates are permanently or temporarily suspended from their duties; whether the suspension is because of corrupt acts in connection with Mr. Crawford; whether it is legal to allow Magistrates' clerks to act as Magistrates, and how long they are likely to continue in this position; and, whether Assistant Commissioner Sathe, who is mentioned in page 221 of the Correspondence on the Crawford Case, No. 5701, has been suspended, or in any way punished?
SIR J. GORST: There has not yet been time for the Bombay Gazette of June 27 to arrive in this country. But the Bombay Government directed some time ago that in the Talukas in which the Mamlutdars were deprived of all judicial functions, the head Karkuns should be invested with the powers of a Mamlutdar in order to exercise that jurisdiction of which the Mamlutdar was deprived. A head Karkun is not a clerk to a Magistrate or Mamlutdar, but holds a distinct and independent office; and it is a constant practice to invest them with magisterial powers.

115
Their qualification for exercising such powers has no doubt been ascertained in the usual way; and the Secretary of State has no reason to think that they receive extra pay. The practice of investing head Karkuns with magisterial powers is perfectly legal. Sathe is no longer Assistant Commissioner. He was transferred last autumn to the post of Deputy Collector at Ratnagiri.
DR. CAMERON: When will the Judgment and the other Papers be laid upon the Table?
SIR J. GORST: As soon as the Secretary of State has seen the Judgment. I shall be happy to answer any question about it; but before I can answer any question, I must see it.

THE POLICE AND PRESS IN WREXFORD.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is true that Sergeant Birnie, of Courtown Harbour, and another policeman, followed Mr. Ryan, a reporter of the Wrexford People, all day, on the 15th of June, even going after him to the meeting of the Poor Law Guardians, which Mr. Ryan went to report; whether it is true that Sergeant Birnie stated that he had orders to follow Mr. Ryan, and, if so, who gave such orders; and, whether, if there be any charge against Mr. Ryan, Mr. Myles Smith, and other people in the vicinity of Gorey, the Government will proceed in the ordinary manner, and refrain from having these gentlemen followed by the police while going about their ordinary occupations?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that James Ryan and Myles Smyth are members of a vigilance committee, which has been formed in the district for the purpose of boycotting and intimidating tenants who have taken evicted farms. Their movements are, therefore, being watched by the police. They are in no way interfered with in their ordinary business.

THE FOLKESTONE WATER COMPANY.
MR. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in a recent case before the Borough Magistrates at Folkestone, involving an
116
important dispute between the consumers and the local Water Company, the Magistrates' clerk, who is also solicitor to the Water Company in question, insisted upon advising the Magistrates, after a protest from the prosecuting solicitor, and after an intimation from the Bench that they were willing to sit without a clerk; whether the clerk did, as a matter of fact, advise the Magistrates to find in favour of the Company; and, whether he will inquire into the conduct of the clerk in this case?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Justices' clerk that he is not the solicitor to the company in question except in Parliamentary proceedings, and that he never advised the Company in local matters. In this case he was not consulted by the company, who were represented by a London solicitor. He acted as clerk in this case, and advised on points of law with the sanction of the Justices. The proceedings in a suit of this nature must be regulated according to the discretion of the Justices, and this is not a matter in which I can interfere.

GREAT NORTHERN OF IRELAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether 11 years ago, in reporting upon a serious collision on the Great Northern of Ireland Railway, between two portions of a train which had become separated, General Hutchinson pointed out to the Company that an automatic brake would have absolutely prevented the collision, by arresting the carriages the moment the separation occurred; whether at that time the secretary of the company informed General Hutchinson that the simple vacuum brake, whose failure caused this accident, was being merely tried experimentally on the line, and that the company had not yet come to a decision as to what brake would be finally adopted; and, whether, in spite of this recommendation, this simple vacuum brake, upon the failure of which General Hutchinson reported in 1878, has remained in use on the Great Northern of Ireland line ever since, and is the same brake that was in use in the recent disastrous collision near Armagh?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The facts are as stated in the question.
MR. CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation in the course of the present Session?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; I hope to be able to introduce a Bill on Monday.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that early on Saturday morning last the engine of a mixed train on the Great Northern of Ireland Railway, near Denny, being insufficient to drag the train up an incline, the train broke away, that 34 vehicles, including two passenger coaches, ran back down the incline for several miles, and that a collision between this runaway train and the mail train from Portadown was only prevented by the mail train being 40 minutes late, and by the night-signalman at Goraghwood shunting the runaway train from the up to the down line; whether he is aware that the two passenger coaches of the runaway train contained a number of soldiers who leapt from the train after the accident, and that the mail train had a full complement of passengers; whether he will inquire whether the guard of the runaway train was only provided with a hand-brake; and, whether the mixed train was marshalled with goods trucks in front, a method repeatedly condemned in Board of Trade Circulars?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have been in communication with the railway company on the subject of the hon. Member's question. It appears that the facts are not quite as stated, and I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the letter I have received from the Company.
MR. CHANNING: Is it a case for inquiry?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hardly think so.

AGRICULTURE IN EGYPT.
MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received any information from Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Cairo in regard to the actual state of the agricultural prospects in Egypt, and the estimated extent of the loss which will be sustained
118
by the cultivation through the failure of the Nile to furnish a supply of water sufficient to irrigate the area of cotton and rice which had been planted; whether the loss sustained since May 1888 would probably exceed £1,000,000, and whether the mortality in Cairo had risen at any time during the same period above 70 per 1,000; whether, in view of the exceptional delay in the rise of the Nile, any apprehensions are entertained by the English officers employed in the Department of Public Works in Egypt that the rise of the Nile in October may be excessive and cause disasters similar to those of 1878 and 1887; whether apart from the remedial measures proposed by Colonel Ross, C.M.G., R.E., Inspector General of Irrigation, for the better utilization in Upper Egypt of the water of the Nile during August and September, any remedy had been proposed, and recommended to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, which had been approved by Colonel Western, C.M.G., R.E., Director General of Works, to provide against an excessive flood and an insufficient supply during low-Nile; and, whether any instructions had been given to Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Cairo, or information furnished him, which could be laid on the Table of the House, in reference to this matter?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Papers—Egypt, Nos. 3 and 4 (1889), where he will find the information which he desires. The loss to the Revenue is estimated at about £300,000. No Reports of exceptional mortality have been received from Cairo. Her Majesty's Government are not aware that any such apprehensions are entertained. I presume the hon. Member refers to Mr. Cope Whitehouse's scheme for creating a large reservoir in the Wady Raian Basin for the storage of Nile water for irrigation purposes. This scheme has been carefully examined by the Egyptian Government, but after full consideration they have come to the conclusion that they cannot adopt Mr. Cope Whitehouse's proposals. No special instructions have been given to Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General in Cairo, for, as I informed the hon. Member in August of last year, Her Majesty Government do not feel

119
justified in interfering with the discretion of the Egyptian Government in this matter. If the hon. Member wishes it, the Papers can be collected and shown to him.
In reply to Mr. CHILDERS (Edinburgh),
SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid: It is impossible to estimate the loss to individuals, but the direct loss to revenue can be approximately estimated. The average annual loss on account of defective irrigation has been £37,000. The only bad year for a long time was in 1877, when there was £1,100,000 deficiency, and in 1888 it is estimated at £300,000. The year 1887 was without precedent for 150 years; and for a century past there had been only four years in which the Nile had attained a lower level than last year.

IRELAND—PRISON TREATMENT— WHITEWASHING CELLS.
MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet given effect to the promise made last year to the honourable Member for Camborne, that he would consider and try how far the suggestion of the honourable Member could be carried out for covering the walls of prison cells with a coloured wash of blue or pink, instead of the ordinary whitewash which is known to be injurious to the eye-sight; and, if not, whether he will now cause the experiment to be made, having regard to the fact that the sight of many prisoners has been very seriously impaired by the glare of the whitewashed walls of their cells?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners that he is not aware of the alleged fact that the sight of many prisoners is impaired by the glare of the whitewashed cells. The Medical Inspector in his last Report gives evidence to the contrary. He says that perhaps the most striking feature of the medical statistics is the proof which they afford of the immunity of prisoners from, among others things, ophthalmia. If the hon. Member will furnish me with names and particulars of any prisoner whose eyesight he knows to have been affected in this manner I will have full inquiry made.
MR. MAC NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Wilfrid Blunt in his evidence at Dublin stated that his eyesight was impaired by this cause? I heard him say so myself.
MR. MATTHEWS: I did not read Mr. Blunt's evidence.

FATHER STEPHENS AND MR. KELLY.
MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is the fact that from Sunday the 30th of June, till Sunday 7th July, Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly were obliged to keep their cells in Derry Gaol, and were deprived of exercise owing to the Governor of the gaol, Captain Wilson, insisting that any exercise they took should be taken in the company of the persons convicted of the insurance frauds in Belfast. Did Dr. O'Farrell, of the Prisons Board, on Saturday last visit Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly, and did both these gentlemen refuse to take any indulgence in the matter of exercise on the ground of ill-health, and state that on principle they declined to exercise with common criminals; were these gentlemen permitted, as a matter of fact, to exercise by themselves after the visit of Dr. O'Farrell, and did Dr. O'Farrell report that their health had suffered by close confinement for a week to their cells; why were Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly, who have been imprisoned for several months, ordered by the Governor on Sunday week for the first time to exercise with the Belfast swindlers; and, in giving this order, did the Governor act on his own responsibility, or by the direction of the Prisons Board?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until to-morrow. I only received a final telegram in reference to it just before coming down to the House.

AFFAIRS IN THE SOUDAN.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what is the Military position at present on the Nile?
MR. BRYCE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question will he tell the House, so far as he can, what is the present position of the British troops which are being sent out to Egypt?
MR. E. STANHOPE: The last estimate of the force with which Wad El N'jumi is invading Eygpt places is at 6,000 men with 800 camels. A telegram received this morning reports that this force marched yesterday seven miles, and is now three miles south of Abu Simbel. It is, therefore, about 33 miles north of Wady Halfa. Sir Francis Grenfell, the Sirdar, is at Assouan, and reinforcements, including some British troops, are proceeding there. In consequence of the necessity of strengthening the garrison of Upper Egypt, the general officer commanding in Egypt has asked for two more battalions of infantry. The Dorsetshire Regiment from Malta and the Yorkshire Regiment from Cyprus will accordingly be sent to Egypt temporarily.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to ask whether the obligation which Her Majesty's Government declare they have to defend Egypt implies that the defence is to be made at the expense of the British taxpayer?
MR. E. STANHOPE: The obligation remains exactly as it was; there is no new obligation.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: What I want to know is whether Her Majesty's Government interprets the obligation to mean that Egypt is to be defended at the expense of the British taxpayer?
MR. E. STANHOPE: The first thing to be done is to defend Egypt.
SIR W. LAWSON: Is it true that a proclamation has been issued on behalf of the Egyptian Forces, declaring that if the natives are found trafficking with the Dervishes the penalty of death will be inflicted?
MR.LABOUCHERE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us specifically what is a Dervish in contradistinction to an inhabitant of the Soudan under the orders, I presume, of the de facto Government of the Soudan?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I have not received any information as to the proclamation, but I see from the morning papers that it is said to have been issued. When I do I will communicate it to the House. With regard to the other question I am afraid I am not strictly able to define a Dervish, but whatever a Dervish may be he is at present engaged in invading Egypt.
SIR W. LAWSON: Is it true as stated that Turkey has suggested the sending of Turkish troops to Egypt to reinforce the British Army?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I think the hon. Member had better put that question to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
MR. PICTON: I wish to ask whether one great reason for anxiety is the earnest desire of the Egyptian population to receive these Dervishes?
MR. E. STANHOPE: So far as any information reaches us Egypt has prospered enormously during the time that England—[An hon. MEMBER: "Great Britain"]—Great Britain has occupied that country, and the great bulk of the population have undoubtedly derived enormous benefits from that occupation.
MR. PICTON: I did not ask whether Egypt had prospered. I asked whether one cause for anxiety was the earnest desire of the Egyptian native population to receive and welcome these Dervishes?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I have no reason to think that the people of Egypt desire that a force of Dervishes should invade their country and massacre them.

IRELAND—THE PROSECUTION OF MR. GILL AND MR. COX.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether on Tuesday last, at Drogheda, Mr. Hamilton, R.M., the senior member of the Court constituted for the trial of Mr. Gill, M.P., and Mr. Cox, M.P., on charges under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, in dismissing the charges, is correctly reported to have declared the chief evidence for the prosecution, that of the police reporter, constable Robinson, to be untrustworthy; and what course the Irish Government propose to adopt with regard to constable Robinson?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the question until to-morrow.
MR. SEXTON: I will do so. Meanwhile I should like to ask whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Clare and my hon. Friend the Member for South Clare were subjected to this

123
prosecution in consequence of the oath of the constable, which oath had been rejected by the Magistrate, the Government will defray the travelling expenses of my hon. Friends?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The ordinary practice will be pursued in this case.

THE LATE MR. HENRY QUINN.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that the late Mr. Henry Quinn, of Downhouse Terrace, Richmond, Surrey, deceased, who was originally a native of Newry, made his will, probate whereof with five codicils attached was granted to Mr. William Mathers Hepper, the executor therein named, on the 30th November, 1887, his assets, after deducting debts amounting to £240,923 10s. 8d.; after the pecuniary legacies therein named testator bequeathed all his residuary personal estate to his trustees,
"To be applied in and towards establishing a society to be called the 'Quinn Charity,' and to be situate in Newry, in the counties of Down and Armagh, for the maintenance and support of such indigent persons, male and female, or male or female, residing in that town or in the neighbourhood of ten miles around, as may have formerly lived in a better or superior class of life, or carried on a respectable business, and subsequently became reduced in their pecuniary circumstances;"
whether it is estimated that the residue will considerably exceed £200,000; and why, whilst the remainder of the estate has been practically administered, no substantial progress seems to have been made in carrying out the wishes of the testator in regard to this charity?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Derry on the 28th May, and would add that the necessary evidence as to the next-of-kin is being procured by the plaintiff's solicitor.
MR. W. REDMOND: Is there likely to be much further delay?
SIR R. WEBSTER: There is every reason to believe that the arrangements will be shortly completed. The delay does not rest with the Attorney General.
MR. W. REDMOND: In the course of a few weeks, may I put a question to the Government on the same subject?
SIR R. WEBSTER: I will communicate to the hon. Member with pleasure any information which may reach me.

THE LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland what are the following figures in connection with the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts, 1885 to 1888; sum applied for to 30th June, 1889; advance sanctioned to same date; amount of principal and interest which accrued due for payment on 1st November, 1888, and still unpaid on 30th June, 1889; amount of principal and interest which accrued due for payment on 1st May, 1889, and unpaid on 30th June, 1889?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that 17,986 applications for advances under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts were received up to the 30th June, the amount applied for being £7,356,210. Of these, 13,220 applications for £5,519,306 were provisionally sanctioned, and of the advances so sanctioned 10,102 loans, amounting to £4,249,389, had been issued up to the date named. The total amount of interest and instalments which accrued due from the passing of the Act of 1885 to November 1, 1888, was £147,856 6s. 7d.; of this amount, the sum of £59,205 17s. 3d. payable by 6,943 persons, accrued due in respect of the half-year ended November 1st, 1888. The total sum still unpaid on the 30th June, 1889, in respect of interest and instalments to November 1st, 1888, was £1,355 7s. 3d. due by 97 payers. This arrear has since been reduced to £1,056 7s. 4d. The total amount of interest and instalments which accrued due on May 1st, 1889, was £77,489 15s. 6d., payable by 8,670 payers. The amount of such instalments unpaid on June 30th, 1889, was £8,784 7s. 3d., due by 1,086 payers. This arrear has since been reduced to £7,944 7s. 3d.

EMERGENCY MEN.
MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that an emergency man is in possession of a farm on the estate of the late Henry Gonne Maloney, at Cahir Murphy, county Clare, and refuses to give up possession to the heir at law or

125
his agent; and, whether the emergency man is guarded by three members of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, by what right, or by whose authority, does he remain in possession of the farm?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The late owner died in 1888, and there is, I understand, a lawsuit pending as to the right of ownership. The man referred to is in possession pending the decision of the case.

THE NAVAL, AUTHORITIES AT THE HOME PORTS. (LEGAL EXPENSES.)
ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the case that the Naval Authorities at the home ports are denied the advantage of any legal advice (Except in criminal cases), without the permission of the Treasury Solicitor; whether it is true that the bill of costs of the agents of the Treasury Solicitor has been disallowed in cases where the permission has not been first obtained; and whether, as this practically deprives the Naval Officers at the ports of legal advice altogether (except in criminal cases) where prompt decision is necessary, he will consider the advisability of reviving the old plan of the Admiralty having their own law agent at each port?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Up to 1881 it was the practice of the Naval Authorities to refer all local legal questions to the Admiralty legal agents at the ports. The result was that bills of costs were frequently incurred in respect of business which could as easily have been disposed of by the Treasury Solicitor and his staff without any expense at all. It was in view of this fact that the Admiralty circular of March 3, 1881, was issued, introducing the present system, and providing that local legal advice should not be resorted to (except in criminal cases) without the permission of the Treasury Solicitor. This arrangement has worked well, and has the advantage of constituting one person responsible for all legal actions taken in the name of the Admiralty, with a considerable saving of expense. On some very rare occasions certain expenditure in connection with the employ-
126
ment of local agents has been disallowed, but only when they have acted in contravention of the regulations. The assistance of the Treasury Solicitor is always available for the Naval Authorities at the home ports, and, with telegraphic communication, the advice of a local legal adviser is considered unnecessary. It is in the power of the Treasury Solicitor to employ a local agent when he considers the case requires it. The system in force at the Admiralty exists at the War Office and for the military stations throughout the Kingdom, and no difficulty has arisen. It would not, in my opinion, be advisable to revert back to the old system.

NONCONFORMIST BURIALS AT SEAFORD.
MR. HALLEY STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been reported to him that the Vicar of Seaford, Sussex, has set apart an out-of-the-way corner of Seaford Churchyard for Nonconformist burials, refusing to permit such burials in any other part of the churchyard; and, whether, in so doing, he is acting in accordance with the Law?
MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; I have received no such Report, and the vicar informs me that the allegation contained in the question is quite contrary to fact. There is no out-of-the-way corner in his churchyard where Nonconformists are buried. When no special permission is solicited, Nonconformists are usually buried on the north side. The vicar states that he would never refuse to meet the wishes of Nonconformists with regard to the position of the grave if timely permission were asked. Since the Act of 1880 there have been 12 Nonconformist funerals in various parts of the ground, and he himself has buried 30 Nonconformists according to the rites of the Church of England. The Act of 1880 reserves the right which previously evisted in the incumbent of selecting the position of the grave, and I cannot find that in this case anything, has been done contrary to the law.
SIR J. SWINBURNE: Is there not a strong prejudice against being buried on the north side of a churchyard?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of that.

FOG SIGNALS.
MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade when the further Report from the Committee on Signalling at Sea, in reference to sound signals in fogs, to indicate the courses of vessels, is likely to be received by the Board of Trade; whether he will take steps to obtain the completion of the inquiries and the issue of the Report in time for its results to be considered before the International Maritime Conference; and whether he will direct the Committee to obtain replies to the inquiries on this subject, not only from the shipping companies, but, so far as possible, in the case of all the companies from the captains in actual service in the employ of the companies?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not probable that the Report referred to can be received before the date of the Washington Conference. The proofs of the Revised Code have to be sent to Foreign Governments, and their criticisms have to be received and considered before the Committee can proceed further. The Committee need no direction in the matter; they have taken steps to obtain the opinion not only of shipowners, but of masters of the Merchant Service.
MR. CHANNING: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to obtain—with a view to the discussions of the Maritime Conference—not only official opinions, but the opinions of sea captains in actual service, as to the use of sound signals during fogs?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Certainly.

PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Vice Chamberlain whether, with reference to pleuro-pneumonia, any convictions have been obtained for concealment of the disease; and, if so, what penalties have been inflicted?
THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (Viscount LEWISHAM,): It appears from the Reports which are received from time to time from Local Authorities, and from reports which are published in newspapers, that a considerable number of prosecutions are instituted for non-notification of disease. The fines have varied in different cases from 10s. to
128
£20. The Privy Council have no means of keeping a record of the prosecutions which are instituted by Local Authorities.

CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the exact number of Civil Service Writers, who were registered prior to the 12th February 1876, at present on the Register of the Civil Service Commission?
MR. JACKSON: I have answered this question once or twice already. I may venture to say that it is not for the public interest that the question should be repeated.

THE NAVAL REVIEW.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is true, as reported, that no visitors are to be allowed on board any of the ships of war at the forthcoming inspection at Spithead; if this be the case, whether he will, by setting apart one of the spare troopships, enable unemployed naval officers and their friends to witness this grand display of naval strength on an historical occasion; whether it is a fact that at all former Naval Reviews a transport has always been set apart for naval officers and a certain number of their friends; whether he is aware that a transport was specially ordered to convey naval officers on full and half pay to witness the French Naval Review at Cherbourg in 1865, in company with the English Channel Squadron; and, whether he will consider the claim of Naval Officers to a similar privilege on the occasion of the visit of the Emperor of Germany at the forthcoming inspection by Her Majesty?
LORD G. HAMILTON: As the occasion of the Naval Inspection on August 3 is looked upon as a practical test of the mobilizing instructions, and as the ships are to be in all respects ready for active service at sea, it is undesirable that visitors should be allowed on board on that day. For some days previously the vessels comprising the Fleet will be in position, and then, as well as on the occasion of the arrival of the German Emperor and his squadron on August 2, no restriction will be placed on the

129
admission of visitors to the ships. Under these circumstances, it is not proposed to make any arrangements of a special nature for the officers of the Navy on August 3.

DELAGOA BAY.
MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House what is the precise position of matters at Delagoa Bay as between the Railway Company and the Portuguese Government; and what representations Her Majesty's Government has addressed to the Government of Portugal with regard to their action?
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg also to ask whether the claimants under the Delagoa Railway Company's concessions have now objected to arbitration in terms of the concessions, and claimed the diplomatic interference of the British Government to support their alleged rights in preference to such arbitration?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: The precise position at Delagoa Bay is that the Portuguese Authorities have seized and entered upon possession of the railway on the ground that, by non-fulfilment of their contract, the Company has forfeited its concession. Her Majesty's Government have made no representations beyond what I stated to the House on the 1st instant—namely, that if it shall appear that the Portuguese Government have acted with injustice, resulting in loss to British subjects, they will be held responsible for such loss. In answer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), I have to say that Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the question of arbitration has reached a stage in which it can be said to have been accepted or declined by either party to the dispute.
MR. BRYCE: I do not wish to press for any answer which it is undesirable to give; but can the right hon. Gentleman state what reply has been received to the representations made by Her Majesty's Government to Portugal?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: No positive answer has up to the present time been received; but Portugal has, of course, disclaimed any intention to inflict injustice.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is not our acting Vice Consul at Delagoa Bay also the railway agent?
SIR J. FERGUSSONreplied in the affirmative.

USIBEBU.
MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has received information concerning the preliminary examination of the charge against Usibebu, which was held at Eshowe, in Zululand, on or about the 25th of May; whether he can inform the House as to the precise nature of the charge then investigated, and of the decision arrived at by the Court; and whether he is aware that after the close of these preliminary proceedings Usibebu was allowed to return to his location?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Secretary of State has as yet only received an informal Report of the proceedings from the Governor, who has come to this country on leave of absence. The charge was one of being accessory to the murder at Umsutywana. The Magistrate, after an investigation extending over several weeks, dismissed the charge. The Governor is not altogether satisfied with the action of the Magistrate in dismissing the charge; and it is understood that the case has been referred back to the Resident Commissioner for his further consideration as Chief Magistrate. In the meantime, it is understood that Usibebu remains at Eshowe.

THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will call the attention of the London County Council and District Boards (Vestries) to the desirability of doing the whole of the work—namely, road-making, paving, sewers, embankments, &c., without the intervention of a contractor, all work to be done in the same way as in Lambeth and St. James's Vestries?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The responsibility for carrying out works

131
such as those referred to devolves on the Local Authorities, and it rests with them to determine what arrangements should be made for the execution of the works. The matter is not one in which the Local Government Board have any authority to intervene; but, if any santion on their part were necessary, the Board would not offer any objection to arrangements, as regards the execution of works, such as those suggested in the question.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the number of fair-rent applications from the County Cork still pending before the Irish Land Commission; whether it is the fact that several thousand of such applications were lodged before the 29th September, 1887, and are still unheard; at what rate per month those applications have been disposed of since the beginning of 1889; how long it is likely to take before the arrears of cases in the County Cork are disposed of; and, whether the Land Commission intend during the ensuing legal year to add the County Waterford to the Circuit of the Sub-Commission which until the beginning of 1889 was entirely devoted to the County Cork?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that on 1st July there were 4,181 applications to fix judicial rents from the County Cork still undisposed of, which include not several thousand, as is alleged in the question, but 1,783 cases in respect of which applications were received prior to the 29th of September, 1877. Since the beginning of 1889 these applications have been disposed of at the rate of 119 a month; but over 800 had been disposed of in the four preceding months. The Commissioners cannot at present state what arrangements the Public Service may require to be made during the ensuing legal year. They must make the best practicable arrangements, having regard to the claims of the various districts, and will fully consider the claims of the county referred to.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many of the applications to fix fair rents made by
132
leaseholders immediately on the passing of the Land Act of 1887 are still undisposed of, and are now pending; how many fair rent applications by yearly tenants are now pending; at what rate per month such applications are being disposed of, and when it is hoped that the arrear of business in the Land Commission will be got rid of; whether the Government propose to fill the vacancy in the office of Legal Assistant Commissioner, caused by the death of Mr. Reeves, Q.C.; and, if not, why not; what number of additional lay assessors the Government propose to appoint in the event of the passing of their Bill for transferring to the County Courts portions of the work of the Land Commission; and, whether, as it is not now intended to introduce this Bill this Session, the Government propose to make any provision for the despatch of business in the Land Courts, by the appointment of additional Sub-Commissioners?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that on the 1st of July 14,645 applications by leaseholders to fix judicial rents, and 32,490 applications of yearly tenants, were still unheard. Applications are being disposed of and decisions announced in such cases at the rate of 2,741 per month. The Commissioners have had under consideration the question as to whether they should recommend the Government to appoint a successor to the late Mr. Reeves, Q.C., Legal Assistant Commissioner. At present they do not propose to do so, as they anticipate that the duties of the Sub-Commissioners can be discharged with the present staff of Legal Assistant Commissioners. But if hereafter it becomes advisable they will apply to the Government to appoint a successor. No statement has been made by me, so far as I recollect, implying that in the Land Court Bill which we had hoped to pass any transfer of business would be made to County Courts. Perhaps as regards the last question the hon. Member will be good enough to put it down at a later date, say this day week.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that much of the time of the Sub-Commissioners who hear and decide fair rent applications is taken up by the duties

133
recently imposed on them of delineating on the Ordnance Maps the holdings which they value; and whether it would be possible to make arrangements whereby at any rate portions of this work could be done in the Ordnance Survey Office?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners state they are satisfied that it is of paramount importance that the Assistant Commissioners should delineate on the Ordnance Maps the boundaries and different qualities of land in the holdings they inspect before fixing the judicial rent thereof, and they do not consider that it would be advisable to adopt the course suggested in the second paragraph.

THE STAR NEWSPAPER AND MR. MONRO.
MR. WHARTON: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph which appeared in the Star newspaper of July 9th, in which these words occur—
"It is further asserted that Mr. Monro, Chief Commissioner of Police, has been in Paris daring the past few days on a special mission haying reference to the Land League books,"
and whether there is any authority for or truth in that assertion?
MR. MATTHEWS: The assertion made in the paragraph is absolutely untrue. Mr. Monro has not been absent from London from the date of the arrival of the Shah.
MR. WHARTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that there is a firm of bankers in Paris of the name of J. Munro & Co., which may possibly have given rise to this extraordinary assertion?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed there is a firm of bankers in Paris of that name.
MR. SEXTON: Is it not true that Chief Inspector Littlechild has been in Paris during the last few days on the mission in question?
MR. MATTHEWS: I must ask for notice.

ALLEGED JURY PACKING IN IRELAND.
MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secre-
134
tary for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice: it is whether he can give the House any information as to alleged jury packing at the Maryborough Summer Assizes last Monday, and as to the strong and emphatic protests made by the Jurors, ordered by the Crown to stand by?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received no information on the subject; but I assure the hon. Gentleman there has been no jury packing.
MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I will repeat the question on Monday.

BANN DRAINAGE BILL COMMITTEE.
MR. SEXTON: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he approves of the nomination of Members made by the Government Whip for the Committee to which the Bann Drainage Bill is to be preferred, containing, as the list does, three Irish Members supporting the Government and representing one-sixth of the Irish Members, and only one Irish Member of that part which includes five-sixths of the Irish Members.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there are rules regulating the appointment of Committees of this House and the proportion of Members to be supplied by the various parties in the House. I know nothing whatever about the motives actuating other persons than the Government in deciding what names shall be submitted to the House. The only thing I do notice with regard to the names of Gentlemen on this side of the House is, as I think will be admitted, that Ireland is not under-represented.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that I shall oppose the nominations.

METROPOLIS WATER (No. 3) BILL. (No. 311.)
Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday 17th July read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Thirteenth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMAN'S PANEL.
MR. Campbell-Bannermanreported from the Chairman's Panel, That they had appointed Mr. Salt to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in the place of Mr. Osborne Morgan.
Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table.

CHAIRMAN'S PANEL.

  BANN DRAINAGE [GRANTS, &C.]
  Committee to consider of making a free Grant, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for defraying a part of the costs of any works to be executed under any Act of the present Session; for the improvement of the Drainage of lands and for the prevention of Inundations within, the catchment area of the Lough Neagh and the Lower Bann, and also of authorizing the Board of Works in Ireland to make advances, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the said Act (Queen's Recommendation signified). To-morrow.
  Message from the Lords:—That they have agreed to Amendment to Indecent Advertisement Bill (Lords), without Amendment; Friendly Societies' Act (1888) Amendment Bill.

MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERN- MENT BUSINESS).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): In rising to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name, I am performing a duty which is expected from me by both sides of the House. I believe that a strong desire exists that the Session should not be unduly prolonged, and that every effort should be made, consistent with a due regard to the public interests, to bring it to a comparatively early close. It is always expected that the Member of the Government whose duty it is to move a Motion of this kind will indicate the measures deemed to be urgent and important enough to warrant them in requiring that they should be passed before the Session terminates. I need hardly say that those measures include the Local Governmet (Scotland) Bill and the Universities Bill for Scotland, which have been already far advanced, and as to which no very serious
  136
  matter of controversy remains to be disposed of, although undoubtedly there is a mass of details to be considered in Committee or on the Report stage, and those details will require a certain amount of public time, and the importance of the subject will justify the House in devoting to those measures the amount of time they may require. There are also Bills which have passed through Grand Committees of this House which may be regarded as measures of great social importance, rather than as measures of serious, political import involving questions on, which differences between, the two sides of the House are likely to arise. I should deeply regret if it were necessary to sacrifice any one of those Bills, and from the progress which has been made with them I entertain the strongest, hope, which I trust will be shared by hon. Members on all sides, that those Bills may be passed without making serious demands on the time of the House. A measure on which considerable difference of opinion may arise is the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill. I hope it may be possible to ask the House to give it a Second Reading early next week. There is another measure which is not in the hands of the Government but as to which pledges have been given, and that is the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. I hold myself bound to ask the judgment of the House on this measure, I have repeatedly stated that I would endeavour to obtain a decision of the House upon its proposals, and I will do that because I cannot but remember that the question has been exhaustively considered by a Select Committee of the House; and I think the House is bound to take some action on the opinions of an majority of such an important Select Committee. I will not go through the list of all the measures of the Government. I think most of them are of secondary importance compared with those to which I have referred, and I think they are measures which may well be received by the House without serious or prolonged discussion. The Council of India Bill is an important measure, but I trust, even if it is necessary to have a discussion upon the Second Reading, that the House will pass it in the course of the present Session, as it will effect an economy of £6,000 a year in the expenditure of the Indian Government,

  137
  at home, with, the result of increasing rather than diminishing the efficiency of administration. The Notification of Diseases Bill, I observe, is opposed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. It is a matter of considerable importance from a sanitary point of view, and I trust the objections which are entertained to it will not detain the House any length of time, having regard to the fact that the Bill is intended to diminish the danger to the public which results from the concealment of the existence of disease, and that the principle of which has been adopted in local legislation in many parts of the country. I come next to consider the matters as to which we are not able to calculate with certainty that the House will be disposed to entertain them. I refer first of all to the New Education Code which has now been before Parliament for some time, and I am unable to shut my eyes to the fact that an amount of criticism and a difference of opinon have been raised in regard to this Code in different parts of the House, which leaves us little hope that there will be anything like time enough in the remaining part of the Session for the adequate consideration of proposals of the character of those involved in this Code. I regret, therefore, that it appears to be necessary to withdraw the Code from the consideration of the House, so far as the present year is concerned, but I do not despair that the fuller study and examination which will be given in the autumn and winter to the proposals contained in it may perhaps make them more palatable and acceptable to the hon. Gentlemen who now differ seriously from them. However that might be, I think the House will feel that by following the example set by a right hon. Gentleman opposite some years ago in postponing the discussion of considerable alterations in the Code for a year, we shall not be acting unwisely in the great interests of education itself. Therefore we shall not ask the House to consider the new Code this year; and, meanwhile, we shall adhere to the Code of 1888, which is now in operation, and under which grants are now being made. I must refer again to the Irish Drainage Bills. There has been considerable opposition to these Bills on the part of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. I admit
  138
  that they have a perfect right to oppose them; but looking to the character of the Bills, if that opposition is persevered with, it would be unreasonable to expect the House to sit long enough to dispose of those Bills, and I fear that I must leave on those hon. Gentlemen the full responsibility, if they think fit to exercise their right, of delaying the passing of those measures. We do, however, intend to proceed with the Bann Drainage Bill, which has already been referred to a Select Committee. Allusion has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Gal way (Colonel Nolan) to the Light Railways Bill. We think that that is a measure which ought to be passed by the House. It meets generally with favour from all parts of the House; and I believe that no measure would tend better to develop the resources of the distressed districts of Ireland than that Bill. I trust, Sir, that, the proposals which I have now made will meet the acceptance of the House generally. I have no doubt that I shall be met with the suggestion that, although it is exceedingly desirable that the House should proceed with the consideration of the remaining Government business as soon as possible, yet exceptions ought to be made in regard to particular Motions and particular measures of hon. Members. I hope I shall not be deemed unreasonable if, after a long experience, I say I could not accept any suggestions of that character. Hon. Gentlemen who have charge of Motions or Bills must see that if concessions were made to them there are others who would be placed in a disadvantageous position, and who would certainly also claim the indulgence of the Government. I am afraid, Sir, the time has come when I must make this demand on the House, not in the interest of the Government alone, but in the interest of Members of the House and of the service of the country. I shall be glad to answer any questions that may be addressed to me, but I think I have stated generally with sufficient clearness what the Government propose.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government business have priority on Wednesday; that, unless the House otherwise order, the House shall meet on Friday at 3 of the clock; and that Standing Order 11 he suspended, and the provisions of Standing Order 56 he extended to the other days of the week."—(Mr. W. S. Smith.)
  MR. J. STUART: I rise, Sir, to move an Amendment the effect of which, if carried, will be to exempt from the operation of the Resolution Fridays, the 12th and 19th of July. The Bills with which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury proposes to occupy the remainder of the Session are smaller and more limited in number than have been the measures on which in recent times Governments have been accustomed to base a demand for the whole time of the House, and I cannot but feel that private Bills and Motions are to be sacrificed to the question of Royal doweries. All my Amendment asks for is the grant of eight hours for private Members—namely, four hours on each of the two successive Fridays. Now, Sir, with respect to Friday, the 19th of July, I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to plead his own cause with reference to the important Resolution he has on the Paper for that day. I shall only give very briefly the reasons why I urge that I may have an opportunity of bringing forward the Resolution which stands in my name for to-morrow. That Resolution has reference to local taxation in the Metropolis, and there is scarcely any subject at the present time which may more fairly demand the attention of the House. We have had the Standing Orders of the House suspended twice during the present Session, and within the last few weeks, in order to saddle the ratepayers of the Metropolis with a payment which is equivalent to a rata of 2d. for the City of London, and, therefore, the pressure of the question I ask the House to consider has been increased by the action of the Government themselves. There is an important reason why this question ought to come immediately before the House. The County Council of London have passed several resolutions which imply a feeling on their part that it is inadvisable to enter upon further extended permanent improvements in London until it is settled upon whose shoulders the burdens of them are to come. There is another point which makes the question both grave and immediate. The constant habit of owners or holders of ground rents to contract themselves out of their obligations to the rates is a matter upon which a resolution was passed only the
  140
  day before yesterday by the County Council. I do not say, Sir, that within the limits of any resolution I should desire to deal with, or be justified in dealing with, all these various questions; but I have put down on the Paper a Resolution referring to the taxation of ground rents and to the cost of permanent improvements, the decision of which at the present time is exceedingly important and desirable for the progress of business in the Metropolis. I put it on these somewhat narrow grounds, although I might put it on the far broader grounds of the great issue of the incidence of taxation involved in the Resolution of which I have given Notice. I would point out to the House the magnitude of the question to which I am drawing attention, a magnitude which makes it in no way inferor to those questions, or at any rate to some of them, which the right hon. Gentleman has enumerated as desirable to be solved in the present Session. One-fifth part of the whole rateable value of England is situate in the Metropolis, and no less than 7½ millions sterling are raised at present in the Metropolis by local taxation. One-third of that is in our Representatives' control, one third is partly within that control, and the other third is altogether beyond the control of any representative body in the Metropolis. Under these circumstances, taking into account both the magnitude of the matter and the magnitude of the interests involved, and the urgent and pressing character of the question, I think I have made out temperately and fairly a real case for requesting some of the time of the House to-morrow for the consideration of the important Resolution which stands in my name. On these grounds I beg leave to move the addition of a Proviso to the Resolution to the following effect:—"That this Resolution shall not apply to Fridays until after Friday the 19th of July."
  DR. CAMERON: I rise for the purpose of seconding the Amendment. Why have the discussions upon the Scotch Bills taken so long? It is because the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues have insisted on thrusting down the throats of Scotch Members proposals to which they were almost unanimously opposed. We have had a great number of Divisions in Committee,

  141
  but whenever even the semblance of a concession has been made, the Scotch Members have abstained from pressing the Government further. Whenever a Division has been taken, the Scotch Members have voted four or five to one against the Government. Notwithstanding that fact, the Government have persisted in carrying their views against that of the majority of the Scotch Members, and under such circumstances how is it possible for progress to be made? Far more time would be saved during the remainder of the Session by reasonable concessions to Scotch demands than the eight hours involved in the Amendment. I wish to know whether the Government intend to proceed with the Parochial Boards Bill and the Private Bill Procedure Bill, about which the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing, and to the former of which determined opposition will be offered.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
  "Provided always, that this Resolution shall not apply to Fridays until after Friday the 19th of July."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. S. BUXTON: I shall support the Amendment. I think that we who represent London have some reason to complain that the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Session should contain some legislation for London has not been fulfilled. So far, all the legislation we have had has been the continued imposition of the Coal Tax. I think there has been a great desire to give a vote, not only on the question of Metropolitan taxation, but also upon Scotch disestablishment and Sunday closing in Ireland. I wish to express the very great regret which is felt by some hon. Members that the Government have decided to drop their new Education Code, which was in many respects an excellent improvement. The pressure, however, which has been brought to bear by hon. Gentlemen sitting on their own side of the House has been too great to enable the Government to carry the Code.
  MR SPEAKER: The question now before the House is whether words shall be added to the Resolution to exempt two Fridays from the operation of the
  142
  Resolution. Anything in regard to the business for those two days will be in order, but the Amendment must be disposed of before the general question can be entered into.
  MR. S. BUXTON: I thought the general question was before us.
  MR. SPEAKER: No; not the general question, only the proposal to exempt two Fridays, the Amendment being not to omit, but to add words as a proviso.
  MR. BUXTON: Then I will content myself with joining in the protest against the Government's proposal.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to speak in no spirit of hostility to the Motion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate the spirit in which he has made his statement. But with regard to the question addressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) as to the intention of the Government to proceed with certain Scotch Bills to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, I take it for granted that the Government do not intend to proceed with those measures. In speaking of this Amendment, the whole subject in discussion only amounts to seven or eight hours, and we ought not to consume any appreciable amount of that time in disposing of the Amendment. The whole question comes to a proposal on the part of two hon. Gentlemen to take one day from the demands of the Government. That proposal ought to be judged with reference to the importance and urgency of their Motions. I feel bound to support that proposal. It is a reasonable one in my opinion, and as regards the question of the taxation of London, it is, I think, one of the most urgent cases that we have before us in the whole circle of our business. As to the other Motion, the hon. Member for Glasgow refers to an important question of principle upon which the Scotch Members, by a very large majority, have already declared their judgment in this House; and my hon. Friend is entitled, I think, to the demands which he makes for a reasonable time in which to discuss it. I admit that, so far, I am deducting from the time for which the right hon. Gentleman asks. But I am going to make a suggestion, not in a hostile spirit, which, in my opinion,

  143
  would save exactly the same amount of time, and certainly not less than that which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to forego. He says it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Tithe Bill through the House, but to take the judgment of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government will proceed with the measure.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then I do not make my suggestion; but to take the Second Reading without proceeding with the Bill would certainly be a waste of time. But as to whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to carry the Bill onwards, as he declares he hopes to do, I entertain shrewd doubts, not because I am hostile to a settlement of the question—on the contrary, I think it desirable and even urgent—but because the right hon. Gentleman will find that the passage of the Bill will demand a great deal of his energy and the time of the House. But, as I have said, this Amendment constitutes a fair case of appeal to the House, and I shall support it.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think that the very courteous observations of the right hon. Gentleman require some reply. The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I thought had been understood by the House—namely, that if there is material opposition to the measures to which the hon. Member for Glasgow referred, it would not be possible for the Government to press them in the present Session. In mentioning the measures which the Government intend to press, I think the House understands that no other Bills of importance will be pressed if determined opposition is raised. I would remind the House that all the Votes in Supply, beginning with Class 3, have to be disposed of, and this is a consideration which hon. Members must take into account. With regard to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart) that Motion stands purely as an abstract Resolution. In this most important question for the ratepayers of London, the hon. Member has not, as he should have done, shown, in the form of a Bill, how he intends to apply the principles which he advocates. The question is one which ought only to be entered upon by the House in the form of a practical working measure. If the hon. Member
  144
  for Glasgow looks at the Papers which record the business of the House, he will find that more time has been afforded to private Members by the Government during the present Session than in past years, but whether that is so or not, the Government have a duty to perform, and I must ask the House to say whether the arrangements I have proposed will not, on the whole, tend to the advancement of public business. On these grounds I must adhere to the proposal I have made.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to make out a case against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I think that a very strong case has been made out for asking time for the consideration of the question of taxation in London. The only reason given by the right hon. Gentleman why the Resolution of my hon. Friend should not be proceeded with is that it is an abstract Resolution, but it appears to me that the more discussion we can have on these complex questions, and the more opinions are concentrated, the better in the end will be the Bill which will be formulated. I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Members will bring in a Bill next year, and we hope he will, be prepared to consider and assist in passing it. So far we have had to deal with the question of taxation in London under extraordinary circumstances; twice with the Standing Orders suspended. I think the Government ought to make us the small recompense of permitting the full discussion of the incidence of taxation in London. People outside this House will, I am certain, look for something on the subject much more definite than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. We are told by the London County Council that the ratepayers of London are so overburdened with taxation that it is impossible to carry out many much needed improvements.
  MR. BARTLEY: As a Metropolitan Member I am exceedingly sorry that owing to the pressure of business we cannot debate the question of Metropolitan taxation. It is quite a mistake to believe that the handful of Members representing London constituencies on the other side of the House are the only persons who feel an interest in the question. The

  145
  50 Members who sit on this side have quite as great an interest in it. I hope that the Government will next year bring forward some practical resolution on the subject.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The responsibility for the postponement of the discussion rests with the Metropolitan Conservative Members, who can, if they choose, put such pressure on the Government as would compel them to give the time asked for. The hon. Member has sneered at the paucity of the number of the Liberal Members for London. He may be entitled to do that; but I desire to point out that the greater the number of the Conservative Members, the greater is their responsibility. I have no doubt that the people of London will not be slow to observe that the most conspicuous result of the present ascendancy of Conservatism is a gross neglect of the interest of London.
  MAJOR RASCH: On the part of the agricultural interest I protect against the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury on the ground that it takes away my opportunity of moving the Resolution of which I have given notice. At this moment, in the county of Essex, we are subjected to great hardship owing to the payment of compensation for animals suffering from pleuro-pneumonia which are compulsorily slaughtered.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Is the Motion referred to by the hon. Member down for either of the Fridays included in the Amendment?
  MAJOR RASCH: No, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member is out of order.
  The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 234.—(Div. List, No. 196.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I make complaint, not unnaturally, that the Government should take away the time of private Members entirely, but I make complaint especially as to a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman himself drew attention. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury drew attention to the Indian Council Bill, but put it that an economy of £6,000 a year would be effected if the Bill were not opposed. It would have been a fairer way to treat the
  146
  matter to say that, the Government has twice taken away from myself the time for the consideration of the larger proposal for Indian Reform, to which this Indian Council Bill is only the smallest fringe. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman at once that as the measure will produce an economy of £6,000 a year, I shall withdraw the Notice of opposition which stands in my name to the Indian Council Bill; but I have a right to complain, not only that the opportunity of calling attention to the scheme of Indian reform has been taken away from me by the Government, but that even at the end of the Session there is no intimation as to when the Indian Budget statement will be made, or whether, under the operation of the new rule, I shall, on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, be permitted to raise the very important matters which are covered by the Motion which stands in my name. This is a matter affecting considerably over 200,000,000 of people—probably, as near as possible, 210,000,000—without counting the population of the Native States, and we are to be thrown again, not simply to the end of the. Session when the Benches are empty, but, by the operation of the new rules, we are to be precluded from really discusssing, even on that occasion, Indian grievances. When I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the new rule last Session, I had to refer to the fact that it could never have been intended to shut out the great mass of the Indian subjects of Her Majesty. When are they to come to Parliament with any statement of their grievances? When are they to be able to lay before the High Court of Parliament what they consider to be their just claims for redress? I would ask the Leaders on both sides of the House to consider the gravity of making India dumb Session after Session. When are the people of India to have the opportunity of making a Constitutional and temperate statement of their grievances? It is no use telling them that they ought to be peaceful and patient, and keep themselves within constitutional lines, if the Government take care that within the limits of the Constitution no opportunity is given them to submit their claims. I am in favour of a measure which will have the effect of getting rid of some

  147
  of the Members of the Secretary of State's Indian Council, for I am one of those who consider the whole of the Council useless, and desire to see it got rid of. I see no reason why the Indian Secretary any more than the Colonial Secretary should have a Council here, and I shall be glad to give whatever assistance I can to the Government in their endeavour to reduce the number of that Council, but the complaint is that with a very large matter to submit to the House, we are denied the opportunity which we have fairly gained, according to the Rules of the House; but, as I will not allow a Motion of mine to stand in the way of even a small economy, with these few words I will strike it off the Paper.
  MR. BAUMANN: I desire to ask whether the Government intend to proceed with the Superannuation Bill, and to lay the Treasury Minute on the Table of the House? The right hon. Gentleman has made no allusion to them, though a large number of people are interested in the subject.
  MR. S. RENDEL: The First Lord of the Treasury made no allusion to a measure in which he has often expressed an interest—namely, the Intermediate Education (Wales) Bill. The Bill was read a second time in May, and the Government then asked for time to prepare certain Amendments. They took seven weeks to prepare the Amendments, and though I do not desire to take this or any other opportunity for indulging in reproaches, must say I think that Welsh Members are justified in asking that some special arrangement shall be made to proceed with the Bill. There is practical unanimity among the Welsh Members save in regard to a few points which can be satisfactorily settled in a spirit of mutual compromise, and having regard to this fact I hope that if next Wednesday, when the Bill stands first on the Paper, is taken by the Government, some other opportunity of proceeding with it will be afforded. Wales has for a long time had held out to it by the Leaders of both Parties promises of intermediate education legislation. We very naturally expected this Session that at last something was going to be done. It would, however, seem that all the Government propose to do for Wales in the way of
  148
  legislation is to give it a Tithe Bill. That measure has not been read a second time, still the Government think they should include it in the vital measures to be passed this Session, while they shut out an Education Bill already in a very forward stage. Surely this giving a Tithe measure, and refusing an Intermediate Education Bill will be a most unhappy coincidence.
  MAJOR RASCH: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that he did not refer to the matter upon which I ventured to trouble the House just now, namely, the system of compensating for the slaughter of animals under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. If the right hon. Gentleman will only give us an assurance that the matter will be seriously considered by the Government during the Recess, we shall be quite satisfied.
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman just now in announcing the withdrawal of the Irish Drainage Bills, referred in almost pathetic tones to the action which had been taken on these Benches. He spoke like the good fairy who is supposed to scatter all sorts of blessings on Ireland, and we, I suppose, are the black magicians who are standing in the way of his beneficent operations. Well, we are quite prepared to take the responsibility. We have acted in the interest of the English and Scotch taxpayers, and not only that, but the Irish people also approve of our action. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has had placed before him the deliverances of the important bodies of public opinion in the districts affected by these Bills. He seems to talk as if the Barrow and the Shannon Bills are blessings which the Government desire to bestow on Ireland. Well, I am sorry that the Chief Secretary is not in his place, for I should have liked to ask him a question. In his absence I will ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Clare County Grand Jury, the Limerick Board of Fishery Conservators, the Limerick County Grand Jury, and the King's County Grand Jury, have pronounced in the most emphatic manner against these particular Bills? I will read to the House the deliverance of the King's County Grand Jury. It cannot be sup-

  149
  posed that it is a Nationalist Grand Jury. They say:—
  "That having heard the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the Shannon and Barrow Drainage Bills now before Parliament, we, the Grand Jury of the King's County, feel unable to recommend the said Bills to the favourable consideration of the cess-payers, seeing that those provisions will entail greatly increased taxation for what are, in our opinion, very doubtful and inadequate benefits; moreover, the proposed works have been adopted in opposition to the opinion of nearly all the experts examined by the Royal Commission on Irish Works."
  I want nothing more than that to justify the opposition I have taken to these Bills.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I desire to emphasize, in the strongest terms I can command, an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and to Her Majesty's Government, to afford some opportunity, during what little remains to us of the present Session, for a fuller and more general discussion of the affairs of India and its general administration than has hitherto been possible this year. Some, probably most, of the opposition that has been threatened to the India Council Bill of the Under Secretary of State has, I believe, really been due to a strong feeling on the part of a good many hon. Members that the affairs of India at large have not received from the House of Commons the attention they deserve. The effect of the new rule, that was passed last year in our amended rules of procedure, in regard to the yearly Debates on the Indian Budget, has been to preclude all general discussion of Indian affairs, and to admit therein nothing but Indian Finance. It is true that the chances of the ballot have occasionally afforded to individual Members the opportunity of raising Debates on some specific point relating to India, and those opportunities have been utilized by myself and other hon. Members to the utmost extent possible for us. But this opportunity is, of course, confined to those Members who are successful in this ballot, and it must be clear to the House that, in present circumstances, the possibility of discussing any important Indian question is of exceedingly rare occurrence, and is left absolutely to chance. What is wanted is, not these discussions on isolated topics,
  150
  but the opportunity for such a general discussion as that which formerly took place on the introduction of the Indian Budget. Similiar opportunities in regard to Home, and even Colonial affairs, are afforded in abundance in the Debates on the Estimates. But the House should remember that we have no discussion of Indian Estimates other than the Debate on the Indian Budget; and the solitary little opportunity we used to possess of raising such a discussion has been taken away by this new rule. Sir, I believe that the House at large is not at all aware of this remarkable, and, as I think, disastrous effect of the new rule. I know for certain that many hon. Members have not realized it, and I believe that the country would not approve of it. That effect is, however, very generally and very bitterly resented in India; it is attributed to the apathy of the House by those who are not aware that it is due to our rules of procedure. I would, therefore, most earnestly appeal to my right hon. Friend the First Lord, to consider whether some opportunity cannot be given us this year for such a discussion as we desire, and further, whether Her Majesty's Government cannot propose to this House some alteration of a rule which has produced results that are, in the opinion of the people of India, so objectionable in their character.
  SIR H.VIVIAN: I desire to add my earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, that he will in some way enable the Intermediate Education (Wales) Bill to be carried this Session. We are in so close an agreement with regard to the measure that a discussion of two hours will possibly fettle the question, and will give to Wales the great blessing of intermediate education.
  MR. SWETENHAM: I join with the last speaker in making an appeal to the Government on this subject. In consequence of the concessions that either have been made or are about to be made by the Government to the introducer of the Bill, the way has been paved to a concession on both sides, and I cannot help thinking that if an hour or two were given to us in this House we should be able to pass a Bill which would have a most bene-

  151
  ficial effect upon the prospective education of Wales.
  MR. BRYCE: I desire not only to support what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but also what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Sir R. Lethbridge) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) with regard to Indian questions. The grievance of which hon. Members complain arises from the practice of this House, and the only real remedy is to give such power of bringing forward measures according to the interest which is taken in them by hon. Members. I do not know whether the House realises the complete change which has taken place with reference to the legislation passed by private Members. Formerly the most useful legislation of this House was embodied in measures passed by private Members. This diminished under the operation of the half-past twelve o'clock rule. In the Parliament of 1880 to 1885 they passed a considerable number of these useful measures, among them being the Married Women's Property Bill. But under the present rules such measures could not possibly be passed. Such a Bill as the London Parochial Charities Bill, which was opposed by a small but active section of this House, could not be passed under the present rules. I brought forward a Resolution that hon. Members should be allowed to put their names to the Bills which they regarded as of most importance. The matter was discussed at some length, and the Government opposing the Motion, then made promises to consider whether or not it would be possible to introduce some rules in regard to private Members Bills, so that they might be brought on in the order of their importance, and to precede those measures in which a small number of Members were interested. The House will bear in mind that of private Members' legislation this Session there is hardly any, except the Intermediate Education (Wales) Bill, and the Technical Education Bill. These were Bills which, could they have been brought on at the proper time, that is, early in the Session, would certainly have been passed into law. Under the present system these Bills have little or no chance. I hope this question of the rules with
  152
  regard to private Members' Bills will be taken into serious consideration, and that a reform will be insisted upon.
  MR. J. C. STEVENSON: I cannot refrain from expressing the deep sense of disappointment felt by many people in the country, that their hopes with regard to a measure in which they are greatly interested should be extinguished—I refer to the Sunday Closing Bill. The Second Reading of that measure awakened hopes which are not to be realized. I have been unfortunate in not having found an opportunity to get the Bill into Committee. I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman for facilities, even suggesting Saturday sittings, but have not been able to obtain them. The people of this country attach the greatest importance to the Sunday Closing Bill, and they will be unable to understand how it is that the House cannot spare the small amount of time necessary to come to a decision upon it. Petitions have been presented in favour of the Bill from 117 Town Councils throughout the kingdom, including towns of from 20,000 to 50,000 population—Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Blackburn, and a number of others. Upwards of 400 Boards of Guardians have petitioned in favour of this Bill, besides which there have been numerous petitions from School Boards. I say the people of this country will not be able to understand how the House can disregard such an expression of opinion, or how they can pass the Second Reading and then disappoint the expectations which have been raised. If the Government take all the time of private Members in the middle of July, how can we possibly hope to carry these measures of private Members to the stage of full maturity at which they must be passed after a few hours' discussion? I really protest on behalf of private Members against this practice of taking private Members' Wednesdays in the middle of July, all the more because hon. Members who have a difficult public and private duty to discharge, should not be debarred from taking the opinion of the House upon the measures of which they have charge.
  MR. A. H. D. ACLAND: I am sure I may say a few words on the Technical Education Bill, the more especially as it is a quasi

  153
  Government Measure. This Bill was brought in in 1887, and read a second time on the 9th August. At that time the First Lord of the Treasury said it was a most urgent question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give grants to agricultural education in relief of the rates. Five thousand pounds have been given to agricultural education, but the question of technical education in the industrial districts still remains urgent. In 1888 the subject was mentioned in the Queen's Speech; in 1889 it was not mentioned at all. There have been conferences between Members on this and Members on the other side of the House with the view to coming to an agreement, and if they succeeded we might fairly hope to make progress with the Bill. I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will see his way to giving us some kind of encouragement that progress will be made with the Bill, and that it will even become law this Session. What we ask is that the Government's Amendments should be carefully considered, and we should rather take a part of what we want if we cannot manage to get the whole. Let us take what in principle was urged in 1887 for the great industrial districts—secondary education; let us take that if we can get nothing more. If we can get nothing for England in this matter, the Government will be placed in the position of having done nothing whatever for education in England during three years. They will have given Scotland technical education, and wholly or partially free education, and they will have given to Wales intermediate education and technical education; and if you cannot give this measure to England you will have left her untouched in regard to education for three years. That makes a fair consideration, and certainly if progress is made with this measure, we shall do our best not to make difficulties in Committee. The charge of obstruction made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1887 will not lie on this side of the House on the present occasion. We will remember that after all the Bill is only a Permissive Bill, and that there are great industrial centres of England earnestly waiting for it, and we will do the best we can to pass it.
  MR. DIXON: I rise for the purpose of ex-
  154
  pressing the great regret which I feel at the withdrawal of the Code—a regret which I know is shared by a great many Members in this House, and also by a great number of educationists in the country. I also wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the articles in the new Education Code which promote the institution of day training colleges. In the Amendments placed on the Paper I do not see any objection to these articles which have been accepted, I think I may say, universally. The suggestion I have to make is that the right hon. Gentleman should consult with hon. Members behind him on the subject, and afterwards that he should allow these minutes of the Education Department to be placed upon the Table of the House. I ask that not only because these articles form an extremely important part of the new Code, but also because it is one of those developments which would be of very slow growth. At Birmingham we are perfectly willing to take upon ourselves the burden of establishing a day training college, and in that way we shall afford the country the value of our experience. My impression is that it would be a wise thing on the part of the Government to make an experiment in this direction.
  SIR H. ROSCOE: I join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. The Technical Education Bill has been read a Second Time. We are now in Committee, and we believe that a very few hours would bring this matter to a successful issue. The question has been before the country for no less than three years; it is not a Party question, it is a matter which we all desire to see dealt with this Session. It is a subject in which great interest is taken in Manchester, and the Department has been memorialized in favour of the Bill as it stands. We have in Manchester a noble benefaction by the late Sir Joseph Whitworth; but it is standing idle because we cannot get power to apply the rates to the purposes of technical education. I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some hope that we shall be able to come to terms as regards the Amendments proposed by the Government, and that we shall be able to bring this matter to a successful issue in the course of the present Session.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to join in the appeal made on the other side of the House with regard to the Cattle Diseases Act. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to understand that the Scotch counties are very much interested in this, and we shall be very grateful to Her Majesty's Government if they will give the matter their careful consideration during the Recess.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I hope the Government will be able to meet the requests of Gentlemen on both sides of the House with regard to these three educational questions—the New Code, Intermediate Education in Wales, and Technical Education. It would be a thousand pities if the clause to which the hon. Member for Birmingham has called attention were dropped because there are certain other parts of the Code to which hon. Members object; and I trust there may be some means of making that part of the Code on which there is absolute unanimity become law this Session. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Tithe Rent Charge Bill, which will be opposed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and therefore it will be practically impossible to carry it this Session. Why, then, waste the time of the House upon it? Here are three questions on which there is something like unanimity, and which a few hours' each would dispose of? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to waste time on the Tithes Bill, and to allow these three educational measures to be passed this Session?
  MR. JAMES ELLIS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended to proceed with the Industrial Schools Bill?
  MR. W.H. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I desire to answer the numerous questions which have been put to me, and I shall be exceedingly sorry if I am unable to satisfy every hon. Member. The hon. Member for Northampton and my hon. Friend behind me called attention to the affairs of India, but, if my memory has not deceived me, there have been Indian discussions this Session of very considerable importance. As to the objection which the hon. Member takes to the Standing Order which prevents a discussion on questions of the latitude he raises on the Indian subject, I have
  156
  to point out that there is another side to the question. The Resolutions regarding the finances of India are intended to give an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon very grave questions of finance in India; and if it were the pleasure of the House to entertain a substantial Motion before the House goes into Committee upon the Indian Budget, the effect of such a proposal would be to postpone the supervision of the finances of India to an indefinite period of the evening, and probably prevent the discussion for which it was the intention of the Standing Order to provide. I must thank the hon. Member for withdrawing his opposition to the Bill, which, though a small, is a useful measure, and accept the intimation from; him as a contribution to the passing of the Bill. Sir, the Member for Peckham has asked our intention with regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners on Civil Service superannuations. It is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to give effect to these recommendations this Session. The Bill is already drafted and will shortly be laid before the House. With regard to the Intermediate Education (Wales) Bill, I think I have given evidence that I am most desirous that it should be passed into law this Session. If the Government had not displayed a desire to pass the Bill, it would have been obviously impossible that hon. Gentlemen could have advanced the Bill to its present stage. But we must meet each other fairly if the Bill is to be passed. We have indicated proposals which we considered to be necessary, and I trust hon. Gentlemen will confer with my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the County Council out of the House, as I think some hon. Gentlemen propose to do, with a view to arriving at a complete understanding on the matter, I believe it is possible, and if we arrive at an understanding, there would be no difficulty in passing the Bill after 12 o'clock. With regard to the Technical Education Bill, the Government are most desirous that a measure of that kind shall be passed. I think it is possible that the Amendments might be considered out of the House, and that we might find time to pass the measure. My hon. Friend (Major Rasch) has mentioned a question which the Government will certainly consider during the Recess.

  157
  But we are bound to take into consideration any circumstances such as the imposition of fresh burdens upon the Exchequer, however important the question may be. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen raised a question into which I do not think it desirable that I should follow him. We are not now discussing the rules and regulations of public business. The hon. Member might give the subject his consideration during the Recess, and when he returns, he would find to what extent hon. Members generally are disposed to give adhesion to the practical suggestions he may be able to make. The hon. Member for Shields referred to the Sunday Closing Bill. It is a measure around which rages a war which will certainly be prolonged and bitter, and I am afraid that it would take more than two Wednesdays to get the Bill into Committee. And as to Saturdays I very much doubt whether even the supporters of the measure would care to endeavour to pass on a Saturday a measure which would certainly be talked out. I hope the hon. Member will be more fortunate in getting an early position in next Session, but it is impossible for the House to pass it this Session. The hon. Member for Birmingham referred to the New Code, which we have abandoned for this Session. I am afraid, though I will not be positive, that it would hardly be possible to take one clause of the Code. I do not think there is any other subject with which it is necessary for me to deal.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think we are agreed that the right hon. Gentleman has made a good choice, considering the circumstances, in fixing upon the Technical Education Bill and the Intermediate Education Bill as the two measures with which progress shall be made. But I must be allowed to make one remark, and raise one word of protest as to the method in which it is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to advance these two Bills. The House cannot have failed to notice that these two Bills are in fact to be settled outside this House, and it will be apparent that a process of that kind places the Members in charge of the Bill practically at the mercy of the Government. I hope that the Government will not abuse their advantage.
  158
  Still the advantage exists, and I should like to give the House an illustration of it in connection with the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill. All of us who are interested in that Bill will remember that several hours were consumed, and, as the result proved, were wasted, in consequence of the attitude of the Government themselves. It was on account of the unfortunate Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has since, at discretion, withdrawn. I am not using the term "at discretion" in an ill-natured sense, but he was compelled to withdraw it by the discussion which took place, and the expression of opinion which came from Members sitting on his own side of the House. I want to point out to the House that if that Amendment had been brought forward by him in a private conference, he would not have been able to find out how strong the general opposition to it was. And there are other points in connection with Welsh Intermediate Eduction on which it is most desirable he should have the fullest opportunity of knowing the views held by the Welsh Members. If we cannot have a proper and legitimate opportunity—and the only legitimate opportunity of discussing measures of this kind is in the whole House—I have no doubt that my hon. Friends the Members for Wales will accept this arrangement as second best. I hope, however, that they will only accept it on the understanding that the Government do not use the opportunities they have got of preventing my hon. Friends from opening their mouths afterwards upon this most important subject.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (SIR W. HART DYKE,): I think it is only fair I should say one word, and offer a very mild protest against the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He rather led the House to infer that in consequence of the attitude of the Government, expressed through me, there was some delay in the passing of this Bill through the House. I venture to say that that is not so. We had a very short discussion indeed with reference to the question of the inclusion of Monmouth, but this is a far more important matter than the right hon. Gentleman thinks. However, the result of that discussion has been that I have

  159
  been able carefully to discuss the matter with my Colleagues, and to make what we consider to be large and considerable concessions, not only in the interests of this measure, but also in the interests of Welsh education. I should also like to make one statement of an explanatory character. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has suggested that some discussion should take place outside the walls of the House. I think it is always best to be open and above-board on these matters, and I believe the remark of my right hon. Friend merely results from this, that I have received an invitation to meet all the hon. Members for Wales on both sides of the House, and to discuss this matter. I will only say further that I shall do my utmost to urge my right hon. Friend to give as much time as is at the disposal of the Government to pass this measure into law, and I would also observe that if the Welsh Members could meet and come to some agreement as to the future of the measure, it might easily be passed through this House even at a late hour of the night.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid: He had heard with satisfaction the announcement of the President of the Board of Trade that he would bring in early next week the Bill he had promised to enable the Board of Trade to enforce the adoption of automatic brakes, and other appliances and arrangements indispensable for the safety of railway working. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not only bring in but pass the Bill into law this Session. After the recent ghastly demonstration of its necessity he could not imagine that it would meet with any opposition in any quarter of the House, or that any of those specially interested in railways would raise objections to a reasonably drawn Bill such as was indispensable to make the Board of Trade effective as the guardian of public safety.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business have priority on Wednesday; that, unless the House otherwise order, the House shall meet on Friday, at Three of the clock; and that Standing Order 11 be suspended, and the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the other days of the week."

  IRISH SOCIETY AND CITY COMPANIES (IRISH ESTATES).
  Select Committee on Irish Society and City Companies (Irish Estates) nominated of Mr. John Morley, Sir William Marriott, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Lawson, Lord Elcho, Sir John Ellis, Colonel Lawrie, Mr. Lea, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Blane, and Mr. Sexton.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

  BANN DRAINAGE BILL. (No. 25.)
  SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Plunket, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pinkerton, and Mr. T. W. Russell be Members of the Select Committee on the Bann Drainage Bill."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  MR. SEXTON: Since I gave notice with respect to the nomination of the Committee, I understand that the Committee of Selection have exercised their functions and corrected the gross and offensive inequality of which I complained in the first nomination. As there will be three Irish Conservatives and three Irish Nationalists on the Committee, I think that is a proper and fair distribution, and will not oppose the Motion.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): With regard to my attitude in this matter, I may say that the Committee was struck in the usual way. The House appointed five and the Committee of Selection four Members. Only two Members were appointed from this side of the House, and I do not think the House will consider that is an undue proportion.
  Question put, and agreed to.

CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION (EXPENSES).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, "That it is expedient, to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the prosecution in Scotland or Ireland of a misdemeanour under

161
any Act of the present Session for the better Prevention of Cruelty to Children."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 187) AND LOCAL GOVERN- MENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS (RE-COMMITTED) BILL (No. 188).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 19.
MR. W. A. HUNTER: I beg leave to move to report Progress, in order that the Lord Advocate may make a statement to the House on this clause.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I am indebted to the hon. Member opposite. I have something to say with regard to the clause which is under the consideration of the Committee, and I understand the hon. Gentleman to take this course in order to expedite that statement. Sir, the Committee divided on a question arising out of the proposal that £30,000 should, during the year ending the 31st of March, 1889, be devoted to the relief of local taxation in the Highlands. The proposal of the Government has been opposed on several grounds. I intimated that we had it in view to reconsider the proposal, and that it might be found that not only the defects of the distribution might be rectified, but also that possibly the total amount might be found more than adequate for redressing defects in distribution of the money generally. The Government have considered the question, and have come to this conclusion. It is generally desired that a certain bonus or premium should be given to those parts of the country injuriously affected by the substitution of excise duties for Parliamentary grants. It is the case as will be found if these counties are examined, that there is a marked difference between the fortune of the Highland counties and that of the other counties in Scotland taken a a whole in that matter of the
162
substitution of the Excise duties for the Imperial grants. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen stated that the surplus was over £8,000, which was substantially accurate, but it can hardly be supposed that that is precisely accurate, and, accordingly, it may be well that there should be a round sum allotted to rectify that deficiency. The Government; therefore, propose that £10,000 should be given for that purpose, but only in years after that now current, for it is hardly possible to interfere with the year dealt with in the clause under discussion, which has been advanced into to the extent of about a quarter. That proposal, therefore, does not apply to the clause under discussion, but to subsequent years, and will constitute the permanent arrangement. The Committee will remember that out of the £30,000 there was provided by the scheme, which has been in operation since last year, not merely a relief to local taxation generally, but also a favour conferred on certain schools in this district which were in a state of complete embarrassment, amounting almost to a threat of stoppage. I may be asked what is to become of these schools. I am happy to say my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen his way to provide for that portion of the funds. It is a considerable sum, amounting to a few thousand pounds. I have, therefore, been able to clear that difficulty out of the way. The proposals the Government make, to repeat them for the sake of clearness, are that they recommend that a sum of £10,000 should be given instead of £30,000 for the relief of local taxation in those counties, which should be distributed through the County Council of each county, in proportion to the sum by which the amount payable to such Council out of the duties on licenses falls short of the existing grant at present paid to such counties. That, I hope, will meet the various difficulties stated by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the last discussion. I may point out several things which that proposal accomplishes. It reduces I the sum which was thought in some cases, and I think successfully pointed out, to be more than adequate to meet the purposes in question: It clears away what was a subject of comment—namely, the somewhat anomalous discretion placed

163
in the hands of the Minister as to the distribution of so considerable a sum. The distribution will now take place, not according to any scheme to be laid upon the Table of this House afterwards, but according to this rule which we propose to embody in the section. The duty of the Secretary for Scotland will be merely to work out the calculations so as to find out what are the sums to be paid in accordance with this proportion. It has also been urged that the actual imminent distress of this particular district received no recognition from Imperial funds. The real case of imminent danger—that of the stoppage of the ordinary establishments of education—will now be met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposing a grant in aid for that specific purpose. I do not propose to represent that as aid to poverty; it is merely an aid to a specific case which has occurred. I hope these proposals will meet the views of hon. Gentlemen. They are directed with a complete desire to meet and remove the various objections stated in the course of the last discussion. As to the clause immediately under consideration, I put it to the good sense of hon. Gentlemen whether the Government can be expected during a year actually current to withdraw money which I have not the least doubt has been reckoned on in the financial calculations of these bodies. Accordingly, on that clause I do not propose to make any alteration, but I thought it right the Committee should possess the views of the Government with regard to the permanent arrangement in advance.
DR. CAMERON: So far as the permanent arrangement is concerned, every one will, I think, have heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the clause before us which provides for the temporary arrangement, I should like to know whether the state of things which last year almost brought the educational machinery of the Highlands to a standstill is to be continued, or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will provide for the wants of the Highlands this year.
MR. J. H. B. ROBERTSON: It is not to be done this year.
DR. CAMERON: Then I fear we shall simply have a repetition of what was done last year. It must not for one
164
moment be understood that I waive my objection, because in the permanent arrangement the discretion will remain with the Minister and not with the House.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I should be the last to object to the compensation proposed to be given to the poorer districts in respect of the deficiency of the license duties as compared with the Parliamentary grants. The only thing is, I think the Government may have been somewhat hard on their friends. My objection still remains to the principle. We say that the sum, whether it be £30,000 or £10,000, ought to come not out of the Scotch Lowland counties, but out of the Imperial Exchequer. As to the Amendment which I have on the Paper, I propose to move it in order to secure an explanation of the principles on which the distribution will take place this year.
MR. HUNTER: I am glad the Government have given an indication of yielding to the Vote which was taken the other night. I can hardly see how they could have done otherwise seeing that 51 Scotch Members went into the Lobby against them, and only seven unofficial Members for Scotland supported them. If they desired to pay the slightest attention to the opinion of Scotland they could have taken no other step. Although it is a highly objectionable proceeding that this £30,000 should be wasted this year, as last I hope it will be found possible to secure the remission of fees up to the Fifth Standard. I think there will be sufficient money for that purpose, and accordingly I should be willing for the first sub-section of the clause to go through without debate. But upon the second and third sub-sections we must raise the whole question. The Lord Advocate must remember that the Local Authorities in Scotland cannot reasonably expect any thing this year, for when the money was distributed to them last year the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly stated that it was not to be understood that the grant would be repeated another year. The authorities had in fact full warning that other arrangements might be made. Will the right hon. Gentleman not consent to an Amendment to Sub-section 1, giving the £30,000, and providing for its distribution in the

165
Highlands according to a scheme which he will undertake to bring before the House, or submit to a Committee of Scotch Members? If the distribution were undertaken in that fashion it would give great satisfaction to the House. The intention of the Government is practically to repeal Section 69 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872—the section which authorizes the parent to go to the Parochial Boards and obtain the payment of fees. Now, although no fees are to be charged in the three lower standards—and consequently there will be no necessity in those standards for application to be made to the Parochial Boards—yet the necessity will still remain in the higher standards, and I trust the Lord Advocate will not lose sight of that point. There is another section which is hardly consistent with the proposal of the Government, and that is the one which provides that the School Board shall fix the fees to be paid for attendance. I would suggest the substitution of the words—"The School Board may, if they think fit, fix the fees." That will enable us to overcome some difficulties in connection with the working of the scheme.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sure that hon. Members from Scotland on both sides of the House will recognize that the Government have made a most substantial improvement in the Bill, and I would advise my hon. Friends to act upon the well known proverb and not look a gift horse in the mouth. They should at all events accept the principal parts of the concession which the Government offer. We have suffered throughout from the disadvantage in this matter of having to discuss the general question of a permanent arrangement on a clause which deals only with an arrangement for the present year. With regard to the £30,000 to be distributed this year, I quite admit there might be considerable difficulty in either withdrawing or diminishing that sum. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the wish expressed by my hon. Friend behind me and let us have a little fuller knowledge of the manner in which the distribution will be made, I think it would improve the state of our feelings towards this particular sub-section. With regard to the
166
following sub-section, I hope we may be able to make out a case for an additional sum for the purpose of paying the fees when we come to consider it. The arrangement proposed for the future is, I think, a most satisfactory one—that is to say, that there shall be £10,000 instead of the £30,000, which was proposed to be allotted to these counties in relief of local taxation, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make a special grant to avoid a repetition of the deadlock which has in some cases occurred in educational matters. I wish to make a further observation lest we should be held to have committed ourselves to a principle in which many of us do not believe. This sum of £10,000 is to be taken as representing the loss which these counties will suffer by the substitution of the local License Duties for the grants which hitherto have been made. Now there is a strong feeling among us, and I think in Scotland also, against handing over the License Duties to localities at all. But I will merely say this, let it be understood that though we acquiesce in the standard by which this amount is arrived at we must not be held as consenting parties to this particular arrangement, though the sum would not be affected if the different view we take were adopted. I do not think it is necessary to detain the Committee by discussing the matter any further. We are very sensible of the fact that Scotch Members have been able to make such an impression on the Government as to induce them to improve their scheme in this way. I cannot help saying that, although it arouses in us a feeling of gratitude for what we have received, and a desire to avoid an undue prolongation of debate, yet we cannot but be influenced by this experience of the result of our pertinacity.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Without dwelling on the warning these last words seemed to convey, I will proceed to deal with the points mentioned. In the first place I need hardly say that, in assenting to this proposal, we do not hold the right hon. Gentleman as committed to the principle, this is merely the question of amount. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Hunter) has pointed out that there is some clause in the existing Education Act which seems to be in conflict with this system, and I

167
may say we have not lost sight of this; and upon the Notice Paper for Tuesday, although by some accident it seems to have been omitted to-day, we had an Amendment dealing with the subject. I will see that the proposal is replaced. I do not know whether it will coincide with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, but we will consider it in connection with what he has said. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy asks for some information as to the distribution of the grant. Now, the sum to be dealt with was £30,000. Of this £2,000 was set aside by a Member of the Scotch Education Department, which has been on the Table of the House all the Session, for educational purposes, and the remainder was disposed of by dividing the parishes into four classes according to the proportion of valuation to population, and upon this scale the distribution took place at such a rate that the larger portion fell to the same impoverished parishes. Shortly stated this was the method of distribution, and if anomalies have occurred as, no doubt, they have, I do not think that now we are so well on in the financial year, it is expedient to change the arrangements which I do not say we should permanently adhere to.
MR. CHILDERS: Will this contribution or vote in aid to which the right hon. Gentleman says the Chancellor of the Exchequer has assented, be placed on the Estimates, or will it be expressly provided for in the Act?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There will be nothing about it in the Act; it will be voted by Parliament.
MR. LYELL: We are not all agreed as to the effect of the withdrawal of £30,000 from the Highlands and Islands. It certainly makes a serious difference to the Highland parishes. No doubt a good deal of the £30,000 was shamefully wasted in the past, and I think it might have been allocated in a more reasonable manner to give relief where it ought to fall. I notice that the Lord Advocate in his reply said the manner of allocating this £10,000 would be reconsidered, but whatever happens there must be a very serious diminution in the contributions from the common source towards the Highlands and
168
Islands. My objection the other day in regard to the contribution of £30,000 was that, as it was to relieve special pressure it should come from Imperial funds.
THE CHAIRMAN: The whole of this discussion is somewhat irregular on a motion to report Progress. It may be convenient to the Committee that the new intentions of the Government should be stated and explained, but it would be irregular to raise any argument now which may be entered upon at the proper time.
MR. C. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: Before this Motion is withdrawn I should just like to say that though I am bound to admit that after the result of the Division, the Government could not very well come to any other conclusion, it will cause much dissatisfaction in the Highlands. When a year ago this grant was agreed to with general approval it was stated that the special state of affairs in the Highlands and Islands would need the vote annually. The circumstances are the same as last year, and yet we find a great proportion of the Scottish Members opposing the continuation of this grant. We are much obliged for the verbal sympathy generally displayed towards us, though I must say that sympathy seems to die away when it comes to giving it practical effect. I must warn the Lord Advocate that the same objections that were raised to the £30,000 will be raised to the £10,000, and whatever adjustment he proposes to make, let him stick to the decision, and not let it be affected by objections continually cropping up. As I said before, I am sorry the Government have come to this conclusion.
DR. CLARK: Perhaps if we throw a little light on the matter, my hon. Friend will not feel so ill disposed towards this alteration. As I understand it the County Councils of certain counties will receive for distribution a sum equal to what they would receive from the License Duties in proportion to other counties. So those counties which will lose by the change will have the loss made up. Further, I understand the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in melting the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a special grant will be given from Imperial sources for the alleviation of the educational distress

169
in special counties, such as Invernessshire and Rossshire and others, thus recognising a principle that has long been applied to Ireland. I cannot see then that there is just cause of complaint. I do not see that this can be objected to by any Lowland Member.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: We provide that £10,000 is to be devoted to making good the loss that the counties would suffer by the substitution of the Excise Duties for the grants given by Parliament. The result of our taking away the £30,000 would be but for the interposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the abolition of certain schools in the distressed districts; but here the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the rescue to the extent of relieving these schools.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I will move the Amendment standing in my name for the sake of obtaining some information as to the actual mode of distributing the £30,000. Now, that is no inconsiderable sum, and I agree in the principle enunciated by the Lord Advocate that the largest proportion should go to the poorest parishes. But I am bound to say the very reverse of that principle seems to have been followed by the Secretary for Scotland. Rather it seems that the rule has been followed "To him that hath shall be given," etc. When I look at the amounts given to the richer and the poorer parishes, I am astonished at the divergence from the principle laid down by the Lord Advocate, and I can in no way reconcile the result with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I take two parishes in Argyleshire of which I confess I have never before heard, Knapdale North and Knapdale South. Knapdale North seems to be a poor parish with a small rental and a large assessment for the poor. The rental is £4,326, the assessment £ 1,307. Knapdale South has a rental of £10,271, and an assessment of £700; yet Knapdale North, the poorer parish, gets from the £30,000 a sum of £59, and the richer parish of Knapdale South with an assessment of £700 as against£1,307,gets more than three times the amount £190. When I make other comparisons I find similar anomalies. For instance the excessively poor parish of North Uist in the Western Islands, with a
170
5s. 8d. poor rate, only gets £308. Nesting, in Shetland, with a poor rate of 7s. 5d. in the £1, only gets £227. There are several other very poor parishes in the constituency of my hon. Friend (Mr. Lyell) where the rates are very high, 4s. 7d., 4s. 1d., 4s. 6d., 5s. 3d., and 5s. 5d., yet these get a very small contribution from this £30,000. But I think the best illustration is the two Knapdales, and I should be glad if the Lord Advocate could explain how it is that the poorer parish with the higher assessment gets less than the other. I would add, there is yet time to correct these anomalies for the current year.
Amendment proposed, line 12, leave out from "Scotland" to end of Subsection 1.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I really must make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen. It is quite obvious that I am not in a pssition to stand cross-examination on all these particulars, and it is not reasonable to expect it. The hon. Gentleman prefaced his observations by saying that he knew nothing about the Knapdales, and that is rather an unfavourable introduction to a discussion. Considering that these provisions are of a temporary character for the year now running out, I will ask the Committee to consider if we shall be profitable spending our time in going into these cases? We quite admit there may be anomalies in the system which it is desirable to alter.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: This is a remarkable illustration of the evil of which we have often complained of not having the Secretary for Scotland in this House. I should have thought the distribution of this £30,000 a most important matter. True, it is not the function of the Lord Advocate to know all about it, but it is unfortunate that we should be unable to get any information. I admit I have no knowledge of the Knapdales, but these figures present themselves in the statement put before us, and I take them as illustrating the anomalies that run throughout the whole of the statement. Although I do not want to press my Amendment further, I do hope the Government will reconsider their deter-

171
mination not to make any change for the current year in a system that on the face of it seems unfair and extraordinary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I must apologize to the right hon. Gentleman for not having heard his explanation, and so I do not know to what extent it meets the Amendment of which I have given notice. If it does meet it, I will not move the Amendment.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, I think the hon. Gentleman will find that my statement removes all necessity for his Amendment. It is a temporary arrangement at present; but at the end of the year a system will be introduced that will meet the point he raises.
MR. HUNTER: I now beg to move the omission of Sub-section 2; and I do so because, if for no other reason, the discussion of the question at this stage will save much time on the later clauses. But this is really the proper time to discuss the question of grants for roads, and I would ask the attention of the President of the Local Government Board as well as that of the Lord Advocate. As I read the sub-section, it provides for the contribution of a sum of £70,000 towards the maintenance of roads, this sum being made up of two parts—the old grant of £35,000, which is an Imperial grant to be withdrawn in the future, and £35,000, which is new. Now, I wish to point out that this charge of £35,000 on the Probate Duty is one that should fall upon the Imperial Exchequer. The next clause provides £21,000 for the same purpose. Thus, during the current financial year, in order that the Government may deprive themselves of funds they have available for the purpose of relieving the payment of school fees, in order that they may make themselves impecunious and unable to remove the fees on the five standards, they actually take £56,000 out, which ought to be paid by the Imperial Exchequer, and so during the current year Scotland will not get her eleven-twentieths. On this ground alone, I think the Government should not resist the Motion to reduce the road grant by £35,000. But I pass from that. I do not intend to trouble the Committee at any length, because the main issue we decided on Tuesday was
172
whether the Government ought to extend relief of fees to Standards Four and Five. Now, I claim that the Vote at which we arrived on Tuesday was not merely the special case of the Highlands, but a Vote on the principle, because my speech directly challenged the Government on the principle, and this was for the purpose of gaining time in the later stages of the Bill. Therefore, I may fairly appeal to the Lord Advocate that he now has authentic information as to the views of Scotch Members on the subject. He finds my Amendment was supported by 51 Scotch Members, while only 10 voted with the Government, and all the efforts of the whips could only secure for the Government a majority of 13. It is evident, therefore, that the House has considerable sympathy with our view. But I would point out to English Members what a monstrous thing it is that by their intervention they should subvert the Vote of Scotch Members on this question. You have had four-fifths of the Probate Duty, you have had your million where we have had our £100,000, and you have done with it what you thought fit. I do not object. I do not quarrel with your disposition of the amount, but this sum of £250,000 is the peculiar property of Scotland, and it is most unfair that 80 English Members should come down here and say, that although the people of Scotland, by more than five to one of their Representatives, wish to use this money for the relief of school fees, yet we shall insist on interfering with the people of Scotland in the distribution of their own money, and shall compel then to divert it from a useful and valuable object to an object of no value whatever. In fact the whole of our case rests on the proposition that the distribution of the money on the roads is throwing the money away; you might as well throw the money into the gutter. On a matter purely affecting Scotch interests, not affecting the English people in any shape or form, in dealing with money that belongs to us alone, are we to be told that the money is to be distributed not according to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland, but according to the decision of a casual majority of English members, who do not even attend our discussions? If the Government are logical they will make a

173
similar concession in regard to this clause as has been made in regard to the Highlands. Now what is the position in regard to roads? Up to 1881–2, the disturnpiked roads of Scotland managed to get along without the assistance of any Imperial grant. There was never a demand made by Scotland for Imperial assistance on this account, but legislation having then been passed in the interests of English county Members, making a grant from the Imperial Exchequer in aid of roads in English counties, it was thought necessary, for the sake of consistency, that a grant should be similarly made in the case of Scotch roads. In 1882–3 the amount granted was £12,000, in 1884 it was £33,000; the last return shows it was £34,000, and now for the first time we have the proposal that the grant shall be doubled. But why? We have never heard any reason, not a shadow of a reason has been given why on earth disturnpiked roads should be singled out for this peculiar consideration. I have heard no reason, and I can imagine none; but I can tell the Members of this Committee that in Scotland there is a very strong feeling against the injustice, the iniquity—I may say the shamefulness—of this proposed Government grant. The Convention of Royal Scotch Burghs have sent petitions to the House against the iniquitous distribution of the grant by which £60,000 goes to the counties, and less than £10,000 to burghs. Now, I ask the Committee to look at this subject from a practical point of view. What good does this £35,000 do for the roads? Taking the average for Scotland, this £35,000 represents as nearly as possible three-eighths of a penny in the £ to occupiers in counties, and one-twentieth of a penny in the £ to occupiers in burghs. That is the entire amount of relief the Government propose to give. What is the largest class in the counties? It is the agricultural labourers and workmen. I do not think it would be unfair to say that £6 is a very high average of the rent paid by the labourers in the Scotch counties. Under your scheme of relief, a labourer will get the munificent sum of 2¼d. per annum. A small farm paying £40 a year will get 1s. 3d. a year. The richer men will get a somewhat slightly larger sum. It would be an
174
enormous advantage to the small farmers, agricultural labourers, and workmen in the counties if there was free education in Standards IV. and V.; because I cannot put the charge per annum for a child in Standard IV. or V. at less than 5s. A parent having three children in the higher standards would, under my proposal, receive relief to the extent of 15s. Under your scheme a labourer in the country would get 2¼d., but the tenant in a town with a house rented at £20 would only get ½d. a year. Apart altogether from the question of free education in the Fourth and Fifth Standards, I shall oppose the grant because I regard it as a bad and unreasonable grant; but when you are putting in competition, with this mode of wasting £35,000, the giving of free education in the Fourth and Fifth Standards, you know already what the opinion of the people of Scotland is.
Amendment proposed, Clause 19, page 10, line 15, leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Hunter.)
Question proposed, "That Sub section (2) stand part of the Clause."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. RITCHIE,): If it had not been for the direct appeal made to me by the hon. Gentleman I should have been almost afraid to interpose in this Debate in case it might be supposed I wanted to bring some English ideas to the discussion of Scotch business. With reference to the additional allowances, it was perfectly well understood at the time they were made that they were made in anticipation of the passing of the Local Government Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been for many years past a very urgent demand made from all parts of the House for more relief than previously to local taxation by means of grants from the Imperial Exchequer. It was because the Government had in contemplation a Local Government Bill in which they intended to propose considerable relief to local taxation, that they desired, being unable to pass the Bill two years ago, to anticipate the passing of that Bill by some measure of that relief. It was so explained at the time, and what was done in reference to Scotland was also done

175
in reference to England, and, therefore, if there be any complaint as to this grant in reference to Scotland, the same complaint may properly be made with reference to England. The hon. Gentleman made some strong remarks upon the fact that we were proposing to continue this additional relief to the ratepayer, notwithstanding the fact that in a Division which took place the other night, a majority of Scotch Members were in favour of disposing of the money in some other way. We felt we were at liberty to consider the practically unanimous wish of the Scotch Members so far as the balance of the Probate Duty was concerned, after having made provision for a continuance of all those grants which had been previously paid; but there is a great difference between disposing of money which the ratepayers have never received, and taking out of their pockets money which they have received previously. While admitting the wishes of the Scotch Members with reference to the additional sums to come into their pockets, we declined to take away from the ratepayers whom we thought were proper recipients of a portion of this money, money they had previously received, and in that I think we shall be supported by the ratepayers. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask why should roads have been singled out for double grant; and then he said considerably less was received by burghs than counties. That is the case in England, and perhaps to a greater degree than in Scotland. What has been recognized by the boroughs in England is what I hope will also be recognized by the burghs in Scotland, and that is that the roads in the counties are very largely maintained for the benefit of the burghs. The boroughs in England have willingly assented to the roads in the county having a larger proportion of the grant from the Government than has been received by the boroughs. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the smallness of the relief which will be received by small farmers and labourers. I dare say that, as ratepayers, small farmers and labourers will not receive a very large sum, but then hon. Gentlemen must remember that these are just the people who will receive the largest relief by the proposal we have made in connection with education. We do not think it is at all a good argument that because
176
they do not receive large relief as ratepayers the other ratepayers should be deprived of all advantage. Therefore, I regret we cannot accede to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. HUNTER: I will withdraw the Amendment in order to propose another. I see that the effect of carrying an Amendment in the form of this one would be that the whole sum of £70,000 would disappear, and unless £35,000 were otherwise provided—for instance, out of the Estimates, over which I have no control—there would be nothing at all left for the roads. My intention is not to take the £70,000 but £35,000.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HUNTER: I now beg to move to insert after "thirty-first day of March," the words "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven." That is the last period before any change was made. The change in the following year was made surreptitiously. We first heard of it in September last year, and we gave notice we would oppose it.
Amendment proposed, Clause 19, page 10, line 11, leave out all the words after "March" to end of section, in order to insert "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven."—(Mr. Hunter.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. ESSLEMONT: I have been desirous that in arguing this point we should not waste our strength upon a Debate as to the sources from which the money comes, but when the President of the Local Government Board tells us that the Government have a right to look after the distribution of this £56,000 or £35,000, or any other sum which is applied to the rates, I want to know what he really means? Does he mean to say that Scotland has got more than Scotland's fair share of this money? If not, I want to know how he can say that the Scottish people shall not apply their own share of the grant to the purpose they think best? How is it that the President of the Local Government Board knows so much better than the Representatives of the constituencies of Scotland how the money should be applied? What we are con-

177
tending for is the abolition of school fees in all the five standards. The Government are willing to abolish school fees in all the five standards provided they have money enough to do it. They admit that in extending the abolition of the fees to three out of the five standards, they are conferring a boon upon Scotland, and we agree with them. The President of the Local Government Board contends that in their proposals the Government have the Members with them who represent the Scottish ratepayers in this House. If by a majority of votes the Scottish Members decide that they would rather devote this money to the freeing of education in the Fourth and Fifth Standards in preference to relieving the road rates, will the Government abide by that decision? That is a fair issue. As a county Member, I affirm that the people would rather free the education in all the standards than take this money for the roads. If that is the opinion of the Scottish Representatives, what reason can there be for the Government refusing this concession?
MR. THORBURN): I most heartily approve of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have taken some considerable trouble to ascertain the opinion of my own constituents, and I can say that every man, no matter to what Party he belongs, approves of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. I most earnestly ask the Government to give effect to what is really the wish of the great majority of the people. I feel that in doing so I am urging the Government to do what is in their own interest, and what will be looked upon with gratitude by the people of Scotland.
MR. CHILDERS: I should like to say a few words upon this subject, having some historical interest in it. I do not think the facts of the case have been fully explained by the President of the Local Government Board. There was for many years a persistent agitation, headed by Sir Massey Lopes, on behalf of the country gentlemen of England seeking relief from local taxation. It was strongly urged that as it was impossible to carry a Local Government Bill, at the same time grants should be made by the Treasury at once in reduction of local burdens. That view was carried in the teeth of the Government of the day, who were anxious to
178
do the two things together. What was the result of the decision? It was that the Government found themselves constrained to propose a plan under which English road authorities would have a considerable subvention out of the public money. The suggestion was never even made as to Scotland, and it was only afterwards, when it became necessary for the Government to give effect to the view taken by Parliament at the time, that it was urged that the same must be done for Scotland that was done for England. What is the position now? The House has agreed to certain measures of relief to Scotland and England alike in connection with the establishment of Local Government. Surely Scotch Members have a right to say, "Let us have what is given to Scotland in our own way and for own purposes, and not necessarily in the same way as England." I am persuaded the Government will listen to the voice of the Scotch Members, and let the aid to Scotch local expenditure—which all are agreed should be equally given—be given to England in the way England wishes, and to Scotland in the way the Scotch people wish.
MR. BARCLAY: I trust the Government will accept the compromise suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, which I understand to be that the subvention to the rates in Scotland should be the amount given some few years ago. I have the honour to represent a large county in Scotland, but I confess I never heard anyone demand any subvention in respect of the roads. The people would greatly prefer that this £35,000 should be applied in the reduction of school fees than in the reduction of the road rate. Surely, it would conduce very much to an economy of time if the Government could make up their minds to accept this compromise. By doing so they would establish a claim to the lasting gratitude of the people of Scotland. In the end this will have to be done; in fact, I am persuaded their present proposals will not last much beyond the next General Election. The people of Scotland have made up their minds to seize this opportunity for obtaining free education, and the Government would gratify the people by distributing this money so as to attain this object.
MR. BUCHANAN: I desire to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I also wish to confirm what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) with regard to the history of this grant. I may perhaps add that as soon as the double grant was proposed it was opposed by several Scotch Members. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward the Probate Duty Bill last year the right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated that the arrangement then made was a provisional one, and that all the items of the distribution of the grant would be subject to revision this year when the Local Government Bill was brought forward. We therefore claim that the whole of the money given as part of the Probate Duty grant to Scotland ought to be subject to review on this occasion, and that in the distribution of the money the Government should endeavour to accede to the wishes of the Scotch Members.
MR. CALDWELL: I quite agree with what bas been said in regard to this grant. It was not a grant ever desired by the people of Scotland. In 1881 it was proposed for England, and Scotland only got it because England wished it. Then in September, 1887, the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a supplementary grant, increasing the amount from £35,000 to £70,000. The Road Trustees in Scotland never made the slightest application for the doubling of the grant, and they were astonished when they received it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was giving an extra £250,000 to the roads in England, and he felt it was necessary to put Scotland on an equal footing with this. He therefore put down £35,000 for Scotland; and to Ireland he gave £50,000 for other purposes. With regard to the distribution of the money, it is important to observe that in Scotland the total annual valuation is £23,000,000, one-half of which is in the counties. When we came to distribute the £70,000 between burghs and counties we found the most extraordinary variations; the counties got £60,000 and the burghs £10,000. If, therefore, we look at the valuation, we find that the burgh ratepayers, instead of getting half the £35,000, only
180
get £10,000; and the county ratepayers, who pay on so much lower a valuation, get six times that amount, or £60,000. Then, again, look at the matter in regard to relief from taxation. Do we not find that taxation presses heaviest in burghs? I say, then, it is a most unfair way to distribute Scotch money. It was all very well when the money came out of Imperial funds, for then Scotch Members did not look particularly into the allocation of it, and any year the Vote on the Estimates was open to revision. But under this Bill we are, as it were, going to stereotype the sum for ever; and, therefore, it is of essential importance that we should exercise our judgment as Scotch Members and subject the application of this money to the most scrutinizing test. We all know why these things are done, why £10,000 only goes to burghs and six times that amount to counties, and the Scotch people understand it. Of the Scotch supporters of the Government opposite eight are Representatives of counties, and, of course, the money goes to their constituents; but, on the other hand, the great majority of Scotch burgh Members sit on this side. It is a notable thing, however, to find that at least three county Members have risen superior to the mere interest of their own ratepayers, and have expressed a desire for an equitable division between counties and burghs. I do hope that the Lord Advocate—himself a county Member—and other county Members on the other side, will follow the example and boldly say they disclaim all personal advantages and are content to throw in their lot with the rest of the Scotch ratepayers.
MR. BRYCE: Before we go to a Division, which I hope may not be necessary, but that the Government will yield at once, there is one point to which I should like to call attention, and it is a very strong reason for increasing the sum available for educational purposes, and in relation to the adjustment of the exemption from fees as between the higher and lower standards. Hon. Members may have seen the statement circulated on high educational authority that the plan of the Government in applying relief to the lower standards only is open to very serious educational objections. It will tend, up to a certain

181
point, to diminish the disposition to keep children at school for the higher standards. It must be admitted that there are strong arguments against remitting the fees on higher standards in preference to the lower standards, where attendance is compulsory. Surely both these considerations point to the conclusion that it is not worth while doing these things by halves. If you are going to make these educational grants, make them equally so that they may really be an advantage to education, not creating an indisposition on the part of parents to complete the education of their children. I think we must all feel that the proposal of the Government, if carried, can only be a temporary one. Let the Government do a graceful thing, yield to the wishes of the majority of Scotch Members, and gain the credit of the concession.
MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I hope the Government are convinced that the opinion of the Scotch Members is almost unanimous, and will be content to give way. As has been said by more than one speaker—if the Government do not give way now, they will probably have to do so later. I may say, in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) on the incidence of relief to fees in the higher and lower standards, that if he looks at the Amendment, of which I have given Notice—and which, of course, I do not propose now to discuss—he will see that it does not apply to all standards, but to those which are compulsory only. I would say in regard to the subject-matter of the Amendment that the burghs are thoroughly dissatisfied with the way in which the vote for the roads is applied, and think it would be much better to allocate the sums entirely to the relief of compulsory education.
SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: It is significant that not a single Scotch Member from either side has supported the proposal of the Government. I would point out, as an educationalist, what would be the effect if the Government would agree to the unanimously expressed wish of Scotch Members. At the present moment in the higher standards which we are not, according to the view of the
182
Government to render free, you have to provide £161,000 in fees. The Government cannot halt half-way. If they are going to make this experiment in Scotland, they must make all education free, and by the present proposal they have the opportunity of saving considerable expenditure hereafter. In the £40,000 they have already a contribution towards this £161,000. The Scotch Members ask that this £35,000 of Scotch money should be added, making £75,000, or not far from half the fees required for the higher standards. Why do not the Government jump at this offer, because they must see that if the experiment of freeing the lower standards is made, all education will eventually have to be made free? Educationists would rather be without the aid of the Government in the lower standards if the higher standards are to be sacrificed in favour of this grant for roads.
DR. CLARK: I think the Government might very well accept the offered compromise. I should prefer that the whole sum of £70,000 should be diverted to education, but the compromise would put us in the position in which, we were two years ago. I can plead for the Islands, inasmuch as the road grant is an advantage to those who have to pay road money and yet have no roads. Most of their travelling is done by boats, and they have no interest in the mainland roads. In my own constituency, for instance, there is the Island of Stroma, with 300 or 400 inhabitants, and they are compelled to pay road money, though there is not a single road in Stroma. It will undoubtedly be a great deal better to appropriate this money to the higher standards of education. As I do not want special advantages for the Highlands, so I do not want them to be placed at a disadvantage, and this proposal of the hon. Member for Aberdeen offers a fair compromise. Why should the Government insist upon imposing on Scotland a system altogether opposed to Scotch ideas? This is in no way an Imperial matter; it concerns Scotch money spent in Scotland, and the English people will in no way be affected. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, or the right hon. the Chief Secretary for Ireland, will accept this

183
compromise without further waste of time.
MR. R. T. REID: I know that among my own constituents, and I was recently with them, feeling is very strong on this subject. The situation here is remarkable. No single Scotch Member has supported the Government, though hon. Members from Scotland on the other side have been repeatedly challenged to do so. We have also a considerable number of English Members present—nearly a dozen I think—which is a considerable number for these Debates. Now, inasmuch as no Scotch Members have supported the Government, will not English Members support Scotch opinion on this matter, which has no Imperial concern whatever? It is simply a question of spending Scotch money according to Scotch opinion for the purpose of freeing education. The proposal of the Government is futile for any benefit to Scotland; it does not give relief of more than three-eights of a penny in the £1 anywhere. I would appeal to Conservative Members, is not this an occasion when they might judiciously interpose to assist us in a modest and reasonable request?
SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL: I have no hesitation to express my opinion when challenged. I supported the Government proposal for a grant to the Highlands because I believed it was fair and just, and the carrying out of a bargain made with the ratepayers that they should be in a position equal to that they occupied previous to the passing of this Act. But when I come to consider this question of the grant for roads, I am bound to say that the money given for roads has not been asked for by Scotland. This is one of those matters on which a large sum has been frittered away to a considerable extent. I am bound to consider those who pay small sums to the roads, as well as those who pay larger sums, and I think the relief afforded is so inconsiderable, that I think it would be a graceful concession on the part of the Government if they were to yield on this point.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (W. H. Smith,): I have listened with very great interest to this Debate, but I
184
suppose, as an English Member, I shall not be precluded from interposing now. This is a question of very considerable importance, touching as it does other financial questions which have to be handled with very great care. If, therefore, the Government do not vote against the Amendment on the present occasion, it must be understood that they reserve full liberty between now and the Report to consider its full effect on the whole financial question.
MR. MARK STEWART: While admitting the expediency of the concession the right hon. Gentleman has made, I cannot but regret the Government have given way. Since the turn pikes were abolished, the money given to the roads has been of immense advantage, not only to the ratepayers, but to the whole country.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot but acknowledge the frank way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the wishes of Scotch Members in wisely accepting the opinion of Members as expressed in the Committee, without waiting to see the numbers on division. I take this to be a concession to our wishes, providing no financial difficulties interpose; and I am sure the Government will reap the benefit of this in Scotland, and that it will greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill.
SIR G. TREVELYAN): It may save time if I say a word in reference to Clause 25. This Clause 19 is important; but Clause 25 is of greater, importance, and I hope the Government will consider that clause in the light of the debates on Clause 19, in order that when we get to that clause, as I hope we shortly may, discussion may be materially shortened.
Question put, and negatived.
Question, "That the words 'one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am sorry the hon. Member for South Lanark is not in his place. I would rather the Amendment I have to propose should come from him. I quite accept the view which I think was accepted by the decision on the last discussion, that the old standard of subventions should be maintained, but that the distribution of new money

185
should be according to the wishes of Scotch Members. So far as I can understand Sub-section 3, this is a new grant, and not in compensation for the old grant for pauper lunatics. It is a new grant, and treated differently from the money provided by Sub-section 2. Now, it is argued that the granting of sums in aid of English paupers is an attempt to force the local authorities to adopt the indoor system of relief. Of course, I do not mean to say this is an encouragement to manufacture lunatics, but I think the method of application is artificial and objectionable, and therefore I move the omission of the sub-section.
Amendment proposed, page 10, line 21, leave out Sub-section (3).
MR. HUNTER: I think we might dispose of this question very shortly, for there is really only one point in it. This £21,000 now paid to the Parochial Boards out of Imperial Funds is as nearly as possible identical with the sum now paid for the fees of pauper children; therefore, it is really a question to consider whether it is worth while keeping this up as a separate grant. Of course, it is obvious that it makes no difference to the ratepayers whether you keep it as a separate grant except in this way, that if in addition to relieving the Parochial Boards from school fees you add this, you make an addition of £21,000 to the Parochial Boards. I make no objection to that, except if you withdraw the implied prohibition of 1882, on School Boards against the remission of fees. The Act of 1882, though not in precise terms, by implication prohibits such remission. But really in the end it merely comes to a matter of account; and perhaps the Government will express their opinion?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think it will be quite obvious that it is impossible to determine the question except on a review of the whole financial situation. My right hon. Friend has promised that the whole matter shall be reconsidered, and I do not think the Committee can usefully address itself to the question now.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Then may I ask what the Government intend to do? On the last occasion they struck out the sub-section. Of course, I am quite in he hands of the Government.
MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps we had better let the sub-section stand as it is for consideration, as I suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HOWORTH: There is a very old tradition of the House that a Member best secures its attention and respect when he only interposes upon subjects on which he has special knowledge, or where a special duty is placed upon him. I feel the force of this so very strongly that I should not have ventured to intervene in a Scotch Debate if I did not feel that the clause to which. I rise to take exception contains s principle not only exceedingly mischievous on its merits, but which traverses in my view, and in the view of many others near me, the best traditions we are here to represent. I refer to the principle of free education, which is conceded in this clause. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate the other day protested rather warmly against the compliments showered upon him from the other side on his conversion to this principle, which, for the past 25 years, the party to which he belongs has denounced, but the fact remains that by this concession a man will, for the first time in our history, be in a position to claim as a right that his children shall be educated at the expense of others when he can afford to pay for it himself, and this is what we mean by Free Education. I cannot help thinking that some of us ought on this occasion to give the loyalty of our vote to the principles we have uniformly maintained on every platform wherever we had the opportunity of pressing them home. My objections to the clause and the principle it contains are, in the first place, formal objections. I think that when a party diverges from a ground which they have occupied so long that divergence ought not to be formulated in an obscure section of an Act of Parliament, which in essence is by no means germain to that section, but in a special enactment so that under the light of heaven it may be proclaimed to all who are interested what has been done. I object that in a Scotch Local Government Bill we should have an obscure clause of this kind passed to effect such a revolution in our principle and practice concerning education. But

187
it seems to me that this is not the only disguise in which this principle is recommended to the House. If this had been a direct proposition to assist education in the direction of making it free by imposing rates, we should have had a very strong opposition from more than one Scottish Member; but, because it is taken from a fund to which it is the fashion to think all are not contributors—the great milch cow of the State—Imperial taxation and duties—a milch cow which seems very remote from the ratepayers that it has succeeded in attracting to itself the popularity which it has secured. But, this is a mere disguise. In England the same tax is, no doubt, devoted to the relief of the ratepayers, and whether you pay for education out of the rates, or from a fund which otherwise would go for the relief of the taxpayer, it seems to me that eventually the Scottish ratepayer is the person who will have to pay for the principle of free education. My objections, however, are not merely formal. I am opposed to the principle of free education as being most mischievous in every possible aspect, not only à priori, but because empirically it has been proved mischievous in many countries. I will state one or two particular examples of the mischief I foresee. I will not enlarge on the tremendous danger we are perpetually in with a population growing at a rate which to some is like a dismal nightmare, and when inducement after inducement is being given to classes which have no prudence in their arrangements, matrimonial or otherwise, to increase that population, which is already so congested in many districts. "Free education" is a palpable misnomer. There is no such thing, and the expression means merely that the education, which ought to be paid for by one set of men has to be paid for by another, consisting in many cases of men quite as little able to bear the burden as those seeking relief. We ought to have regard to the great classes of clerks and superior artisans in the large towns who wish their children to be educated apart from the sinister influence of the gutter, who have paid for the education of their own children at considerable sacrifice, and upon whom will be imposed a double burden if they have to
188
pay for the education of their neighbours' children as well. I cannot help referring to the 4th Section of the Scotch Education Act, in which the duty of the State, and of the parent in this matter is stated in terms which, in an Act of Parliament, are almost poetical. It seems to me that in that clause, you have formulated in a way which cannot be improved, what we all feel, namely, that if there be a duty that is more parental than any other, it is distinctly that of educating a man's childdren when he has brought them into the world. I cannot follow the argument that because education has been made compulsory, we, therefore, ought to relieve the parent of the duty of paying for that education. Compulsion by the State in such a case is only the insistence that a man shall perform the duties naturally incumbent upon him. If he cannot afford to do it, we provide him with machinery for obtaining relief. I am aware that the method of relief in such cases is one which in some quarters raises a sentimental grievance, and I should be prepared to consider some method of remedying the grievance. But so long as a man can bear the burden, we have hitherto enacted that it shall be borne on his own shoulders. We know experimentally that a parent alone values for his children that which costs him some sacrifice. In this I am not speaking so much of Scotland where education has been looked upon as almost a religious duty; but I am thinking of the great masses in the large English towns and elsewhere. This fact should have weight with the party to which I belong, for it is surely one cardinal plank in its platform, that an individual ought at all hazard to bear burdens he makes for himself. Mr. Forster in his great education speech in 1870 recognised and insisted upon the duty of a parent paying for the education of his children, and pointed out that if free education were granted for elementary education, it would afterwards be demanded for secondary and primary education as well. But I would go beyond this à priori argument. We study politics generally as an experimental science, and not merely as a deductive art, and therefore it is as an experimental science that we ought to treat it when we deal with

189
cases like the present. Take the case of America—a country which is so like our own in antecedents and condition of life. It is a most remarkable fact that in America, where education is free, as is shown by the last Return of the Education Board, children attend school only 62 per cent. of the time they ought to be at school, while in the corresponding schools in England where fees are paid the time of attendance is 74 per cent. There you have a case where the experiment has been tried for many years, and where it has been tried under the best conditions, and I say the result is such as ought to make you hesitate very much before trying the experiment at home. I want myself to see the children of this country educated, and I would sacrifice a great deal to Socialism if I thought the Socialistic doctrines we are likely to add to the number of our educated people among the working classes, but in America they have proved to be an utter failure in this behalf. The best of all recent authorities on education, the late Mr. Matthew Arnold, was decidedly opposed to free education. Mr. Fitch, perhaps one of the most experienced English inspectors who have been to America to report on the educational system in practice there, and other educational authorities, are distinctly at one in contending that directly you take away the enormous inducement and pressure behind the parent, in the form of payment for the education of his child, you at once have a great amount of truant playing, the children do not attend school as they should, and there is an immense falling off in attendance. It is a remarkable circumstance that in a country like England, where the principle of free education has never been introduced at all, you should have a return of school attendance which tells so conspicuously in favour of our present system. To take another instance, in the old Kingdom of Prussia, where the children are almost dragooned into learning, we find the most remarkable fact that whereas in the Prussian Constitution of 1850 there is a clause making education both free and compulsory, it has never been enforced except in Berlin.
MR. MUNDELLA: Oh, yes.
MR. HOWORTH: Perhaps I am putting it a little too strongly. But, at any rate, in seven-eights or eight-tenths of the kingdom the system of free schools has not been introduced, and all the Prussian educational authorities completely condemned the principle. The principle has hardly been enforced at all in Prussia, and remains as it was before the year 1850, in all the towns except Berlin and Düsseldorf. And what is true of Prussia is also true in a measure of Bavaria and Saxony. In Paris, where the democratic theory prevails that all children ought to be put on the same level for their chance in life, one-third of the poor are not taught and where free education has been adopted as a plank of the ultra democratic platform in free schools, and a complete revolt is going on against them. The number in private schools is increasing largely, because there is in action a progress of grading schools, which is a necessity where you have a large mass of population living in the gutter, with which it would be a crime to make the children of the better people amongst the humbler classes associate compulsorily. I have never seen a rational scheme of grading these big schools so as to avoid contact with the dirty and the vicious. No doubt in Scotland the problem does not present itself in the same aspect, for amongst the people in the rural districts there much the same morals and cleanliness prevail, and there is no difficulty in mixing the poor, but there would be great difficulty in doing so in large communities like Glasgow, just as there would be in large English towns, such as Manchester and Salford. I can quite understand Members opposite giving their allegiance to the view that on this question they should give what is demanded by Scottish opinion and not what is necessary in the Imperial interests, because they are Home Rulers. But while I am in favour of extending as much as possible the principle of making the administrative machinery in Provincial districts adapted to their needs and demands, I hold that it is mischievous to introduce a fundamental principle for Scotland on the question of education which is not applicable to England. Grave questions of principle like this ought not to be decided by local and provincial feeling, as is desired

191
by Home Rulers opposite, but upon Imperial considerations, and it is because I am sure the same demand will be made in England if this precedent is established that I make a solemn protest against the proposal. We have no right, in regard to a question involving so much that is dangerous and doubtful, to settle it on behalf of a local district and in deference to provincial opinion, for it ought to be decided by this House for us all. You have already difficulties of the supremest kind created by divergence of principle in different parts of the Empire—one of which, I may mention, namely, the law of marriage, a man who has lived in adultery can in Scotland, after marriage, have his children regarded as legitimate, whereas they would be regarded as bastards in this country. That is the kind of difficulty which should not exist. It seems to me you are introducing another and similar difficulty in this Bill in trying to make one rule for Scotland and another for England. I protest against this new principle on every ground. I protest against it because it is the duty of a parent, if he can afford it, to educate his children, and because it will give a great blow to education instead of enhancing its benefits. I also object to it because by giving State aid merely for the three lowest standards you will induce great masses of the poor to treat everything beyond that miserable level as something which is mere luxury and you will be drawing a line by which poor people are to fix what is education and what is luxury. The standard in such matters is low enough already. I feel very strongly on this subject. I feel that I am committed by many pledges to oppose the introduction of free education, and by promises to deputations of persons verging on complete poverty, protesting against this principle. And, finally, I protest that we have no business in this House to steer our legislative ship by a merely provincial rudder, and that we ought in all these matters of supreme importance to adopt those views which our experience and theories teach us are good for us all. Feeling this, I think I ought to press my Amendment to a Division, if I can only get one hon. Member to tell with me in the Lobby.
Amendment moved, Clause 19, page 10, line 29, to leave out from "direct," to end of Sub-section 4.—(Mr. Howorth.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. PROVAND: The Scotch Members are tolerably well accustomed to being voted down in regard to measures which the great majority of them want; but I should be astonished if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford obtains any support whatever on the other side of the House. The hon. Member objects to the question of free education being brought forward in what he calls an obscure clause. If there is anything obscure about the clause I hope it will be rectified before it leaves the House. Then the hon. Member objects on the ground that the money is not given by a direct Vote; but the fact is the money is given as directly as it possibly can be. More than that, it is Scotch money, and surely we have some right to say to what particular purpose it should be applied. The hon. Member next said that the population of Scotland was increasing very fast. Everybody admits that; but that is no reason why education should not be made free. A further point of the hon. Member's against the sub-section is that there are many clerks and superior mechanics in Salford who do not wish their children to mix with scholars who are not so well dressed—with gutter children, in fact, to use his own expression. Surely this is creating class within class, and I am glad that in Scotland we have no clerks and superior mechanics of this kind. Our duty is not to degrade the scholars, but to lift them up; and it would degrade those to whom we should say that children who wear finer clothes and who are better fed should not mix with them. The hon. Member quoted Mr. Forster in support of his contention; but free education has made many strides since Mr. Forster used the words which the Committee have heard read. Then the hon. Member told us that free education had proved a failure, and he quoted Prussia in support of his contention. First, he said the compulsory clauses had not been carried out in certain parts; then on being challenged

193
he reduced that statement, and I do not think the hon. Member can be much of an authority on education in Prussia, or he would have been more certain of his facts. He also mentioned the case of the United States. He pointed out that in the United States the attendance at free schools was 62 per cent. while in the United Kingdom it is 74 per cent. No doubt his figures may be correct; but here, again, he only told us part of the story. In the first place, in many parts of the United States compulsory attendance is not the law; and in some places where it is the law it is not inforced. Again, in many parts there is such a scattered population, that attendance is difficult in winter and bad weather, therefore, these and other reasons would account for the diminished average attendance in the United States as compared with the United Kingdom. The hon. Member did not mention Massachusetts; he said nothing about Boston, where attendances is compulsory and where the law is enforced. His figures represent the average for the United States, and are therefore misleading. I will not, however, go into details; I will content myself by pointing out that in the case of the nearest approach to Free Schools in this country—I refer to the Jew's school in East London where the average fee is only one halfpenny per week—there we get the highest rate of attendance in this country. In fact, the nearer we get to free schools, the higher is the rate of attendance. I have no doubt that where in the United States compulsion is the law—but is not—enforced, it might as well not be the law at all. The real reason which, no doubt, prompted the hon. Member to move the Amendment was the reflex action which must follow in England when free education has been given to Scotland. It is in the interests of the Church schools in England that the hon. Member spoke; in fact, he held a brief for the parson and not for those whom he represented in Salford. He admitted that if we adopted the fundamental principle of free education in Scotland it must travel to England, and I say that the sooner it is applied in both countries the better. It required a great deal of courage for the hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment, seeing that not a single Scotch Member
194
will support him. For an English Member to move such an Amendment against the interests of Scotland, and to be followed into the Lobby by English Members only, is a Parliamentary outrage. I consider it nothing less. I hope I shall never again have to speak on such an Amendment as this. When we made education compulsory, it was clear that in time it would also become free. That applies to England as well as to Scotland. English Members may succeed in holding the concession over until after the next General Election; but depend on it, if they do, the matter will constitute a plank in the platform of the candidates when the fight comes. It is admitted, I think, that, in past years, Scotchmen have been more generally educated than Englishmen; and yet we are told that, because we propose to place education within the reach of all the Scotch people, because it is to be free they will neglect it and lose their high position. No more absurd or outrageous argument was ever put forward in this House. I have very much pleasure in opposing the Amendment, and that pleasure will be enhanced if every Scotch and many English Members will rise to enforce, in much stronger language than I have used, the objections we entertain to this Amendment.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am surprised to hear the hon. Member suggest that Scotch opinion has not been sufficiently consulted in this Bill. It appears to me that Scottish opinion has been studiously consulted, almost to the point of ignominious surrender. The hon. Member complains of the action of the hon. Member for Salford in moving this Amendment. I would remind the Committee that English Members have, for the most part, abstained from taking part in the discussion of this Bill, and have left it to be carried on almost entirely by Representatives of Scotland. But when an innovation so important as this is foisted into a Local Government Bill, and when a precedent is set which is almost sure to be quoted in favour of a corresponding change in England, it seems to me to be right and proper that English Members should make their voices heard. I have not observed that Scottish Members practise the same self-restraint with respect to English

195
measures which they seek to impose on us. The hon. Member for Salford, holding on this matter the opinions which he does, it was not only his right but his duty to give expressions to those opinions. With his views on Free Education I heartily sympathize. At the same time, I should not have supported him on this occasion had it not been for what happened an hour ago. I was unwilling to take up an attitude of non possumus in face of the apparently unanimous wish of the Scottish Members, and an hour ago I saw a way out of the difficulty. If the Government had not made this succession of surrenders I might have supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk, which would have taken the sting out of the original concession. But the surrender of the Lord Advocate has quite revolutionized the position. What has happened up to the present time? The Lord Advocate has hitherto maintained that the proposal of the Government is not a concession of the principle of free education. Hon. Members opposite did not think it worth while to argue against my right hon. Friend's contention; they quietly assumed that the Bill did contain this principle. In my judgment they were perfectly right. The Government proposal was not merely to give relief in the matter of fees, but to remit them altogether. In the first three standards it is acknowledged that compulsion is not effective in the fourth and fifth standards, and that the majority of children do not go beyond the third standard.
MR. CALDWELL: May I explain to the hon. Gentleman that education is compulsory in Scotland up to the Fifth Standard.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am aware of that fact. I said that compulsion was not effective although it was legal. The inference I draw from that is that, according to the original proposal of the Lord Advocate, the majority of parents of the poorer class in Scotland would have been entirely relieved of school fees; and therefore the clause does contain the principle of free education. My hon. Friend used all his ingenuity to show that he was not making a surrender. I was reminded of the old controversy as to the authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey. A learned critic argued that they
196
were not the works of Homer, but of another gentleman of the same name. The Lord Advocate, in making the proposal, said it was not a proposal for free education; yet it came to the same thing, and the common sense of the Committee so interpreted it. After what has occurred to-night, even the Government must admit that this interpretation is correct, and that they have practically accepted the principle of free education in Scotland; and that being so, it seems to me to be incumbent on the English Members to consider jealously the proposal that has been made, because sooner or later a similar change will be agitated for in England. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Salford into his argument with respect to free education. For my own part, I do not consider that the application of compulsion logically or practically involves free education. I am, moreover, very sceptical as to the results of free education; and I foresee grave difficulties and complications in the attempt to introduce the principle into England. But what I do say is this, that it is neither right nor fair that so large and far-reaching a proposal should have been floated surreptitiously in on the wave of a Local Government Bill. What did the Government start with? With a proposal to relieve the rates. Then, in response to pressure brought to bear upon them by hon. Members for Scotland, they took away from the ratepayers a part of the money available, and applied it to relieve fees. Lastly, by their action to-night they openly accept the principle of free education, and so far from relieving the ratepayers, it appears the final result will be that the ratepayers will have to pay more than before. I do not suppose we have any chance of carrying the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford; however, I shall vote for it, as a protest against the course that has been pursued. This is a matter which most of us have discussed with our constituents, and many of us are pledged against it. I hope the Government are proud of the position which they have made for themselves.
MR. FIRTH: I think the hon. Member for Salford is to be congratulated on having the one supporter to go into the Lobby with him, for

197
whom he sighed at the end of his speech. It appears, indeed, that the seeds of incipient rebellion have been sown on the opposite Benches by the action of the Government. The last speaker states that the proposal for free education which has been on the face of this Bill all these weeks is an innovation foisted into the Bill, and that it has been floated in surreptitiously. He complained also of a succession of surrenders by the Government.
MR. G. W.BALFOUR: I did not say that it had been floated surreptitiously into the Bill. I know it was contained in the Bill from the beginning. I said that the proposal was floated surreptitiously in on the wave of a Local Government Bill.
MR. FIRTH: The hon. Member did use the three words I have quoted, and if they did not express his meaning it is not my fault. Perhaps he does not deny he used the words "innovation foisted into the Bill." I do not, indeed, see much difference between foisting and floating. I think the hon. Member for Salford should have gone a little further when he told us that free education traversed the best principles of the Conservative Party. He ought to have told us what those principles were. Let me remind him, however, that politics is an advancing science, and that the Radical of to-day will probably be the Tory of to-morrow. Just as hon. Gentlemen opposite have from a hundred platforms denounced free education, so to-day their leaders have accepted it with open arms. It seems to me that on this side of the House we have reason to congratulate ourselves very much on this introduction of the thin end of the wedge; and English Members will be able to congratulate their constituencies and to accept the prophecy of the hon. Member for Salford as to the application of the principle to England. What, after all, is the object and aim of free education? It is that every child in the community shall be educated. I was certainly astonished that the hon. Gentleman opposite ventured to invoke American experience on this question. Nearly 100 years ago it was said to be as rare to find an American who could neither read nor write as to feel an earthquake or see a comet. I recollect, not many years ago, investigating very
198
carefully some of the educational systems in States on the East Coast and the West Coast of America. I particularly recollect that in the town of Boston out of 63,000 children in the schools no less than 52,000 were in free schools—infant schools, middle schools, high schools, and normal schools for the training of teachers, that is to say, education at its highest point! I was astonished to hear even from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Howorth) that the artizans would be unwilling, or that it was not desirable for their children to associate with the class below them. I suppose he would have society graded in much the same way as it is graded in India. If you go into the American schools, such as the high schools of Philadelphia, you will find the son of the artizan and the son of the clergyman and of the professional man side by side. In one of these schools I stood by the side of the master while he was questioning the children, and asked him, as the answers were given, what was the position of the parent of each child who replied, and I found there was an absolute fraternization as regards attendance at the school. The position which the State, I apprehend, takes up is that in its supreme wisdom it lays down the principle that every child ought to be educated for the advantage and security of the State, and in order to strengthen the guarantee for the preservation of the bounds of society. The question arises whether the State should say to the father—"You shall send your child to school and be deprived of the advantage of his labour, and yet you must pay for this privilege." With respect to truancy, my experience in the London School Board many years ago leads me to the conclusion that if we had a total abolition of fees we should have the children in much more extensive attendance as well as better fed. After all, if the parent has the money to feed the child, the end aimed at by the State—namely, the better education of the child—will be more readily attained. The hon. Gentleman said the Acts introduced into Scotland would extend to England, and he thus admitted that, in this matter of education, as in many others, Scotland leads the way. I am very glad the Government have bowed to the inevitable; and I think they and we are to be congratulated upon the introduction into this Bill of a

199
principle which, undoubtedly, the Division shortly to take place will show to be fully established in the law of England—a principle that will bring about a better and completer education in Scotland, and will enable the children to prove themselves worthy of the citizenship of the Empire.
SIR A. CAMPBELL: I think every one must have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, but certain things he brought forward are not the case with regard to Scotland. From the earliest times there has been the greatest difference between England and Scotland, for Scotland has had the advantage of its parochial schools, where free instruction did not restrict attendance, and the results were so satisfactory that the percentage of people who could read and write under the parochial school system was found to be higher than in Germany. Under these circumstances, I think that in reverting to the old system we shall not destroy the education of the country, as the hon. Member suggests. I may say that the difference between England and Scotland is very great at the present moment. In England you have the new system grafted on the old one, and the result is that a certain amount of elasticity is given to the education such as we do not find in Scotland. I was one of those who bitterly opposed the cutting down of the old system of education in Scotland, because I knew what had been done for the people, and I was not certain what the new system might produce. I am I very glad now we are going to return to a certain extent to the original practice in Scotland, and that in future people will not have to go to the parochial boards and be pauperised because they cannot pay the school fees. The amount of relief so given has risen from £10,000 to £30,000, and, therefore, the abolition of fees will be a great relief to the rates and a boon to a large class of people. As to education in the higher grades suffering, the rudiments are not higher instruction; but with the rudiment scholars can go on to higher education, and I have not yet heard that the possession of the rudiments has been a bar to such advance. Until children have the three R's they cannot, of course, obtain higher education. We are told that there will be a tremen-
200
dous mixture in these schools. There was a certain mixture in the old parish schools; but some of the best men of Scotland have come out of the old parochial schools, where they have rubbed shoulder to shoulder with poor and rich, and this fraternization is one of the main causes of the manly independence of the Scotch people. No doubt in large cities it may be found convenient to have graded schools; and I believe that in Glasgow, which has one of the most capable school boards in the country, there are schools in which higher fees are charged than in others. I am grateful to the Government for having intimated that they will take this question into consideration, and decide which schools should have relief and which should not. I believe this measure will be of great benefit to Scotland and that hon. Members who oppose it on the principle that it does not agree with their declarations must see that at all events, so far as Scotland is concerned, we are reverting to the old system.
MR. C. S. PARKER: Although the Debate on this Amendment has run to considerable length I do not think the time has been wasted. However much the Scotch Members may differ from the hon. Members for Salford and Leeds, those two hon. Members have taken a right course in calling attention to the principle on which we are about to act. I think it would be unworthy of Scotland to initiate so great a change as that from the present system to one of gratuitous education without more discussion on the principle than we were able to have in the Debate on the Second Reading of a general Bill for Local Government. I think, therefore, those two hon. Members have done good service, perhaps at a little expense to their own feelings, in acting as candid friends towards Her Majesty's Government. I ventured on the Second Reading to remark that we were apparently, in the view of the Government themselves, as put forward by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), going practically into this free education question without the Government so much as perceiving what they were doing. I do not think any good is to be got from going with eyes half shut into so great a

201
question. We ought, in the first place, to ask whether there is anything essentially educational in the transference of the burden of these fees from the parent to the ratepayer. I answer that there are some educational advantages, and first it is a great gain that parents should have to go no longer to the parochial boards for assistance in paying the fees. There is a second gain in regard to which I think we shall be almost unanimous—namely, that we shall relieve the teacher, whose hands are otherwise sufficiently full from the harassing duty of keeping a record of the fees, and looking up defaulters. Possibly also, there may be some good effect on school attendance. I hope there is some truth in what was put forward, I think in an exaggerated way, from the Treasury Bench—namely, that there is in Scotland a demand for education, and that if you relieve parents from fees for the lower standards, they may be encouraged to keep their elder children longer at school. But there are other more doubtful aspects of the question, and that is why I did not join in the round robin got up to place pressure on the Government to bring in this scheme. I thought it was better that there should be some debate on the principle before we all committed ourselves by putting our names on paper. The financial aspect of the question is very serious. Hitherto the financial resources of education in this country have been three—the taxes, the rates, and the fees, and at one time the contributions from each source were nearly equal. Before parting with all the income derived from parents, it would be wise and logical for us to consider what are the most pressing educational demands, and how they compare with the proposal for the total abolition of fees. It has been my lot to look closely into the educational question in Scotland, and I should like to mention one or two objects urgently requiring expenditure. There are about 1,000 small Country schools in Scotland which have not a staff capable of keeping up the higher education formerly given, and at the same time satisfying the inspectors so as to earn the Government grant. It was represented to the Committee of which I was a Member that if £30 per school could be found by the Govern-
202
ment, to encourage contributions from local sources, enough might be done to put these 1,000 schools on such a footing that they could continue to give the old higher education of Scotland, and at the same time give the education required in the modern standards. It was also represented by highly competent educational authorities that if £40,000 could be applied in aid of the old high schools, which somewhat illogically have been put under the control of the School Boards and of the Education Department without being given any grant or any claim on the school funds, these old schools would be saved from falling into a lower grade, which is happening to some. Thirdly, there is a strong feeling amongst the working classes of Scotland that more might be done by a liberal expenditure on evening schools. I believe that all these three objects might be attained for, perhaps, not much more than one-third of the sum required to entirely free education in all the standards. Therefore before we commit ourselves as to how many standards we will free, we should consider what other urgent demands there are for expenditure on education. I know that this is an aspect of the question which has not presented itself to some of my Scottish Colleagues; but I entreat them to consider it before they decide to extinguish all school fees. Parents in Scotland take the keenest interest in the education of their children We have it in evidence that in Glasgow and Govan they urge the School Boards to give somewhat higher education, and that when the question of fees is mentioned they say—"Never mind the expense: charge us a higher fee, we are quite willing to pay it." It seems to me that a source of income so natural should not be closed. I hope that, on the contrary, when we are sacrificing so much income from ordinary fees the Government may see their way to remove that limitation which embarrasses the finance of some School Boards—namely, the maximum average fee of ninepence. I also hope that the Government will bear in mind a matter which will be urged on them by the Glasgow School Board. They will find it is the deliberate and well-considered view of the Glasgow School Board that it would be well while giv-

203
ing to every parent a right to have his child educated free in the lower standards, to allow the School Board in a limited number of schools to charge fees. In Glasgow that would solve the financial difficulty which otherwise must be caused. The Government, in the hurry, supposed that if they gave the sum they first intended they would be able to free the first three standards. As a matter of fact, Glasgow would gain £17,000 and lose £22,000, leaving about £5,000 short. The Glasgow School Board say that if they were allowed to charge fees in a limited number of schools their finance would be restored, and out of the resources so obtained from the richer they would be able to lighten the burden to the poorer parents. I know the objection raised to such an arrangement is "we do not like these class distinctions." I agree it might not be a wise arrangement for country places and small towns, but there are cities in Scotland—Glasgow is one and Dundee another—where you have so mixed a population that some such arrangement is to be desired. The Glasgow School Board have already at work as many as five different grades of schools, with different fees. This difference in the fees has arisen in the most natural way—chiefly owing to the special wants and previous habits of each district. Lastly, if we can afford to have free education, which I am in favour of, in common with my colleagues, we should do ill to stop at the 3rd standard. We should try to carry out the principle and extend it to all the compulsory standards. But, on the other hand, in the large towns we should leave the School Boards free to work their own finance by having a limited number of fee paying schools, for those who may prefer them.
MR. SHAW STEWART: I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. Perhaps my appeal may come with a little more force to the hon. Member when I say that in my judgment free education in the abstract is not a good thing. I sympathize very much with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. G. Balfour) when he said he regretted that this question of free education should have been floated in on the wave of a Local Government Bill. When I had the
204
honour of contesting a Scotch constituency in 1885 I did what I could to speak against Free Education because I am in favour of every man being as independent as possible of the State, and I confess that I fear that free education will tend to undermine that independence that I hope will ever be a characteristic of my countrymen. But I intend to support the Government for this simple reason, that they, in looking about for the best way of relieving the pressing burdens of the people, could look in no other direction than school fees. It is well known that the rates are not the most pressing burdens in Scotland, and the Government therefore were bound to address their efforts to relieving the burden of school fees. I hope that English Members will realize that whether we in Scotland are in favour of free education or not, we are all agreed on this point—that school fees are the most pressing burden, and the Government have no alternative but to apply this money to their relief. On this ground I do hope the hon. Member for Salford will withdraw his Amendment. I am sure no Scotch Member will regret that English Members have taken part in this interesting discussion, but with this discussion I think my hon. Friend might be satisfied and withdraw his Amendment.
MR. MUNDELLA: I should not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Howorth). When an English Member takes part in a Scotch Debate and attempts to controvert the opinions expressed by Scotch Members on both sides, then I think that I, having had some experience of Scotch education matters, having administered the Education Department for five and a half years, may venture to trouble the Committee. I should not like the speech of the hon. Member for Salford to go forth uncontradicted, not only because of its effect in Scotland, but also because of its effect in England, and because I recognize as fully as any hon. Member in the House that what we are doing for Scotland we shall some

205
day, and I hope very soon, have to do for England. I am quite frank about that, although the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Richard Temple) seems to think that is a very serious question. I confess I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Salford, who has spoken with his usual evidences of sincerity, his usual urbanity, and courtesy, and no doubt he has placed before the House the very best case he could against free education. He has exhausted all the old reasons and he has added some of his own, which I have not heard before. I will endeavour to reply in order that the matter may be put fairly before the House and the country. The hon. Member lamented that the Party with which he was connected was parting with some of its best traditions. Well, the hon. Member has been but a short time a Member of this House; he has sat not for a very long time behind Her Majesty's Government. But I can assure him that the longer he sits there the more frequently will he have to part with some of his traditions; and I am quite sure that in doing so his Party will derive considerable advantage, and the country will be greatly benefited. That Party never parted with a tradition at a more opportune time than now in conferring what practically amounts to free education on Scotland. After the courteous concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury in the early part of the evening, I suspect the Government will be prepared to put enough money in the hands of Scotchmen to free education in all the compulsory standards, and will be ready to supplement that in order to make education entirely free throughout Scotland. Now, the hon. Member for Salford said he had considered this question of free education thoroughly, and that he found it mischievous in all its aspects; and he added that as an experiment it had proved an absolute failure. I am astounded at the auda-
206
city of this statement. The hon. Member quoted from Matthew Arnold, and upon that I have something to say. I had the honour of the friendship of Mr. Matthew Arnold for many years; and it was my pleasure to have almost daily intercourse with him during the time I was at the Education Department, and I know his views upon free education. When I was at the Department there was no man more opposed to free education than he was, and his views on free education are to be found in his Reports between the years 1880 and 1885. During the time I was at the Department nothing could be stronger than his protests against it; everything the hon. Member for Salford has advanced Mr. Matthew Arnold stated in that clear forcible style of his which made him such an effective critic, and made his writings so delightful to the reader. I had five and a half years of experience, and during that time had, as Vice-President, to defend myself against Motions in favour of free education, sometimes from Scotch Members, sometimes from English Members; but I was unable to budge in the least degree, because I had a Chancellor of the Exchequer behind me; yet the whole of my experience during that time went to show that free education was necessary and inevitable. In 1885 almost the first Act of Her Majesty's Government was to appoint a Royal Commission to enquire into the state of education for the blind, the deaf and the dumb, and I was appointed a Member of that Commission. I spent three months going through Europe enquiring into the condition of these afflicted classes, and at the same time I took the opportunity thoroughly to satisfy myself as to the working of free education in the countries I visited. I can well remember too that during the election of 1885, and I mention this that the hon. Member for Salford may know that the traditions of his Party are not quite so strong as he supposes, I remember I say that there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer who went to Birmingham, and there made a speech in favour of free education. Afterwards there was a great outcry of the Conservative party against free education, and the noble Lord wrote a letter to say that he thought that at all events fees should

207
be limited in elementary schools to a penny a week; but this was after he had made a capital speech in favour of free education. Now, during the election of 1885, I received a letter from Mr. Matthew Arnold in which he said—
"You have startled me with your views on free education. I am to be sent by the Government to follow your footsteps, and I want to know where you have been? Where are these free schools of yours?"
Well, I wrote and told him fairly where I had been, and what I had seen, and he made his inquiries. But does his Report support the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite? I said to Mr. Matthew Arnold—"You will have a great deal to unsay, a great deal to unlearn." Now, the object of his inquiry was to ascertain the state of elementary education in Germany, Switzerland, and France; he had first to inquire as to the quality of the free education given; then as to the efficiency of the teachers, and the attendance at school. Now, if free education is a failure, how came it that Mr. Matthew Arnold has reported that our education is so much inferior to that of those countries where education is free? How is it that he reports that the attendance in England is inferior to the attendance at free schools on the Continent? He says, as the result of his inquiries at Lucerne, that within the period of the establishment of free education attendance has more than doubled; and he says that from time to time he visited schools where the masters answered him that for 10 years there had not been a case of a single summons for non-attendance. He went to a school at Zurich, and he found all the children present with the exception of two, who were suffering from fever. There is not a word here to show that free education has failed. Every reference that Matthew Arnold makes goes to prove that education in these free schools is excellent, and far superior to anything we can attain to here. When the hon. Member speaks of the education at Salford, I wonder whether he would like a comparison between the education in Zurich and that in Salford. There is free education in Zurich, but it is infinitely superior to the education we are offering in Salford. I remember when at the Education Department that it was with the
208
greatest possible difficulty that we raised the half-time standard at Salford above number two. There is no more comparison between the education in Zurich and the education in Salford than between the sun at noonday and a farthing candle. I only wish the hon. Member for Salford would go through the Zurich schools and convince himself. The hon. Member then spoke of America, and he said the attendance there was 62 per cent. whereas in England it was 74 per cent. Yes; but he forgot to say that education in America, except in two or three cities, is not compulsory at all, and the attendance in rural districts is so small that it brings down the average enormously. But in Boston the average attendance is 94 per cent. What schools are best attended in England? The school that has the highest average attendance, and the poorest school in this Metropolis, is the Jews Free School. 3,400 children attend, children of the poorest parents, who hardly know a word of English, and speak in a patois the teachers can scarcely understand. What schools are the best attended in Scotland? The free schools of Edinburgh, where the average attendance is 95 per cent. while throughout the rest of Scotland it is 75 or 76 per cent. Surely that is some evidence of the effect of free education. What is the condition of things now in Scotland? I know that during my experience of the Education Department two things were going on side by side in Scotland—an increasing number of children were being brought into contact with pauperism, and children were passing out of the schools at an earlier age every year. Take the last Report of the Scotch Education Department and you find the same thing indicated, that there should be 100,000 more children on the register than there are. Look at the statistics of attendance at various ages and see how the numbers fell off as the children increase from seven years to 12 years, and you see there is a steady waste; and the disappearance of children from school at an early age is no doubt largely due to the higher fees as the children rise in standards. Now, the hon. Gentleman, among other statements, said that though according to the Constitution of Prussia education was free, it was not so in fact. It is quite true that under one Article

209
elementary education it is declared should be free; but then under another Article the application of this principle is left to the decision of the Local Authority. It is only within the last few years that it has been taken to by the authorities, and free education is now rapidly extending in Prussia. The hon. Member shakes his head, but I can assure him that is so. 12,000 children now enjoy free education in Berlin. I had the advantage of consulting the German Minister of Education, and I visited the schools with the permanent Secretary to the Education Department. I only wish we could see such schools in London. Notwithstanding all the efforts of the London School Board, to which I pay a high tribute, we have nothing to compare with the results of free education in Berlin. I conversed with the teachers, and I can assure hon. Members I did not make the visit with my mind made up; I took the part of the "devil's advocate," and said all I could say against the system in order to get the defence. The advantages, according to the teachers, were better attendance, less trouble in securing attendance, no difficulty about keeping accounts, no trouble to enforce payment, less expense of management, in fact, there was no comparison between the two systems—free education and fees. I do not see how, in the face of facts like these, the hon. Member can object to this extension of free education to Scotland. I was glad to hear the speeches from Scotch Conservative Members in favour of this principle. I once said in this House that if I could be born again I would be a Scotchman, and I am bound to say that the gifts of shrewdness and common sense with which Scotchmen are endowed encourage me in that view. The hon. Member for Salford finds an objection in the fact that the children of the clerks and artizans, if sent to school with the wretched outcasts from the streets, would of necessity contract vicious and dirty habits. Now, I can tell him my experience in Munich. There I called upon our Consul and learned what I could about the system of free education there. This Consul in Bavaria is well-known at the Foreign Office, a gentleman with the good English name of John Smith, who has married and
210
settled in Munich. I put the same objection as the hon. Member, when the Consul said his children were educated at the free school, and he said no distinction was made at the schools, the children of rich and poor meet together, and not more than 1 per cent of the population sent their children anywhere else than to the free schools. When I put the difficulty of children learning bad habits, bad manners, bad language, and contracting diseases, he said the middle classes, when they send their children to school, take care of all these things. We have no such difficulties here, he said. First, there is the notification of diseases required, and children are not allowed to attend school if there is any disease in their homes, and then there is a school society that looks after the children so that you cannot distinguish in the schools the rich from the poor. The system of self help prevails. All this is very astounding to an Englishman. I remember at Lucerne a Member of Parliament told me he sent his children to be educated at the free school, and in fact there was no support for a private teacher, I visited a high school for girls there, and I heard a professor giving such lessons in mathematics as I never heard before given in such a school, and I remarked to the teacher, "You have no poor children here." Then I was assured that I was mistaken, and I was told what great things these free schools had done for the country, how free education had made the rich and poor sympathize with each other; and it was mentioned that there were five poor children in the school for whom there was daily competition among the other scholars as to who should take them home to dinner. These are some of the advantages of the system. I see some Members opposite smile; but let me remind them that this was the practice in Scotland in the old time, a practice which I hope will come again. It is the true democratic system which teaches mutual respect between rich and poor. I cannot allow this statement of the hon. Gentleman to go forth uncontradicted—that free education has been tried throughout Europe and has failed; or that it has been tried in America and has failed. A reference to the Technical Education Commission Report, one of the best documents we

211
have on the subject, will show how successful the system has been in Switzerland. The hon. Member has not mentioned the experience of our English Colonies. In all our free colonies education is free. Throughout the whole of the English-speaking people of the world, except ourselves, there is free elementary education. On the Continent we have it in Switzerland, in France, in Italy, parts of Bavaria, Austria, and the greater part of Germany. I cannot doubt that what the Government are doing to-day is one of the best things they have done since they have held office. I believe it will prove a blessing in Scotland and will help Scotchmen to maintain their high position, and I am quite sure that when once this has been conceded to Scotland, England will not have long to wait for a similar advantage.
SIR E. HAMLEY: This is indeed a very small sub-section, but it contains very much. The proposal it includes is like the genie who was confined in the small box which the fisherman who found it could carry in his hand, but who, when the seal was removed, sprang up to gigantic dimensions and overspread the whole country. Yet, Scotch Members have the audacity to tell us English Members that this is no concern of ours. Why, we have infinitely more concern in it than they have, for the effect of this measure will extend far indeed beyond the kingdom of Scotland. It means this, and only this—free education throughout Scotland, so far as the gum in question will admit of—a sum which has been so largely augmented during the present sitting by the unfortunate concessions of the Government. And this being the case, everybody knows that this is the first step towards what all must admit to be the wide and debatable land of free education. Then there have been endeavours to persuade the House by a kind of hocus-pocus that this sum is a free gift and will not fall as a burden upon any part of the community. But it is evident that if a
212
County Council applies part of its funds to an absolutely new purpose, it can only be at the expense of some other purpose. If the Councils received these revenues without restriction they could not apply them to the payment of school fees; they must devote them to other local purposes. These other purposes must now be provided for, and the only way in which County Councils can provide for them is by means of rates. Thus, we see, not only that the burden will fall on the community, but on what part of it it will fall. The children of part of the people will be educated at the expense of another part—and that other part will be the ratepayers. This will mean too often that the children of the idle and the dissolute will be a charge upon the industrious and the frugal. And if this measure is adopted for Scotland, does anybody think it can be withheld from England? It cannot be withheld, and we shall see the whole country committed—to what extent we know not—to what cannot but be called a revolutionary and Communistic policy, in which nobody will educate his own children, and everybody will educate the children of somebody else. And if this state of things is indeed approaching, it is a coming event which casts dark shadows before it—the shadows of a time when the unfortunate ratepayer will take his place beside the unfortunate landholder as the proper object of legislative plunder. If the Government really means to introduce the subject of free education, is this the way to do it? Is it fitting to place this great, this momentous, subject before the country in the corner of a Bill to which the Government itself dares not attach its real character? Let us hope that the Government will be persuaded to find a wise remedy for an unwise measure. I would suggest that as it has already postponed other sub-sections of the clause in deference to hon. Members opposite, that all may be considered together, so it might postpone this also for the same purpose.
MR. CALDWELL: I have great respect for the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and no one on this side, I am sure, will grudge them this opportunity of expressing their views on questions

213
which will affect their constituencies. As for myself, in 1885 I expressed myself in favour of free education, declaring, however, that it should be effected by the Imperial Parliament out of the Imperial purse. I still hold that opinion; but, at the same time, it has come about that the Government are willing to concede free education in another way, and the responsibility for the concession resting with the Government I have no objection to receiving it. At the same time, as representing the ratepayers, I must point out that this money is given in relief of local taxation as a just contribution of personalty, and is just as much the property of the ratepayers as the amount given to England and Ireland is the property of the ratepayers in those countries. It is no use for the Government to try to make out that it is open to them to devote the money to this or that purpose. They have dealt with it on the footing that it is at their disposal for purposes of free education. I might turn round and say that that is unfair to the ratepayer; but I look on it altogether as a temporary expedient, as far as the ratepayers are concerned. It is impossible to overlook the fact that the moment free education is conceded to Scotland, it will be agitated for in England, and that in the future at elections we shall find candidates pledging themselves to support a measure for free education. The result will be that you will require to face the question in England. Now, how can you do that? You have given this money to the ratepayers in England, and they will not allow themselves to be saddled with the burden of free education, as the ratepayers of Scotland have done. The ratepayers of England will refuse to allow themselves to be taxed for the support of denominational schools. You will, therefore, be obliged to pay for free education in England out of the Imperial purse, and when you do that you will be obliged to give the ratepayers of Scotland their just rights, which they are now being denuded of. For this reason I look
214
upon the present process as a temporary arrangement to be followed by a system of free education all over the country at the expense of the State. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place, I will call his attention to the fact that the proposal of his Budget was that this grant in aid was to be made as a just contribution of personalty to local taxation; but that, as a matter of fact the contribution from the Probate Duty is now being handed over to the Local Authorities in relief of school fees. What, I would ask, has become of all the right hon. Gentleman's grand principles?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think that the Government have a right to complain of the length to which the Debate has gone, because it must be admitted that it has travelled over a very important phase of the education question; and when I hear my hon. and gallant Friend complain of the action of the Government in this matter, I can only regret that he was not in the House to give expression to his opinions at a time when such expression might have been most important. The right hon. Member for Sheffield has given a long and very interesting, and if, without offence, I may say so, a somewhat autobiographical discourse on free education, which he began by telling my hon. Friend that as usual the Tory Party had given up their traditions, and that if my hon. Friend sat much longer in the House he must accustom himself to such surrenders. Whether, however, these strictures are right or wrong, they come very oddly from a right hon. Gentleman who, by his own admission, always opposed free education while he was Education Minister. Among the autobiographical incidents he gave us was one to the effect that he had constantly had to defend the existing system through five or six years, because he had to deal with an economical Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was, I believe, a Scotch Member—the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr.

215
Childers.) I do not know how far the principle of the solidarity of the Government is admitted in these days; but I have never before heard one Member of the Administration get up and say that he was prevented from carrying out his convictions by one of his own Colleagues.
MR. MUNDELLA: I said nothing of the kind. I said just the reverse. What I stated was, that during my whole career at the Education Department the idea was slowly growing up in my mind that free education was inevitable.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not recollect the right hon. Gentleman making that remark. I have no doubt he made it, if he says he did; but, at all events, he spoke of having defended his policy at that time against the advocates of free education, and of having had behind him an economical Chancellor of the Exchequer. I now leave the question of the right hon. Gentleman's consistency and turn to the question whether Her Majesty's Government have changed their opinions, which is the material point. The whole burden of the interesting and able speech of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Howorth) was that the Government had conceded the principle of free education for Scotland; and my hon. Friend and Relative, the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. G. Balfour), said that free education had been floated in surreptitiously on the wave of a Local Government Bill. Now, Sir, I frankly admit that if the Government had really done what they are accused of having done, if they had accepted the principle of free education for Scotland on the spur of the moment, in the course of a discussion in Committee upon a Local Government Bill, they would have given just cause of complaint to a large portion of the Conservative Party, who have over and over again stated that they object on principle to free education. But I do not admit that the Government
216
have done this. It must be observed that there are two main objections to free education. An educational objection and a rating objection. As regards the first we have to ask ourselves how free education will affect school attendance, a question, not of principle, but a question to be determined by the educational ideas and feelings of each community. The hon. Members for Leeds and Salford do not sufficiently consider the traditional desire of the whole Scotch population for education. There may be countries in which education will not be promoted by being given for nothing; but I do not think Scotland is one of them. I believe that the ingrained love of the Scotch people for education will protect it against that danger. The only result of making education easy will be that more Scotch parents will take advantage of it. As regards the second objection, the hon. Member for Salford argues that the Committee are asked to commit themselves to a large and indefinite expenditure which cannot be limited to primary schools, but must be extended to secondary schools. But I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Government are not committing themselves to a principle which will require indefinite expenditure in the future, but they are giving a specific sum, allocated out of the Imperial Exchequer, for Scotch purposes. The hon. Member expresses his strong dislike to acknowledging any abstract metaphysical right in a parent to have his children educated for nothing. Of course, I admit there is no such right; no man has a right to say that he chooses to have a large family, and because he has one the State or the locality must bear the cost of their education. That is a principle not accepted by Her Majesty's Government, nor, I believe, by the greater number of those who sit on the Ministerial side of the House. I absolutely deny that we are opening up a vista of indefinite expenditure; and those who say so misunderstand the proposed concession of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The general result of what has been done is that whereas we originally said we would give £170,000 towards lessening or abolishing school fees, we now give £220,000. But we

217
have not promised to give more than the £220,000. We have only promised to give that amount of money under an arrangement which, to the best of our ability, will go in the direction of relieving the poorer classes from the payment of school fees. I maintain that this concession is not giving free education. To give a particular sum, previously allocated to the relief of local taxation, to the diminution of the cost of education is in no sense committing the Government to free education in Scotland or in England. No doubt the original plan was to give this money in relief of rates; but the ratepayers of Scotland themselves, as far as we had any power of guaging their opinions, said they would rather it was given to aid education. We accepted that, and the original plan has been modified still further in the same direction by expressions of opinion from Scotch Members on both sides of the House. But the original intention remains unimpaired. It was always intended to give this money to the relief of Scotchmen in the manner most agreeable to Scotchmen; and the manner which proved to be most agreeable was that it should be given in aid of schools. We, however, do not commit ourselves to any increase of the sum in case it should prove inadequate, as it may prove inadequate to free all the compulsory standards. We commit ourselves to no general proposition that a deficiency, if deficiency there be, shall be filled up either from the Imperial Exchequer or the local rates. We acknowledge no right on the part of parents to get their children educated for nothing. And that being the case, I absolutely deny that in any sense we have committed ourselves to the principle of free education. I thought it necessary to make these remarks, because the whole of this debate appears to have turned upon what we regard as a total misconception of the policy of the Government, and it was absolutely necessary that some Member of the Government should correct that false impression.
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has stated the case in a very fair manner, and has recalled the Committee to the
218
tone in which this question ought to have been discussed. I am quite sure that every member who is present to-day will draw a lesson of hope as regards the future. They will see how very quietly and pleasantly a great controversy can be settled in a single evening after causing much bad blood for a long period of time. It appears to me to be very unfair to taunt the Government with having given way, and especially for hon. Gentlemen to do so, who, if they had attended the Debates in this House on Scotch affairs as they have very freely attended the Divisions, must have noticed that what has happened to-night has not seriously changed the situation which has been confronting the House of Commons for a month. The Lord Advocate stated in the most complete and frank manner on the introduction of the Bill that the Government were prepared to accede to what was the all but unanimous voice of Scotland, as represented by its Members, on the question of devoting Scotland's share of the Probate Duty in the main to free education. The history of this question is the most remarkable I ever remember. One hon. Member, as far as I know, has the entire credit of what has been done. He canvassed his colleagues and through them canvassed the Scotch nation, and the Scotch nation decided in a day in favour of free education. The Government have now conceded to the wish of almost the united body of Scotch Members, and are going to devote the major part of this money to free education. Well, what has happened tonight? What has happened to-night is that we have had a bit of Home Rule. The Government acting as a Government have yielded to the wish of the Scottish nation. I am not going to draw any extensive lesson from that; and I may say I am not sure that because Scotland is ripe for free education, free education in England is a thing of to-morrow. I do not think it necessary to argue that point. What we are proud of is that as a

219
Parliament we have got free education for Scotland to-day. The only point on which I differ from the right hon. Gentleman is that he has put such limits on what we are doing for Scotland in the course of this Session. He says that only the limited sum named is to be given for free education in Scotland. We have already got £225,000, and when we come to Clause 23, relating to the Probate Duty, we shall seek to get the whole of that Duty, and to obtain such an increase of the grant as will cover all the compulsory standards of elementary education, with the exception possibly of a few thousands of pounds which, now that free education is once conceded, it is quite plain Parliament must find in some way or another. It appears to me that this is a very good night's work, and I think we should only spoil it by trying to make it a matter of Party triumph. We admit that the Government have treated us well, but we deserve to be treated well, for we have done a great work for Scotland in the past, and I now congratulate the House on the prospects of the future.
MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I think we are all greatly indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) for his valuable contribution to this discussion on free education, and I do not think that the remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Sir E. Hamley) detracted one iota from the force and weight of that speech. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant spoke of the speech of my right hon. Friend as an autobiographical speech; but to my mind autobiographical speeches giving the results of personal experiences and investigations are often the best speeches we can have on matters of practical administration. The proposals of her Majesty's Government in favour of free education have been discussed by hon. Members opposite on the ground of principle, but since the introduction of the Bill up to this very evening, not a single note of dissent has been heard from those on the benches opposite in regard to these proposals on
220
the score of principle. It is too late now for a determined opposition on that ground, and I sincerely hope that the English Members, who may be opposed to free education for their own country, will, at least as regards Scotland, allow the wishes of the Scotch Members, supported as they are to a large extent by the Government, to be carried into effect. Scotland wants free education, as far as that education is compulsory, and we think the wishes of the Scottish people ought not to be thwarted by the English Members, many of whom in persistently voting against the views put forward by the Scotch Members, have probably done so contrary to their own better feeling and sense of what is right. I would urge upon hon. Members opposite that it will be most unwise on their part to continue their opposition to this proposal, because by so doing they will be tending to convert the whole of the Scottish people into a band of Home Rulers, a result which, viewed as a matter of principle, would be far worse for them than the contemplation of that free education which is so much wanted in Scotland.
SIR R. TEMPLE: I feel bound to state my own position as an English Conservative upon this question—a position which is largely shared by my colleagues on these benches. The Government have been kind enough to explain that the tendency of this clause is not really towards free education in Scotland; but the question is, how is the matter understood by hon. Members opposite, especially by the Scotch Members, and a certain portion of the English Members, who agree with them? I have carefully listened to all that has been said during this debate, and I understand that this clause does, in the estimation of hon. Members opposite, amount to a recognition by Her Majesty's Government, and by this House, of the principle that it is good for those who are not absolutely poor to have their children educated at the public expense without the

221
payment of any fee whatever. That is a principle against which we Conservative Members have persistently protested. I myself have made repeated declarations against free education to my constituents during my election, and those declarations I have renewed at meetings which I have since attended; and I must add that, when I made those declarations, I believed I was speaking and acting up to the principles of that great Party to which I am proud to belong. There is no more loyal Party man on this side of the House than I am; nevertheless, when I come to choose between Party allegiance on the one hand and my own declarations on the other, I am bound to stand to my declarations. I ask my Parliamentary comrades to take warning from what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield to-night. He is a great educational authority, and he has distinctly told us to-night that the future policy of the Party opposite is to be the introduction of this principle of free education into England. Then I would remind the Government not only on my own part, but I venture to think I may also speak for hon. Members around me, that when this wedge which has been inserted on behalf of Scotland comes to be applied to England we intend to resist it. The principle of most of us on this side of the House is that of principiis obsta. Let us, on this occasion, register our protest against the policy embodied in this clause, so that, hereafter, we may derive what moral force that protest may give us when the case is brought nearer home. If we do that then we shall have a chance for success in the coming contest, if it shall ever come. But if we flinch now we shall deservedly lose any chance which we might otherwise have.
MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I have no fault to find with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton division of Glasgow (Sir G. Trevelyan) except so far as he claimed the result of to-night's proceedings as "a bit of Home Rule." I venture to say he misdescribed our proceedings in that allusion, and that what
222
is being done is rather a bit of anticipatory Local Government. We have now, I hope, obtained a hold, not altogether on free education, but to the extent of free education in the compulsory standards. But my object in rising was to call attention to the position of Scotland in regard to the present expenses of education. In answer to a question put by me on the 24th of last month, the Lord Advocate gave approximate figures as to the cost of education in each of the five compulsory standards, the result being that for infants the sum expended was £37,000; in Standard I., £38,000; in Standard II., £42,000; in Standard III., £50,000; in Standard IV., £66,000; and in Standard V., £48,000—the total amounts being £281,000, a sum which the Lord Advocate considered to be over the mark, giving it approximately at £265,000. The net result of what has been done is that we have carried out the Government plan of making the first three standards free, and we only now want a sum of £22,000 to clear all the compulsory standards. That will be but a small amount to take from the rates, supposing we do not get it from the National Exchequer; and I am sure the people of Scotland will not grudge such a sum in return for the great advantage of freeing the whole of the compulsory standards.
MR. H. DAVENPORT: It will be remembered that at the Election of 1885 an authorized programme, published in the Times, of September 18, 1885, was issued to the Liberal Party, and in a paragraph relating to gratuitous education the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) put forward all the standing arguments against free education. The right hon. Gentleman stated that anything which cost nothing was not valued by the recipients, and that the State ought not to do for an individual or a class what they ought to do for themselves, that the action of the State was not to be preferred to that of the great religious communities—that free education was incompatible with definite religious

223
teaching, and would lower the character of the teaching in elementary schools.
MR. A. L. BROWN: The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Howorth) has spoken, among other things, about what he terms "human strata" and the damage that might result from these human strata being mixed up in one school. He also spoke of the working class as thriftless and improvident. I should rather like to see the hon. Gentleman go down to Salford and address the working men there, face to face, in the language he has employed with regard to them here to-night. He has also stated that we are guilty of a misnomer when we talk of free education; and of course we admit that though the poorer class may not directly pay school fees they do not altogether escape the incidence of those fees, because they pay their share in the contributions they make towards the Imperial Exchequer. But the hon. Gentleman went on to say it was the aim of the working man to shift the burdens of his class on to the shoulders of another class—an assertion he would find it very difficult to prove. The working class know very well that what is called free education cannot be absolutely free, and the position they take is this, "You compel us to send our children to school, and punish us if we do not pay the school fees. This is a tax upon us quite as much as the poors' rate. It is no longer a private duty on our part to send our children to school; it is a State duty, and all we ask is that instead of having to pay the whole of the education tax when the children are young, let us have it spread over the course of our lives." I greatly regret to hear anyone say that free education is calculated to sap the independence of the working man, and I deny the assertion. The working man, in asking for free education, is simply asking Parliament, which has the control of the Exchequer, to extend the tax he will have to pay that it may be less onerous than if it were payable within a limited period.
DR. CAMERON: Having listened with great interest to this debate, I feel myself very much in the position of the American poet, who said:
"Do I sleep, do I dream, do I wander in doubt;
Or is our civilization a failure and the cable paid out?"
I find not only on this side of the House is there unanimous support to the proposal contained in this clause; but we also find that we have with us hon. Gentlemen who, eight years ago, would as soon have thought of countenancing Disestablishment as free education. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has said that the Government do not go for the principle of free education; and I wish to emphasize his utterance on that point, coming, as it does, after what has been said by the President of the Local Government Board, and outside this House by the Marquess of Lothian, as showing the necessity for maintaining a guarded attitude in this matter. I regret that the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield to-night was not made as far back as 1881, for had it been made then we should long ago have had free education in Scotland. I have looked up the Debate which took place in that year, and I confess to a feeling of astonishment at the ingenuity now displayed by the right hon. Gentleman. He has argued to-night that if fees were abolished, we should have increased attendance; but in 1881 he said the constant complaint was that of absenteeism, and that where compulsion had produced the most regular attendance was in North Germany, Saxony, and Wurtemburg, where the fees were paid regularly and had been so paid from time immemorial. Although at that time the right hon. Gentleman was opposed to free education, he showed that he was, to a certain extent, endowed with the gift of prophecy, for he said he would not assert that the time would not come when they would have free education in Scotland. The cruellest cut of all, however, as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, occurred with regard to the Heriot Schools, which

225
at the time were giving free education to some 6,000 children. The right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill for the revision of educational endowments, under which the Heriot Free Schools were put an end to altogether. My right hon. Friend stated that if he were to be born again he would be born a Scotchman. Well, since the year 1881 he has been born a Scotchman, in spirit, if not in flesh; and I sincerely congratulate him on the great advance he has made since the period I have referred to.
SIR A. ORR-EWING: I am quite sure that the Scotch Members generally will thank the Government for the course they have taken in regard to this question, and I am perfectly certain they will never have cause to regret it. I do not think, however, that the hon. Member for the Hawick burghs (Mr. A. L. Brown) fairly represented the feeling of the Scotch Members when he put it that by compelling the working man to send his children to school they were imposing a heavy burden on him. It is my belief that the people of Scotland have a far higher appreciation of the value of education than that, and that they are proud to be able to educate their children in a manner fitting them for the positions they have to fill in after life. I should not have supported this measure had it not been that Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Schools are placed on exactly the same terms. If schools in England are all put on an equal footing, I take it that the people of England will not refuse to accept a similar measure.
MR. MARK STEWART: As one of the few Scotch Members on this side of the House who issued an election address in 1885 which expressed an opinion in favour of free education, I wish to say that I am heartily glad that the Government have taken the action they have done to-night. The question must be looked at from a practical point of view. In the case of poor parents at present it is almost impossible to get convictions for non-attendance at school in Scotland, except in particularly bad cases. I hope
226
that the educational provisions of this Bill will give a great impetus to higher education; and, again, I say I heartily congratulate the Government on having followed the principle they have laid down in their Bill
SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I desire, as an English Member, to point out to the Committee that the application of public money in the direction of free education which has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government, is in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the Scotch Members in this House. When the hon. Member for Glasgow and other hon. Members opposite twit Conservative Members with a change of opinion on the question of free education, I reply to them that it is simply owing to their own fallacious use of the term "free education," for the proposals of the Government are strictly limited, in the first place, to Scotland, and, in the second place, to a certain fixed contribution. They are also limited to the compulsory standards; and, further than this, care has been taken that no injury shall be done to denominational schools; as the proposals of the Government insure that no injury shall be done to denominational schools. Again, I hold that these proposals take away that which is distinctly a blot on our present educational system; I refer to the necessity that is now imposed on the poorest parents, who cannot afford to pay the pence for their children's education, of going to the Guardians of the Poor in order to obtain relief. They are compelled to send their children to school, and at the same time they are compelled to pauperize themselves by going to the Guardians. This, I think, should not be the case; and therefore I most heartily support the proposals of the Government.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 52.—(Div. List, No. 197.)
MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: The effect of my Amendment would have been, assuming that the amount at the disposal of the authorities for the relief of the payment of fees was not sufficient to cover all the compulsory standards,

227
that the money should have been devoted to the relief of rates in the higher rather than the lower standards. But the Government have already conceded so much to Scottish feeling and sentiment that I confidently trust that they will be found of the same mind on the Report stage as they are at present. Under the circumstances, I will accept the assurance of the Lord Advocate that he will consider this point before the Report stage, and therefore do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
MR.J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I may remark that the question may or may not become important, accordingly as the Government decide on other points.
DR. CAMERON: I do not think that anything would be gained by proceeding with the next Amendment which stands on the Paper, and I therefore beg to move to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress, to sit tomorrow.

AUDIT (ARMY AND NAVY ACCOUNTS) BILL. [No. 314.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. BLANE: I do not think that this Bill ought to be read a second time without an explanation from the Government as to its provisions. I therefore move that the Debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Blane.)
MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope that the House will not adjourn the Debate. The Bill is simply to enable the Comptroller and the Auditor General to audit certain accounts which he has not the
228
power to do, and I trust that the House will give the necessary authority.
MR. SEXTON: I hope that my hon. Friend will not persist in his Motion. At the same time, I may point out it would have been more convenient if the Secretary for War, in the first place, could have given the information which the First Lord of the Treasury has now given under pressure.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): My name was not on the back of the Bill, and therefore I could not intervene.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

AMENDMENT (LEASEHOLDERS) BILL (No. 31.)
Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [4th April] read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL. (No. 203.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

GLEBE LANDS OCCUPATION BILL. (No. 62.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

JESUS COLLEGE, OXFORD (MEY- RICK ENDOWMENT).
MR. STUART RENDEL: I beg to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she may be graciously pleased to withhold Her consent to the Statute made by the Governing Body of Jesus College, Oxford, on the 2nd February, 1889, amending the Statute of the College concerning the Meyrick Endowment."

229
It is within the knowledge of every one interested in Welsh educational affairs that the important Meyrick Endowment in connection with Jesus College was remodelled under the Universities Acts. The settlement thus made by the Universities Commission and confirmed by the Act of 1887 is recorded in the Statutes of Jesus College, and was stated fully by the Departmental Committee of 1881, over which Lord Aberdare presided. It has unfortunately happened that a sum of £20,000, which should under this settlement have been dealt with by the Charity Commissioners for the benefit of Wales, has not been so dealt with. That sum has now gone to Jesus College, to which it does not morally belong, and it has gone to purposes for which it was never intended by the Universities Commission, and it is with the view of securing that the money shall be maintained intact for the purposes for which it was intended that the present notice of opposition has been given. If we can only receive an assurance that there is no intention whatever of encroaching upon the income or corpus of the £20,000, my hon. Friends from Wales and myself will be quite ready to accept it.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that She may be graciously pleased to withhold Her consent to the Statute made by the Governing Body of Jesus College, Oxford, on the 2nd of February. 1889, amending the Statute of the College concerning the Meyrick Endowment."—(Mr. Stuart Rendel).
SIR J. MOWBRAY: I hope the House will not assent to the Motion proposed by my hon. Friend. It is in the interest of education in Wales that this Statute has been passed by the college. The hon. Gentleman says that the money does not properly belong to the college. In that statement the hon. Gentleman proceeds in the assumption that the Charity Commissioners did not do their duty in respect to this sum. As a matter of fact they made no order about it, and the legal right to the money is in the college,
230
and was confirmed by the Court of Chancery. The hon. Gentleman also agrees to withdraw his Motion if an assurance is given that there is no intention of encroaching further on the fund. The charge of £200 a year for a Celtic library is not a charge on this or any other fund. The Statute was passed for the promotion of a Celtic library, and I am persauded hon. Members from Wales will agree that the promotion of Celtic study will be really advantageous to the people of Wales. I suppose the hon. Gentleman would rather there were scholarships or exhibitions. Let me take three distinguished Welshmen in the House as examples of the benefit which might be afforded by this Celtic library. The hon. Member himself was a member of Riel College, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. O. Morgan) was a member of Baliol College, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. Ellis), who had done himself so much credit by the honours he took at Oxford, was a member of New Clare. They did not go to Jesus College, the national Welsh College; but what an advantage it would have been to them if they had been enabled to avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by this Celtic library within the walls of Jesus College. So far from this being a local object, it is a general object. It is intended for the benefit of education in Wales, and I hope the House will not interfere with it.
MR. T. E.ELLIS: At the time the University Commissioners sanctioned the change in the Statutes of Jesus College, this £20,000 was, to a large extent, compensation for changes made in the constitution of the college. At that time Jesus College was open not merely to Welshmen, but to others. No part of the £20,000 was laid by in order to enable Welshmen to be educated in Wales, and so educated as to be able to avail themselves of education in the University. It seems to me that to enable Welshmen not merely to study the mysteries of Celtic literature in the

231
library of Jesus College, but to go from Wales to the various colleges of the University is the greatest help that can possibly be given them. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman can very well be turned against himself. It is rather remarkable that Jesus College, which is supposed to be a completely Welsh College, has not one of its own members in this House representing any Welsh constituency, whereas several hon. Gentlemen, who have been educated in other colleges, are the Representatives of Welsh constituencies. Since the right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to refer to myself, I may give him this experience, that the greatest help which the University or this House can give to Welsh boys is to give them good schools in Wales from which they can go to the University. I am afraid that the requirements of the schools are such that very little time, indeed, is allowed for the ordinary undergraduate to go into anything that he is actually required to go into. It is very little time any fellow-countryman of mine can give to the mysteries of the Celtic language until he has got his degree in some of the other schools. This is really a case in which the Charity Commissioners and Jesus College have, either by intention or accident, broken faith with Wales. A distinct promise was made by the Governing Body of Jesus College to the University Commissioners and the Charity Commissioners that this £20,000 should be put by in order to promote and develop education in Wales with a view ultimately, of course, to enable young Welshmen to go to the University of Oxford. Through the neglect—the shameful neglect—of the Charity Commissioners, this £20,000 has, it seems, lapsed again to its old control. This House, by sanctioning this scheme, would be sanctioning a breach of faith with the Welsh people. I even go further. It seems to me that Welshmen have a claim not merely on this £20,000, but on the interest during the last eight years. For eight years we have been deprived of the income from the £20,000, and after eight years'
232
suffering the only consolation we get is to be robbed of the £20,000 itself.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: The hon. Gentleman is desirous that this fund shall be apportioned in a particular way. This fund is at the absolute disposal of Jesus College, and they propose to distribute it in another way. That way may not be, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen, the best conceivable way; but surely that is not the question for the House to determine. The question to be decided is whether Jesus College has allocated the money in a manner which is consistent with public policy. No one can say that the establishment or enrichment of a public library in the college is not a very desirable object. That may not be, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the best object to which to devote the money, but surely it is dangerous for the House of Commons to enter into such a question. The House would be stepping out of its province and embarking on a very wide held of legislation if it were to go behind the backs of the Corporation, who have control over this Fund, and say how the money is to be spent. What we say is that Jesus College has this fund at its disposal; that it has a right to dispose of it in the way the Statute points out. I do not for a moment complain of the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I maintain that the balance of the judgment of the House ought to be on the side of college in having framed its Statute rightly, and in having devoted this money to a purpose which no one can deny is a very enlightened one.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: We object to the mode in which Jesus College thinks it right to apply this money. There was an understanding, which is recorded in the correspondence between the Charity Commissioners and the University Commissioners in 1881, that this money should be applied in the interest of education in Wales. By some means or other that money has been devoted

233
to another purpose. We do not deny it is within the legal right of Jesus College to apply this money in the way proposed, but we most positively deny that it is within its moral right to do so. We say it is by the violation of the moral right that they have got the legal right.
MR. STUART RENDEL: I regret to trouble the House again, but I was really not prepared for the official resistance which has been made to the Motion. This is rather a peculiar case. The fact is that under the Meyrick Endowment Statute forming part of the existing Statutes of Jesus College, £20,000 was distinctly reserved for the benefit of education in Wales, and was declared to be not included in the endowment of the College. Under the same Statute the Charity Commission were to deal with the £20,000, or to give due notice of their intention to do so, and by a mere technical slip, a most culpable neglect, the late Chief Commissioner failed to give the required notice of opposition, with the result that the £20,000 lapsed to the College. Surely we ought not to go to a division without hearing a statement on the part of the Charity Commissioners as to what the facts are. I may be under a slight misapprehension in the matter, but I believe I am broadly stating the facts when I say it is entirely owing to a piece of negligence on the part of the late Chief Commissioner, and by availing themselves of a technical flaw, that Jesus College is now in any way enabled to make any claim upon the £20,000. We, in Wales, maintain that the £20,000 ought to go as the University Commission provided in furthering the interests of education in Wales, and if we are in a poor minority in this House, we must divide on the question all the same as a protest.
MR.J. W. LOWTHER: I should not have intervened in the debate had not the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire directly appealed to me for confirmation of the statements made by him. That confirmation I can certainly give. The Charity
234
Commission intended to deal with this, and a certain time was stated during which the Charity Commissioners were to deal with it. By an oversight on the part of the Commission, the sum was not dealt with, and it has lapsed to Jesus College, subject to certain educational trusts. It rests with the College to say in what direction the fund shall go—whether it shall be for direct education or for indirect education, such as endowing exhibitions or scholarships, or endowing their library. I believe there are only 49 or 50 undergraduates, of whom 47 hold scholarships, and apparently the authorities thought that there was no use heaping scholarship upon scholarship, and that it was better to apply the funds to indirect rather than to direct education. I think it does not rest with the Charity Commissioners to suggest to the House what course it should take, and personally I do not propose to vote in the Division which is about to take place.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I think the statement of the hon. Member has placed us in a very different position. The hon. Gentleman is one of the Charity Commissioners, and it appears from his statement that there has been a great lapse on the part of that body. If that be so, surely the responsibility rests with the Government to place the people of Wales in the position they would have occupied had not there been this serious neglect of duty on the part of the Charity Commissioners. I appeal to some Member of the Government to inform us whether in their opinion the Government are not bound to relieve hon. Members from Wales who have been improperly placed in their present position in this matter.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): From the legal point of view, it would be exceedingly wrong of Her Majesty's Government to interfere as a Government with this question. Still there is no doubt about the legal position. Failing an appropriation of the funds

235
in question within a limited time, the right of dealing with the funds went to Jesus College. Unless Jesus College has been guilty of some neglect, or has in some way departed from some obligation which rests upon them, the House will be doing wrong in interfering with the right of Jesus College in applying the money to a purpose which is admitted to be educational, although not that which commends itself to the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not even suggested that the Government should or could interfere at present, but it is suggested that a Bill may be introduced at some future time. It may be that Parliament will then think that the maintenance of this library should be charged on some fund other than this particular fund. But the House is now asked without sufficient reason to say that the body legally constituted, having legal authority over this Fund, acting, as is admitted, in the exercise of their power by devoting this Fund to a lawful object connected with Welsh education, is not so to act. I think the House would be proceeding without any trustworthy information, and that further than that it would be establishing a most dangerous precedent if they were thus to interfere with a properly and legally constituted body.
SIR E. J. REED: I go with the Attorney General in believing that the Government are under no special obligation in the matter, but I think that honourable men are under a special obligation in the matter, because honourable men do not desire to deprive people of that which was intended for them because of an accident or the negligence of a public official. The object of the Motion of my hon. Friend is to obtain the appropriation of this Fund, which would have taken place but for the neglect of the late Chief Charity Commissioner. The Attorney General in his eulogium was content to take a strictly legal view of the matter, but this is not the view we take. We do not think that the Jesus College should take advantage of this slip and turn it to the disadvantage of the Welsh people.
MR. TOMLINSON: I cannot help thinking that the Attorney General expresses too narrow a view of the duty of this House in relation to these College Statutes. It seems to have
236
been intended that they should be liable to come before Parliament for consideration. Though the College has acted within its rights, there appears to have been a failure to appreciate the condition originally attaching to the fund, though legality has been strictly observed, I think a moral claim has been established against this scheme.
MR. RATHBONE:: I really must protest against the position taken by the Attorney General. It does not seem to me that a College can act on different principles to those that should guide honourable men. I cannot conceive that any honourable man coming into possession of money by accident and knowing for whom it was intended would not make an effort to place that money in the hands of those for whom it was intended. So I cannot conceive how the college can be justified in taking advantage of this technicality.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (SIR W. HART DYKE,): I should be sorry if any acrimony were imported into the discussion. This is essentially a matter on which the House should decide, and Her Majesty's Government do not think it their duty to guide the House upon the subject. We, therefore, shall follow the precedent which has been set on previous occasions, notably, in 1882, when Lord Spencer declined to take part in the Division in reference to a question raised in the other House upon a Statute of Lincoln College. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General did no more than to give his legal opinion. While I regret that this lapse did occur as to this fund, I entirely dispute the proposition that Jesus College is not in legal possession of this fund.
The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 62.—(Division List, No. 198.)

HARES PRESERVATION BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 326.]
House adjourned at Five Minutes before One o'clock.

BELGRANO (BUENOS AYRES) GAS COMPANY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill to enable alterations to be made in the Memorandum of Association of the Belgrano (Buenos Ayres) Gas Company. It was a Company formed, as its name implies, to supply gas to the town of Belgrano in Buenos Ayres; and the Company desire by this Bill so to alter their Memorandum of Association as to enable them to supply electric light as well as gas. My Lords, my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees thought that, under the circumstances, there were objections to such a Bill, and that I ought not to move it as a matter of form. I may say, my Lords, I entirely concur in that view; and when after his refusal the matter was brought before me, and I was asked to undertake to move the Bill, I said I certainly could not do so under the circumstances which then existed, because all that appeared then was that a large majority of the shareholders supported the Bill, and desired to have this alteration made in the Memorandum of Association. It appeared to me, my Lords, that that was not sufficient, and that considering that the Memorandum of Association is the basis of the Company, determining the undertaking which is to be carried on by the Company, no mere majority of the shareholders should merely, because they were a
62
majority, have the right to alter the Memorandum of Association which is the Charter of the Company settling its rights and its powers, so as to enable a new undertaking to be entered upon which might be distasteful to a minority, even an inconsiderable minority, of the shareholders. But, my Lords, under the special circumstances of this case, it appeared to me that, practically the whole of the shareholders assenting to the alteration of this Memorandum of Association, my difficulty would be removed. In consequence of that, inquiries have since been instituted by those who have charge of the Bill, and the result showed that that is the case—that practically the whole of the shareholders assent to the alteration. There are 220 shareholders holding 14,000 shares. That is the total number of shareholders and shares in the Company. Of those, 220 shareholders, 218, representing 13,964 shares, have expressed their approval, leaving only two shareholders unaccounted for. One of those two shareholders, representing 14 shares, has lately died, and that leaves really only one shareholder unaccounted for. That shareholder has been abroad, and has only just returned to England, and there has consequently been no opportunity of obtaining his assent. So that, my Lords, substantially, we may take it that the whole of the shareholders in this Company desire this alteration in. the Memorandum of Association, and desire that this power should be conferred upon the Company of entering upon this new branch of business as part of their undertaking. My Lords, the circumstances of the case are somewhat peculiar. In an ordinary case it might be said it is unnecessary to apply for an amendment of the Memorandum

63
of Association, because the existing Company can be dissolved, and a new Company formed; and there are cases in which I should have thought that would be the proper course to be pursued. But in the present case the Company has certain concessions from Foreign Governments, and I am assured that if that course were adopted, of dissolving the existing Company and forming a new Company, difficulties would be likely to arise which would not, perhaps, be very intelligible to the Foreign Governments by whom the concessions were granted, and the result of doing so might, therefore, be disastrous to the Company. The alteration is one which will enable a business to be carried on which is cognate to that now being carried on for the purpose of lighting a certain district, a new method of lighting having come into vogue since the Company was formed. Under all these circumstances, it seems to me that I may safely and properly ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, and there would be no danger of its creating a precedent which might prove inconvenient hereafter. There are, indeed, precedents for altering by Acts of Parliament Memorandums of Association; but I do not go into them now. Some of them might be said to be stronger cases than that which I am bringing before your Lordships' notice. Those Acts may have passed from want of proper precaution and care being taken when the matter was brought before Parliament. I am satisfied, my Lords, to rest the present case upon its own circumstances; and I am satisfied that there will be, under the circumstances, no danger of creating an inconvenient precedent in asking your Lordships to give your assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2,ª"—(The Lord Herschell.)
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I merely wish to say a few words in explanation of the position which I have taken up with regard to this Bill, and which has been correctly stated by my noble and learned Friend. This Bill, as my noble and learned Friend has stated, is to enable a Company, which is registered under the Joint Stock Companies' Act, to alter its Memorandum of Association. I need not point out to your
64
Lordships the great importance of a Memorandum of Association as being the Charter of a Company, and the great danger of altering the terms of that Memorandum of Association. My noble and learned Friend has said there are precedents for changes being made by special Acts of Parliament in Memorandums of Association of Joint Stock Companies. My Lords, that is perfectly true; there are many instances of such Acts of Parliament being passed, but they were all justified either by special circumstances over which the Company concerned had no control; or, secondly, by the requirements of concessions from Foreign Governments; or, thirdly, in order to clear up any doubts which might be entertained with regard to the construction of the Memorandum of Association. On the other hand, I may mention that many Bills for altering Memorandums of Association have been refused. I will give your Lordships an instance last Session of the United States and South American Investment Company, the powers of which were limited to America. That Company applied to have its powers extended to this country, and that Bill was refused. Then there was also the case of the Compagnie Générale des Asphaltes which, being a Foreign Company, also applied to have its powers extended to the United Kingdom, and that Bill again was refused by my Predecessor in Office. There was also the case of another Bill of a very similar character to the Bill now before the House in reference to a Company called the Tuscan Gas Company. That Company, precisely as in the present case, had powers for lighting a certain district by gas. My Predecessor refused the application of the Company in general terms, but they were allowed to light by electricity places where they could be forced by the Government, or by the Municipality, to supply electric light, the reason being that if they had not been allowed to do so they would have lost their concession. There was another case of the Telegraph Construction Company in 1883. I have looked at that Bill, and it is not a case at all parallel with the one before the House. It is merely as to the construction of the terms of the Memorandum of Association; and the Bill was for the purpose of clearing up doubts as to what the Company's powers were and

65
what they were not. My Lords, I referred just now to the danger of touching any Memorandum of Association of a Company, though, no doubt, a case might, under special circumstances, be made out for doing so. But I cannot see that this Company has made out any such special case. It is, no doubt, the fact that electric lighting has become more general since the formation of the Company five years ago; and the result appears to be, I am sorry to say, that the profits of the Company are diminishing; but it is not enough to show that, in consequence of the introduction of the electric light, the profits of the Company have been diminished. The noble and learned Lord says that the consent of all the shareholders has been obtained; and I admit at once that that is a great argument in favour of the Bill. There are, indeed, only two shareholders who have not assented, and their absence has been accounted for. But I would ask the House whether that gets over all the difficulties of the case? It seems to me to be a somewhat novel principle that Parliament should be called upon to legislate simply upon the requisition and by the consent of all the parties concerned in the particular Company whose interests it is desired to protect by legislation. My Lords, if that principle is admitted, is there not a danger that you will get beyond the simple position of universal consent by the shareholders, and that in the future you may be asked to consent to powers being given upon the wish of a majority? But, my Lords, there is besides another point to be considered. I am now speaking of this case simply as a precedent for future legislation, and not merely in reference to this particular Company. There are other parties interested besides the shareholders; there may be mortgagees, or other creditors, who are interested in the Memorandum of Association being maintained. There may be other circumstances existing which would require to be considered. I am told, my Lords, that in this particular case there is already an Electric Lighting Company established at Belgrano, which may have been started on the ground that this Gas Company has no power to supply electric light. I admit, my Lords, that the present case is somewhat exceptional; but I confess that I
66
should not recommend the adoption by your Lordships of a measure which may be considered to some extent a precedent. We may have Bills introduced where the circumstances require that such an alteration should be made as is here proposed; but this appears to me to be a new precedent entirely, and I am afraid there are not sufficient grounds existing to justify it, or grounds which would be satisfactory to your Lordships' House. My Lords, I have explained the particular circumstances which, in my opinion, rendered it impossible for me to take the responsibility of moving the Second Reading of the Bill in this case, as in that event it would have come before your Lordships in the ordinary course without any remark being made upon it. However, the noble and learned Lord has moved the Second Reading, and I leave it entirely to the House to state the course which is to be pursued in regard to it. But, as I have said, there have been precedents for passing such a Bill altering a Memorandum of Association, and it only remains for your Lordships to express your opinion upon it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I may say that I have no interest in this Company; but I have inquired into the circumstances of the case, and must support the Second Reading. The noble Lord has stated, in his remarks, that no special case has been made out by the Company. At the time the Company was constituted under the Companies' Act (1862) no question existed of this kind as to the possibility of using electricity for lighting any large or considerable area. As soon as the possibility arose of the electric light being utilized in that way, there was immediately a demand for it. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that, so far, the Gas Company has not been called upon to supply electricity—if that had been the case the House might probably have thought that was a ground for granting the Second Reading; but although that is not the case the Gas Company has been put in the position of being very considerably cut down in its receipts. The noble and learned Lord has also said there is another Electric Lighting Company in existence at Belgrano. I have made inquiries into the matter, and I find there is already one

67
Company established there which is in a very strong position. Arrangements have been made with the Gas Company which I think are desirable for both Companies and also in the interests of the public; because it seems they have arranged to supply electricity in bulk to the Gas Company for the purpose of being delivered to the Gas Company's consumers. I think, my Lords, it is very desirable in the interests of both Companies, and also of the public, that your Lordships should accede to the Bill being read a second time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that no satisfactory reply has been given to the difficulties and objections which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has felt upon this subject. If the Bill were passed it might place a burden upon him which, I think, it is not fair to place upon him. What is the case before the House? The case is simply this It has been shown by the noble Lords who have spoken that this Company desires to enter upon a new business. But what is to be the answer, in this and other cases, of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees when a request of this kind is made to allow Companies to embark in a different business to that in which they started? What rule, what line, is he to adopt? My Lords, I cannot say that I have heard anything to justify a departure in this case from the ordinary rule, or that anything really has been alleged for it, except this—that, as a commercial matter, this being a commercial undertaking, it is more profitable to this Company to extend its powers. That is very wide. I do not know how far we shall have to go if once that principle is adopted, or how the Chairman of Committees is to act. It is said that this is a Bill asking for a power of a cognate character; and in one sense that is no doubt correct, as it is for lighting purposes; but I cannot say that that is a justification for so important a change in this case. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships should require very strong grounds to be shown before you pass the Second Reading.
LORD FITZGERALD: My Lords, I have no personal interest whatever in this Company, and I know nothing of it beyond what I have read in the Papers, which I received this morning, and which
68
I believe to have been generally distributed. There can be no doubt what the object of the Company is. This, Memorandum speaks of lighting by gas, and the alteration proposed is to enable the Company partially to use lighting by electricity. It is said there is another means of doing this. What is it? By the liquidation and winding-up of this Company, and the formation of a new one with a new Memorandum of Association. The legal consequences of that would be very important to this Company, and very costly, and would possibly be disastrous to it. They say that, in order to carry on their business, they must provide lighting by electricity, and that otherwise they will lose the benefits of their concession. It is not only the Company and its shareholders that are interested in this matter but the local public; and it is to the interest of everybody concerned that the object of the Company should be carried out. No one objects. There are no creditors, and the shareholders as a body desire the alteration. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that the Company will be enabled to go on by allowing its Memorandum of Association to be extended in this way. In doing so you violate no principle, and I therefore support the Second Reading.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I will only say in reply that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons, has thought that this was a matter which should be brought forward. If any general rule is to be laid down, it is very desirable that there should be a common understanding between both Houses as to what course should be pursued with regard to these Bills. It is very undesirable that one rule should be followed in the House of Commons and another in this House. At the same time, I may say I am not sure that I can see any great distinction between a private Act of Parliament altering the terms of a Memorandum of Association and a private Act of Parliament altering the constitution of a Company. I confess I do not see any real distinction between the two, and the latter is of everyday occurrence.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 23; Not-Contents 44.
Resolved in the negative.

CHELTENHAM IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 5th day of March last—
"That no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday, the 21st day of June next,"
be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2ª.—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I oppose the Motion on the ground that Bills should not be hurried through the House. I must protest against business being done in a hurried manner. A noble Lord opposite has said that at the end of the Session it is perfectly impossible for any opposition to properly check the progress of measures, and he said, at the same time, he wished some Resolution could have been adopted on the subject. I know that other noble Lords have complained of the same thing, and the difficulties are increasing. On one occasion a Bill was carried in a single day, and though I opposed it, my speech would not have been reported if the reporters had not sent down to me to know what I said.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 154.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., with Amendments: the Report thereof received; and Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &C.) BILL. (NO. 155.)
A Bill to remove doubts as to the validity of certain marriages solemnized in Basutoland and in British Bechuanaland; and
WINDWARD ISLANDS APPEAL COURT BILL. (NO. 156.)
A Bill to provide for modifying the constitution of the Court of Appeal for the Windward Islands—were presented by the Lord Knutsford; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Thursday next.

TEAM WAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I have to move—
"That the Order made on the 5th day of March last, 'That no Bill brought from the
70
House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Friday the 28th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2ª."
All the requirements of the Tramways Act, 1870, which have to be complied with before a Provisional Order can be introduced into the House of Commons, were complied with in this case, and the Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament on the 17th May. On one single Order it was opposed, but it did not come before the Committee until the 27th June, that is a month and 10 days after the Bill first came before Parliament. The Committee reported in favour of the Order; but the delay which occurred before the Committee was appointed has made it impossible for us to comply with the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders in regard to this Bill. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will on this occasion suspend the Standing Orders.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2ª accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

WINCHESTER BURGESSES (DISQUALI- FICATION REMOVAL) BILL.
LORD BASING: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I have only to say that the object of the Bill is to remove a disqualification from certain persons who, though they pay borough rates and are included in the borough, are disqualified from voting as burgesses. When the city was laid out in wards a piece of land wasleftout, which has since been built upon, and the Bill proposes to attach it to St. John's Ward.
Bill read 2ª (according to Order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE BILL. (No. 125.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships for the Second Reading of this Bill, which has passed without opposition in the House of Commons. The movement in favour of a Minister of Agriculture took its origin in a Resolution carried some years ago in the House of Commons, on the Motion

71
of Mr. Sampson Lloyd, by which it was resolved that it was extremely desirable a Department should be created for Agriculture and Trade. In 1881, the Motion of Sir M. Lopes for the same object was accepted by the then Government, and in order to give effect to that Resolution, the Committee of Agriculture, which now exists, was in 1883 appointed. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was made Vice President of that Committee, and has so continued; but since my noble Friend who holds that office became Duke of Rutland, the duties which had to be discharged in the House of Commons were undertaken by Lord Lewisham, who has since acted for the Department. My Lords, I have heard some remarks made with respect to the Committee so appointed in 1883, and by the present Government both in 1885 and 1886. That Committee has been by no means a nominal one, for it has frequently been called together to consider very important matters. The President is, of course, responsible for everything that is done, and it was not for the purpose of relieving him from that responsibility that the Committee has been on several occasions called together; but the Committee is composed of those who know the wants of the country in connection with agricultural subjects. It has also been of service in regard to the distribution of the money last year assigned to the Department for dairy and agricultural schools. My Lords, I should not be moving this Bill if I thought in doing so I should be understood as condemning the present system. So far as the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council is concerned, I am quite aware that that Department has been approved by all parties and classes in the country. It has done its duty very effectually. Under that Department cattle plague and foot and-mouth disease have been effectually stamped out; and, with regard to pleuro-pneumonia, although it is a much more insidious and difficult disease to deal with, it has been taken in hand with the best powers of the Department, and I hope that, whoever may be the new Minister of Agriculture, he may be as triumphant over that disease as his predecessors have been in dealing with the enemies of agriculture I have alluded to. The Veterinary
72
Department has been served by officers who are recognized not only officially, but in the agricultural world as men of singular capacity, activity, and energy, and the country is indebted to them for the ability with which, when disease appears, they use their best endeavours to stamp it out. It is only just to mention Professor Brown, Mr. Cope, and Major Tennant; but indeed I may say generally that the staff of the Veterinary Department has been all that could be desired. The Statistical Department was transferred from the Board of Trade, and I think I may say that those conversant with those matters will admit that the statistics which have been drawn up in the Privy Council Office have been of a character which deserves the approbation of all those interested in them, and, at the same time, they have been brought out so promptly as to be of the greatest use to the farming interest of the country. That, of course, will go on. The great duties discharged by the Agricultural Departments of foreign countries, at enormous expense, have been carried out in England mainly by the voluntary action of the Agricultural Societies of this country; and I do not-believe that this country would be ready to vote an establishment on the large scale adopted in other countries for the Department now to be created. However, the determination of the agriculturists to have a Department entirely to themselves has been sufficiently made manifest, and I am the last person to stand in the way of their receiving the most thorough attention to their wants. Having regard to the difficulties and troubles they have had to encounter in recent years, I do not wonder that they stretch out their hands in all directions for assistance, and that they may look to anew Board of Agriculture to give them, more advantages than they have hitherto had. With regard to schools of agriculture, a grant of £5,000 was made last year for distribution by the Privy Council, and that grant has resulted in a number of agricultural and dairy schools springing up in England, Wales, and Scotland that are doing useful work, and give us reason to hope that the want of these institutions, hitherto felt in this country, will be supplied without any great drain upon the Treasury. My Lords, I have very little more to say.

73
The Bill, which is a short Bill, speaks for itself. It hands over the work hitherto done by the Privy Council in respect of all questions connected with contagious diseases and agriculture; it hands over the work of the Land Commission, with its officers, to the new Board, and also that of the Ordnance Survey, and it will likewise take charge of agricultural statistics and matters relating to forestry and horticulture, as well as the inspection of agricultural and dairy schools. I hope the Bill will be passed without undue delay, because uncertainties and difficulties naturally occur when a Department has, so to speak, a new one hanging over it, and I hope the Treasury will adequately provide for it, and that it may be put in a position to get to work speedily, when I think there can be no doubt it will do work of a satisfactory kind. I submit the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Viscount Cranbrook.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to everything that my noble Friend has said. His speech was very much what I anticipated it would be; he eulogized the Agricultural Department; he told us that the Veterinary Department was as good as could be; he alluded to the statistics; and he told us he was far from condemning the present system. Judging from the remarks of the Lord President of the Council, I imagined that he would have concluded by asking your Lordships to read the Bill a second time this day six months. My Lords, I claim as strong an interest and to be as greatly connected with agriculture as any person in the country. I enjoy the confidence and the friendship of numerous farmers, and I can assure your Lordships that nothing would be further from my wishes than to do anything which would, in my opinion, be hostile or adverse to the agricultural interest. It is, however, because I think that this measure is unnecessary and mischievous that I now lift up my voice against it. I am afraid that I cannot ask your Lordships to reject it, because the Bill having passed the other House without a Division, I do not think it probable that your Lordships would by a majority reject it. The
74
measure is unnecessary, because there is nothing provided for in it which is not performed at the present time by the Agricultural Department, presided over by the Lord President. I think it is mischievous, because to my mind it will raise hopes in the minds of the agriculturists of the country which can never be realized. Agriculturists may be led to believe that the mere fact of setting up an Agricultural Department will conduce to their welfare and put an end to that state of depression which has been passing for so many years over the country. In this belief they would be utterly disappointed, and it is on that ground that I consider the measure a mischievous one. The First Lord of the Treasury, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said—
"Having regard to the present condition of affairs, the competition which existed, the reduction of price which has prevailed during the last few years, resulting perhaps in a greater dislocation of employment in the agricultural industry than in any other industry, and having regard also to the fact that in many parts of the country land has been thrown out of cultivation and that those who have been dependent upon it as owners, and cultivators, and employers have suffered most severely, the Government cannot but admit that there exists very considerable ground for the demand which is made by the agricultural classes for the constitution of a department which would make the interests of agriculture its special and peculiar charge. This is not a personal, individual, or sectional question. It is an Imperial question. It is clearly to the interests of the country that the land should be made productive to its utmost capacity, and should be made to contribute to the prosperity of the country as far as possible."
Now, my Lords, I want to know, with regard to competition, which is one of the points referred to, what is there in this Bill which will enable us to meet competition? It does not propose to resuscitate our old friend Protection, though I, for one, should not object to that. Then it is said that parts of the country have been thrown out of cultivation. I do not see how anything that can be done under this new Bill can bring into cultivation any part of the country that is now out of cultivation. He talks about there being a greater dislocation of employment in the agricultural industry than in any other industry. What is this Bill going to do to remedy that? It seems to be—well, I will not say what I think of it. Then he says—

75
"The Bill is an effort to establish a department which will, I hope, be exceedingly useful to the agricultural community. No doubt a great strain has been put upon those who are interested in land during the last few years. Prices have fallen; there has been an absence of profit in almost every important portion of the farmer's industry, and now we have to endeavour by all the means in our power to bring back prosperity to that portion of Her Majesty's subjects, not by any action of Parliament, not by the fostering care of a department, but by bringing home to them that knowledge and power by which they themselves may work out their own deliverance."
How in the name of wonder the passing of this Bill, which is really only transferring these matters to a new Department, is to bring all that about passes my comprehension. I hope that in the course of time all that may be worked out, but at the present time I confess I do not see how it is to be done. I ask again, my Lords, what is there in this Bill which would enable agriculturists to meet competition? As to the parts of the country thrown out of cultivation, how can anything in this Bill bring back to a state of cultivation lands that have gone out of cultivation? Then, again, what is the Bill going to do in order to remedy the dislocation of employment in the agricultural industry? It has been urged that the Bill will be useful to the agricultural community, and that there is an absence of profit in the agricultural industry. I agree with the First Lord of the Treasury in this, and I should like to see that condition of affairs altered; but this Bill will not do it. How this Bill is to bring home to agriculturists that knowledge and power by which they are to work out their own deliverance I absolutely fail to comprehend, seeing that it only provides for the transfer of the present duties of the Department to another Board. Now, my Lords, I take the Bill itself. The whole of the Bill is contained in the second clause, which declares three things—first of all, the powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture; secondly, the powers and duties of the Land Commissioners; and, thirdly, the powers and duties of the Land Survey, are to be transferred to the new Department. It is quite beyond my comprehension to see what benefit will accrue to agriculturists by mere transference of the duties of the existing Department to another Department located in a different place. I am also astonished to find
76
that one of the most important agricultural countries—Ireland—has not been included in the Bill, hut that it is, on the contrary, to be left to the administration of the present Irish Privy Council. I will quote statistics to show how the Veterinary Department has dealt with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and cattle plague. I should like to give your Lordships a sample of the existing state of things. In 1871 there were 52,164 fresh cases of outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, 691,565 animals being attacked. The United Kingdom has now been free from foot-and-mouth disease for some years. No cattle plague has been imported since the passing of the Act of 1878. As to pleuro-pneumonia, I can show your Lordships that in 1877, the year before the passing of the Act, there were 2,108 farms returned as infected and 5,330 animals attacked. In 1888 there were only 513 farms returned as infected, with 1,813 animals attacked. If the Government would spend only one-half of the money which they intended to spend on the creation of this new Department in taking proper measures they could stamp out pleuro-pneumonia altogether. It must be admitted that the present Department does its work in an admirable manner, and we should hardly be able to find its equal in any other country in the world. In the year 1888 no fewer than 68 different abstracts were compiled by Mr. Whitehead and published by the Agricultural Department. Mr. Whitehead has also published elaborate essays on the subject of moths, flies, and beetles affecting agriculture. That has all been done now, and I doubt whether, under the new system, we should get much more information. I am astonished at the ignorance displayed on this subject. I have heard it said, for instance, that it is perfectly monstrous that a country like this, where agriculture is such an important interest, should not have an Agricultural Department as France has. But we have a Department of Agriculture, although our system is different, because in France everything is done by the Government. Even the expense of shows is borne there by the Government. But in the case of a show, such as that recently held at Windsor, every penny of expenditure comes from voluntary contributions. Those who complain

77
that we have not an Agricultural Department like that existing in France, do not know probably that that Department cost France £1,600,000 last year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, I think, make a very wry face if he were told that he would have to find anything like that amount of money to maintain agriculture in this country. I have heard that the new Minister would be able to stamp out disease; but I cannot imagine how the Minister could do more in that respect than is done now, for he certainly could not go outside the Act of Parliament. My Lords, I have only a very few words more to say; but there is one thing which I must mention. The argument which seems to have weighed most with my noble Friend the Prime Minister was addressed to him by a deputation which waited upon him a few months ago. The deputation suggested to him that there should be a Board of Agriculture. There were several speeches made, and my noble Friend at the end of the meeting stated his views to the deputation. I cannot help believing he must have been thinking of some great diplomatic matter which was weighing upon his mind, or he would not have answered the deputation in the way he did. He said that every advantage to be derived from organisation and concentration of effort should be given by the Government, and that it appeared to him that the arguments in favour of the formation of an Agricultural Department were unanswerable, and that those were the views which Government had for two or three years adopted. I looked to see what the arguments were which my noble Friend considered unanswerable; and I found that in 1865 it was stated that there was the most deplorable chaos in the Public Departments with regard to agricultural affairs. A deputation attempted to approach the Government on the subject of cattle plague which was then ravaging the country, they applied to the then Prime Minister. Lord John Russell told them that he knew nothing at all about the question, and as it had very likely something to do with money he referred them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gladstone. They all took fright at the proposition. Next they went to the Board of Trade, who said they were not an Agricultural Department, and when the question was
78
put where there was one, the reply was that the only one was the Woods and Forests. That was regarded as a very dubious suggestion. Finally they interviewed the then Home Secretary, who heard what they had to say, and they asked him to pass an order for the compulsory stoppage of the sale and transit of animals. Therefore, the argument which weighed with my noble Friend was that in 1865 a gentleman, who had suffered loss by the cattle plague, came to London with a deputation. He endeavoured to obtain an interview with Lord John Russell, who declined to have anything whatever to say to him, and he went back to his country seat; he returned in 1889, and what had happened in 1865 is given as an argument why a new Department should be now instituted. At the end of the meeting my noble Friend stated his views. He said—
"Every advantage to be derived from organization and concentration of effort should be given to you by the Government under which you live. For those reasons it seems to me that the argument in favour of the establishment of an Agricultural Department is unanswerable, and you have only been repeating and illustrating with fresher details the views which Her Majesty's Government have been induced now for two or three years to adopt."
I am surprised that my noble Friend should have been at all moved by what that deputation told him. Whatever might have been the circumstances existing in 1865 as a reason for this certainly do not, as I have shown/exist in 1889. I do not, however, propose to go to a Division. I trust the measure may do good to the agricultural body. I do not think it will, and I fear they will be very much disappointed; but, at any rate, I hope it will do no harm.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, although I cannot for a moment assume to hold the position in the agricultural world which my noble Friend has, I think I am entitled to say a few words upon this subject for two reasons—first, that I have filled the post of Lord President of the Council; and, secondly, that I was a member of the Government which made a very considerable change with regard to the management of the Veterinary Department. I venture to think the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council made a slip in his statement as to the time when the Committee of Agriculture was appointed.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I made a mistake—it was in 1881 the Motion was made, and the Committee appointed in 1883.
EARL SPENCER: Yes. In 1881, if my recollection is correct, the House of Commons passed a Resolution in favour of appointing a Committee of Agriculture and Commerce or Trade, and of a Cabinet Minister being appointed to the head of the Department. Mr. Gladstone's Government did not adopt the last recommendation, nor did it think that the Department of Agriculture should be mixed up with the Department of Trade or Commerce; but they thought it reasonable that the House of Commons should have a responsible Minister to represent agriculture, and they constituted the Committee of Agriculture at the Privy Council instead of the Veterinary Department which had previously existed. That was in 1883. That was a considerable change. At that time it was decided that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should represent the Department in the House of Commons. I agree that that arrangement might require some development after experience; but I cannot agree with the Government in thinking that so complete a change as that now proposed should be made. Another course might have been taken. A permanent Secretary or Under Secretary might have been given to the Lord President of the Council to represent that Department in Parliament. That, I think, would be a better arrangement than the arrangement which was made in 1883, and which has been going on ever since. I also feel that great disappointment might arise in consequence of the appointment of the new Minister; and I desire to ask whether the Department would have such wide powers as those of the Agricultural Departments of the United States and France? I agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not encourage a Department reaching the expensive dimensions of the French Department; but there is always a danger, in forming a special Department of this sort, that increased expense will arise. Now I cannot help joining in the praises which the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council and the noble Duke have bestowed on the existing Department. I should deprecate a
80
change which might take away from the influence of the Royal Agricultural Society and other voluntary Associations, which have done such great good in the country. The old Department has conducted some very large transactions with perfect success. They have rooted out the foot-and-mouth disease, and managed the agricultural statistics with great success, and have issued most important documents, giving a vast amount of information to agriculturists on a variety of subjects. All those things are most valuable to agriculturists, and I do not see how the new Agricultural Department can succeed better in regard to all these matters. I should like to refer to the officers of the Department to whom the noble Viscount referred, and give my testimony to the great knowledge, ability, and zeal shown by Professor Browne and the other gentlemen connected with the Department. There could not be a more able, firm, discreet, zealous, and at the same time permanent head of a Department than Mr. Charles Peel, the Clerk of the Council. I am sure the agriculturists of this country owe a great deal to him for the marked ability and judgment with which he has carried on his duties, and the valuable assistance-he has given to the Lord President of the Council and all those with whom he has come in contact. My Lords, I have very little more to add; but having been connected with this Department I have made these few remarks because I wish to caution the agriculturists throughout the country against having too great expectations as to what the new Department will carry out, and also to give my humble testimony to the efficiency of the work done by the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have heard two speeches delivered by noble Lords who enjoy a high reputation for a knowledge of agriculture, and who usually represent the feeling of the agricultural population of this country. On the present occasion, however, they appear to remember only that they are Past Presidents of the Privy Council. At all events, they do not represent the feeling of the agricultural population on this, occasion. There is no doubt that the farmers want this measure. They

81
have pressed for it very strongly and for many years in every possible form; and I am quite sure that neither of those noble Lords, with their great influence, could go to a public meeting in an agricultural part of the country and carry a resolution embodying the opinions which they have just expressed. They endeavour to explain the prevalent feeling by saying that the farmers are misled into entertaining the most extraordinary and delusive hopes, and that they look forward to an entire cure of the depression under which they have been labouring and to a general rise in prices as the result of this measure. I think that the noble Lords have painted in too dark colours the intelligence of the class whom they so accurately represent. I think the farmers may be given credit for knowing very well that the mere creating of a Department will not alter the economical causes, to which are due the calamities which we all so much deplore. But the farmers naturally wish that their industry, which is one of the most important, if not the most important of the country, should receive that care, that organization, and that consideration which other industries in this country have hitherto received. The noble Earl opposite says it is a great pity to withdraw from the action of the great private Societies the duty of taking care of the interests of agriculture, and that agriculture will be none the better for the change. Then why was that operation performed with respect to trade? Why has a special Ministry existed now for over 100 years for the sake of taking care of trade, if the results of Governmental solicitude were so injurious as the noble Earl represents? The farmers know very well that the Board of Trade has been of great use to the trade of this country, and naturally resent the idea that agriculture should be looked upon as a matter of so little importance that it should not be thought worthy of that administrative machinery and care which the Government have given to rival industry of trade. The two speeches we have heard are not speeches which show that thore can be any harm in this Bill. They are speeches partially lamenting the disappearance of a state of things with which the speakers have them-
82
selves been familiar, and expressing the pious regret which is conveyed in the words quorum pars magna fui. But there is nothing to show that any injury could result from this Bill. On the other hand, this Bill will put the business of the Government, as far as it is concerned with agriculture, in a more reasonable and a more orderly condition than it has ever been put in before. Just detach yourselves from the habit with which you have regarded the present arrangements and imagine that you are looking at them for the first time. Let us suppose the proverbial Japanese to be inquiring into the institutions of this country, and to be asking in what manner the Government provides for the care of agriculture. He would find that we take one of the greatest officers of State, whose historic office has always been concerned with the gravest political matters, and give him in addition the duty of looking after agriculture. With him is associated the officer who appoints the magistrates and clergymen of a distant county, and lest they together should not be able to do the work we add a Vice Chamberlain who takes care of the ceremonies of the Court. However, the machinery works very well, as is shown by the tributes which have been paid to the Departmental officers, and in those tributes I most heartily join. Still, I maintain that we are not doing things decently and in order, and that we ought not to be exposed to all the reproaches of my noble Friend behind me, because we wish agriculture to enter into that regular state of things which we have long had with regard to trade. The only real objection to this Bill is that there is a necessary expense, but at all events the expense is not very large. The House of Commons is not generally very indulgent on that subject. This Bill passed through the other House without any protest on the part of those who make the protection of the public purse the subject of their special care. I suppose the House of Commons thinks it is not an unnecessary expense, and, therefore, we need not trouble our consciences on that subject. After all, the Bill will put matters into a more regular form. We shall gather round the Department to a greater extent than we have hitherto done all that science and practice can give us in respect of the administrative ability which this sub-

83
ject requires. We shall announce and give a pledge to the farmers that we regard agriculture as one of the most important interests of this country, and as being worthy of as much solicitude en the part of the Government as are the interests of trade; and, without expecting any absurd or exaggerated results from a measure which is not in itself a large one, we believe that it will be distinctly to the advantage of this industry in particular, and of the country generally.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think the proverbial Japanese would be quite as much puzzled by the provisions of this Bill as by the present state of affairs. I also feel a great interest in agriculture, and I think the noble Marquess opposite has stated the only ground on which this Bill can be supported. It is a sentimental affair. There is a certain, though I imagine not a large, number of farmers who think agriculture is slighted because a special Department is not devoted to it. I have had the honour to fill one or two offices in the Government of this country, and my experience has led me to think that the Bill will be an utter delusion. The notion that the great agricultural interest is to be benefited by measures of this kind is absolutely ludicrous. No doubt a Veterinary Department with able clerks to collect statistics might be of service, and I suppose the Ordnance Survey would not be interfered with. A wish has been often expressed for the creation of a new Forestry Department. I heard something of forestry when I was at the India Office, and I found that in this country there was not sufficient woodland for a forestry school, and that we had to obtain instruction from Germans and Frenchmen. The fact is, my Lords, that agriculturists must look to their own exertions, and not to the Government, for improvement in their condition. I do not profess to say that this Bill will do any harm particularly, but I do not think it will do much good. But I so far agree with the noble Marquess that it will tend to satisfy a certain number of persons who are now agitating, and may be induced to cease from agitation by the passing of this Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

ADVERTISEMENT RATING BILL. (No. 124.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD ZOUCHE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may state that it has passed the other House of Parliament. In London, and in many Provincial towns also, vacant ground and great numbers of buildings have been used for many years for purposes of advertisement, and large sums have been derived from that use. But in no case has either the owner or licensee of such ground been rated by the Local Authorities. It is considered that property of that description, which brings in such very large sums annually, should bear a proportion of the local burdens, and that it should no longer be exempt, as it has hitherto been. This Bill, my Lords, as I said before, has passed the other House of Parliament; it has received very considerable support in the country, and Her Majesty's Government is not, I believe, unfavourable to it. It only remains for me to ask your Lordships to allow this Bill to be read a second time.
Bill read 2ª (according to order.)
LORD ZOUCHE: I now beg to move that this Bill should be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Marquess of SALISBURY expressed dissent.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is very great inconvenience in Standing Committees meeting when your Lordships are sitting. I see no reason whatever why the Committees should not meet on Tuesday afternoons after the rising of the House, and not concurrently. It is quite certain that the Members of your Lordships' House cannot be serving on a Standing Committee, and also doing their duty in the House at the same time. I trust that if the Standing Committees survive another Session, care will be taken not to interfere with the ordinary and proper business of your Lordships.
LORD ZOUCHE: My Lords, I do not know whether I might put this point to the House. This is a Money Bill, and I do not know whether it is competent to the House to make any amendment in the Bill. I think it is well that there

85
should not be any delay in passing the measure, and that is why I proposed that it should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a rating, not a taxing, Bill.
After short discussion, the Bill was committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. (No. 112.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have very few observations to make in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is one which has passed the other House of Parliament. In recent years we have had very conspicuous examples of the necessity of guarding official secrets, and protecting official documents. It is a duty which every citizen owes to the country, that he should not facilitate the military operations of other countries by giving copies of official documents, and this Bill is intended to remedy existing defects in our law in that respect. It provides for the punishment of those persons who either give information to the enemies of the country, or who act as spies, or make or communicate plans or sketches of fortresses and like places, or disclose official secrets. In such cases the authorities may take such steps as may be thought fit. If any person so communicate to another country adversely to the interests of this country, it is made felony and the subject of a severe penalty. If plans or sketches are not made with so evil a design as that, but merely for the purpose of idle curiosity, provision is made for meeting such a case—that is to say, if the offender does not intend to communicate with the enemy. Another class of offences is the disclosure of official secrets. Where a person who is holding, or has held, office under Her Majesty, or has in his possession or control any official document, should in like manner communicate with those who may become the Queen's enemies, severe penalties are enacted. I hope your Lordships will consider it right that this Bill should be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, though I entirely approve of the general objects of the Bill I cannot help thinking that in some of its details it goes too far. The first section provides that any person who takes such a sketch as may be useful to the Queen's enemies may be liable to the same severe penalties as are imposed upon an offender who intends to communicate it to them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If he is acting as a spy.
LORD HERSCHELL: It is quite clear that "acting as a spy" does not come in; that is another sub-section. Reference is made to its being made for honest purposes, and of course in that case he does not act as a spy, and he is not therefore liable. I am quite sure that cannot have been intended, and I only call attention to it with the view to its being remedied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is one of the in conveniences of the present system that a person holding the office which I have the honour at present to hold is supposed to be responsible for looking after a Bill of this sort, and to see that, the details of it are properly arranged.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2ª (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL. (No. 125.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD KNUTSFORD: This Bill contains but few clauses, and is simple in form; but it has an important bearing upon one of our great Australian Colonies, Western Australia, and the progress of the Bill through Parliament will be watched with a deep and lively interest in that colony. The object of the Bill is to enable Her Majesty to assent to a Bill which has been passed by the Legislative Council in Western Australia, and has been reserved for Her Majesty's consent. By that Bill, which is scheduled to the Imperial Bill, a great change is made in the Constitution of the colony, and responsible Government is substituted for representative Government. If this change is

87
made, Western Australia will be placed upon the same Constitutional footing as the other great colonies of Australia. The present Constitution is, as I have said, a representative Government, and consists of a Governor, an Executive Council, and a Legislative Council, 26 in number, nine of whom are nominated and 17 elected. This system is an intermediate stage between the Government which obtains in a Crown colony pure and simple, and responsible Government. In a Crown colony pure and simple the Crown is responsible for the Government of the colony; but it has a majority by which it can secure the passing of such measures as are necessary for the good Government of the colony. On the other hand, in a colony under a responsible Government the Ministers are responsible to the people, and command a majority in the Colonial Parliament. The disadvantage of the intermediate stage of representative Government is that the Crown remains largely responsible for the Government of the colony, but it cannot command a majority. The system places an insuperable power of obstructing and delaying measures in the hands of the Colonial Legislature, which is not responsible for the conduct of affairs. That system may work smoothly enough in smaller colonies and in quiet times; but when burning questions arise, and there are matters of difference between the Executive and Legislature, it leads to complications, and a considerable amount of friction. For this reason it is admitted by those who have had the control of colonial affairs that that system is suitable only for an intermediate stage; and that when a colony is fit for responsible Government the sooner it is given the better. This view is strongly confirmed by what has passed in Western Australia. A representative Government was granted to Western Australia in 1870, and in 1873, only three years later, a movement was made in favour of responsible Government, and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), who was then Secretary for the Colonies, replied that, while the Governor himself ought not to take any steps towards disturbing the existing arrangements, Her Majesty's Government would not be disposed to resist any widespread and sustained desire which might prevail in the colony for
88
responsible Government. In 1874 the Governor, at the request of the Council, sent over a draft Constitution Bill; but the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), then Secretary for the Colonies, rightly decided that the colony was not ripe for the change. There is one passage in his despatch of November 18 which, as it has a direct and important bearing on the case, I will read to your Lordships. Lord Carnarvon wrote—
"I am and can be actuated by no feeling of indisposition towards those principles of responsible Government which have had full play elsewhere on the Australian Continent, and have reproduced the free institutions of the Mother Country in no unworthy form. Those institutions are the proper and desirable end to which the colony tends, at which it must in time arrive, and towards which all those, whether there or at home, who are concerned in the administration of its affairs, ought to direct their measures."
These latter words confirm the view that Representative Government is merely transitional, and express very clearly and concisely the manner in which those who seek for Responsible Government should be approached by the Home Government. I pass on, my Lords, from 1874 to 1883 with only one observation, that the subject of a change to Responsible Government did not make much progress, though from time to time it was revived in the colony. The correspondence in 1883 and up to the present time will be found in the Parliamentary Papers, C. 5743 and C. 5752. and I need only refer very briefly to one or two stages in the case. In 1883 an Address was sent to this country by the Legislative Council asking on what terms Responsible Government would be granted, and Lord Derby, then Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, wrote a carefully-worded despatch of July 23, 1883, which certainly deserves very careful consideration, as setting out the views of Her Majesty's Government, but which I shall not at present refer to further, though I shall have occasion later on to refer to one passage in it, which bears upon the land question. It is to be found in page 3 of the Parliamentary Papers which have been recently presented to Parliament. In 1884 the present Governor, Sir F. Napier Broome, after he had been 10 months in the colony, reported his opinion on the state of things as follows:—

89
"Though I see no valid reason for with-holding free institutions from this colony after its inhabitants shall have expressed a general and decided wish to take upon themselves the burden and the responsibility of that form of Government, I am strongly of opinion that, until such a wish shall have been expressed, which certainly it has not been as yet, it would be a mistake to make this great and irretrievable change. Furthermore, while I concede that the colony has reached a stage at which a claim to its birthright, if deliberately insisted upon, should not he refused, I nevertheless think that Western Australia would do well to delay its majority for a time until its wealth and population shall have still further increased, and until (what is hardly the case as yet) the community contains within itself a good ballast weight of public opinion and a sufficient complement of qualified public men to govern on the Party system."
He also considered at that time that Western Australia, if the change were made, should be separated into two parts, and that the Northern portion above the 26th degree of latitude should remain for the present a Crown colony. Upon both these points, however, after he had more experience of the working of the Constitution, and after he had ascertained more fully the wishes of the Legislature and of the people, he changed his opinion, and became a strong advocate for granting responsible Government to Western Australia, and placing the whole of the country under a responsible Ministry. In 1887 two Resolutions were passed by the Legislative Council in favour of Responsible Government by a majority of 13 to 4, and sent over to this country. Those Resolutions were accepted in principle by Her Majesty's Government, but with reservation of details, including special provisions for the Northern district and protection for the natives. I will not trouble your Lordships with further reference to my despatch of December 22, 1887, but only allude to it as setting forth the views of Her Majesty's present Government on this important question. In May, 1888, a draft Constitution Bill was sent over, and after careful consideration of its provisions I sent out in the following August a revised Bill to the colony. I will only trouble your Lordships with one passage of my despatch of the 31st of August. I said—
"In conclusion, I have to state that, should the Bill which 1 now send be adopted by the Legislative Council, I shall be prepared to take steps for the introduction into Parliament of the Bill which, as I have already informed you,
90
it will be necessary should be passed before Her Majesty can be advised to assent to the measure. Her Majesty's Government do not, however, desire to preclude the Council from altering any details in the Bill so long as the main principles are maintained, especially the nominated Council, the division of the colony for the purposes of land regulations, and the protection of the native inhabitants of the colony. At the same time, if any material alterations are desired, I should wish you to furnish me with a full explanation of the reasons for such alterations."
Your Lordships will see that three conditions were laid down as essential to any change in the form of Government. Considerable discussion arose upon these three conditions; but Her Majesty's Government adhered to them, and the revised Bill, with some Amendments, has been accepted and passed by the Legislative Council, and is the measure now submitted for Her Majesty's assent. I will now direct the attention of your Lordships to four important questions which arise in connection with, this proposed change. The first question, which lies really at the root of the whole matter, is whether it is expedient to grant the colony Responsible Government; in other words, whether the colony has made sufficient progress and advance in population, wealth, education, and general and material prosperity to justify the change. I submit, without hesitation, that a case has been made out for assenting to the strongly expressed desire of the colonists, which, I may observe in passing, is strongly supported by the other Australian Governments. I would point out that the existing system of Representative Government leads constantly to complications and difficulties, and that the time has arrived when a change is desirable. And on this part of the case I would refer to a passage in a despatch of the 12th of July, 1887, in which the Governor says—
"It is, therefore, enough that I should clearly express my conviction that Responsible Government ought now to be granted to Western Australia, for the reason that the colony has progressed to the stage at which such institutions may be adopted, and has passed the stage at which the Government can be satisfactorily carried on under the existing Constitution, even when that Constitution is administered—as I have always, with the full consent of yourself and your predecessors, tried to administer it—in the most liberal manner consistent with its framework."
I submit also to your Lordships that there is another very important reason

91
why the proposed change should be made in the Government of Western Australia. It is desirable that the colonies on the Australian Continent should be placed as soon as practicable on the same Constitutional footing. Until there is uniformity of Government in the different colonies forming that Continent, there can be little chance of any system of federation, to which I, for one, look forward as a system which will largely tend to an increase of strength and wealth in those colonies. It is urged against the change that the population of Western Australia is small, and that sufficient progress has not been made. I prefer to concur in the view that, with a population of 40,000, with an increasing revenue of upwards of £137,000, with a large development of goldfields and other industries, and increase of construction of railways and telegraphs, and other proofs of progress, it cannot be said that Western Australia is not sufficiently advanced to be capable of managing her own affairs if she be so inclined. We are not without precedent for this course. No one can doubt that the colony of Queensland has greatly flourished under Responsible Government; but when Queensland was separated from New South Wales, and was given Responsible Government, she had only 28,000 inhabitants, as against 40,000 in Western Australia, and it was not until years after Queensland had received Responsible Government that in other points she attained to the present position of Western Australia. The population was not so great; the construction of railways and telegraphic communication was very much less; and it was not, as I have said, until many years after Responsible Government was granted to her that Queensland reached that stage of progress at which Western Australia has already arrived. And, with reference to the progress made by Western Australia, I may mention to your Lordships that in 1883 there were only 53 miles of railway in Western Australia; there are now 422 miles. In 1883 there were only 280 miles of telegraphs; there are now 2,970 miles. Western Australia has three large goldfields, and it is probable that more will be developed. In 1882 the revenue of the colony was £250,000; now it is £357,000, and is increasing. I submit that these figures show that
92
the colony is ripe for the change of Government, and that the first question must be answered in the affirmative. The second question is as to the form of the Constitution which is to be granted. Speaking generally, the new Constitution is on the same lines as the Constitution which has been given to each of the other Australian colonies, and under which these Colonies have so greatly flourished. The main question of difference that arose between Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial Government referred to the constitution of the Legislative Council—that is to say, the Upper House. Looking to the number of the population, Her Majesty's Government were, and still are, of opinion that in the first instance, at all events, the Upper House should be nominated and not elective. I am bound to admit that the existing Legislative Council, by a. majority of 11 out of 14, were in favour of election; and, looking to the fact that already in three Australian colonies—South Australia, Victoria, and Tasmania—the elective principle prevails, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to agree to a compromise—that if, at the end of six years or after the population had increased to 60,000, the Ministers of the day were desirous that a change should be made from nomination to election, we should not oppose it; and that compromise appears in the Bill which is in the Schedule to the Imperial Bill. The third question is, whether the whole area of land shall be left under the control of the responsible Ministers of the colony. The Governor and Legislative Council were of opinion that it might be left safely under that control, but after carefully considering the whole question, Her Majesty's Government concurred in the view expressed by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Derby) in a despatch dated July 23, 1883, to which I have before referred and from which I will quote a single paragraph. Lord Derby writes—
"While I am of opinion that under Responsible Government the control of the Crown lands generally would have to be vested in the colonial Parliament, it appears to me, as at present advised, that it would he necessary to make an exception in respect of those northern Crown lands which would be likely to form a separate colony at an early date."
Adhering to that view I suggested, in

93
December, 1887, a scheme to meet the difficulties of the case, and that scheme is found at page 24 of the Parliamentary Paper. The scheme was as follows:—
"That for the purpose of dealing with all questions as to disposal of waste lands of the Crown the colony shall be taken to he divided at about latitude 26 (or in the neighbourhood of the Murchison River), north of which the population is, you inform me, estimated at not more than 2,000 persons.
"That it shall be lawful for the Legislature of Western Australia to regulate by Act passed in the usual way the sale, letting and other disposal of the waste lands of the Crown south of that line, and the disposal of proceeds arising therefrom.
"That all the regulations affecting the sale, letting, disposal, and occupation of waste lands of the Crown in the territory north of that line shall remain under the control of Her Majesty's Government, the proceeds of all land sales being invested at interest, to form a fund of which the principal would be reserved for the benefit of any colony or colonies which may hereafter be created in such northern territory, except in go far as it may from time to time be expended, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, for the special advancement of the districts in which it was raised, either by the settlement of emigrants therein, or in other ways, while the interest of this fund, as well as all rents and other land revenue of an annual character, not being instalments of money paid under a system of conditional purchase, would form part of the general revenue and be subject to the vote of the Legislature of Western Australia."
Those are the main features of the scheme I suggested to meet the difficulties of the case; and that scheme was practically adopted, and I submit it is a fair solution of the difficulties. Of course, there is no doubt that the land north of the 26th degree of latitude is not so favourable for agriculture, and for the settlement of emigrants, as the land south of that degree, where the climate is more temperate. The prosperity of that northern territory will mainly depend on the goldfields, the pearl fishing, and pastoral, industries; but as regards the land south of the 26th degree, I conceive that it must be put under the control of the responsible Ministers, unless in Western Australia a different system is to be adopted to that which has prevailed in the other Australian Colonies, which I should consider very undesirable. As to the objection that we are shutting ourselves out from a large field of emigration, there is not the slightest reason to fear any change of policy after Responsible Government has been granted. The
94
policy hitherto adopted has been very strongly in favour of obtaining a steady flow of emigration, and in the evidence given a few days ago before a Committee of the other House upon State-aided Colonization, Western Australia is mentioned as one of the four Colonies which are doing the most to promote emigration. It is only about three years ago that new rules and regulations for the management of land were examined and submitted by the Legislative Council and approved by Her Majesty, and the principle upon which they were framed was that Crown lands should not be alienated waste fully and at random, but upon fixed rules of occupation and improvement; and that while it was reasonable that a large field should be reserved for large landowners, a distinct preference should be shown to small owners prepared at once to occupy and cultivate. Those regulations will, in all probability, remain in force in the southern part of the colony, and I do not know how I could improve upon them. Looking again to the precedent of Queensland we may confidently expect a largely increased demand for settlers after Responsible Government has been granted. In Queensland the tide of immigrants rapidly increased after the colony had received that form of Government. I would also add that I think we may expect in Western Australia a larger system of public works by which not only will employment be found for labour, but by the increased facility of communication, a new field will be opened up for settlers, as they will be able more readily to dispose of the produce of their farms. The fourth question is as to the protection of the Aborigines in the north. I cannot doubt that in this matter we have carefully guarded the interests of the natives. The Aborigines Protection Board, created in 1886, is to be continued, and a Bill has been passed by the Colonial Legislature to secure that object, and has been reserved for Her Majesty's assent. The members are to be nominated by the Governor, and the Board is to be placed under the control of the Governor, and not of the responsible Ministers of the day. Moreover a sum of £5,000 is permanently secured by Section 70 of the Reserved Bill for the

95
support of that Board and the benefit of the natives. The money is to be appropriated to the welfare of the natives, and expended in providing them with food and clothing, in promoting the education of aboriginal children, and in assisting generally to promote the preservation and well being of the aborigines. It is to be expended by the Board, under the sole control of the Governor; and if there is any excess in one year it is to be reserved for the use of the Board in subsequent years. I admit that the majority of the Legislative Council, and, perhaps, the public opinion of the country, were against us on this point, and I admit also that the existing Legislative Council, as a rule, have been ready to take a liberal and just view of questions connected with the natives, but Her Majesty's Government adhered to the opinion that it is not unreasonable that a Board should be maintained independent of political circumstances and influences, and independent of that pressure from particular districts and particular persons which experience tells us is likely to be brought to bear on the Ministers of the day. I have, my Lords, at some length, but I hope not undue length considering the great importance of the question, stated the questions which arise upon this measure. I have shown that on constitutional grounds it is desirable that the change of the form of Government should be made, and that the colony has made sufficient progress to justify the change; I have shown that the proposed Constitution is framed on the lines of the Constitutions already granted to the other colonies on the Australian Continent; that sufficient protection is made for the northern territory which in course of time may be separated from the southern part of the colony; that every precaution has been taken to prevent any obstacle being raised to emigration and settlement in the southern part, even assuming, which I do not for one moment assume, that any obstacles will be thrown in the way by the Colonial Government—and upon this point I may refer your Lordships to an additional precaution, to which I forgot to allude, which is taken by Section 8 of the Imperial Bill, and by which it is provided that Acts of the Legislature of Western Australia imposing restrictions on the immigration of British sub-
96
jects shall be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure—and lastly, I have shown that ample protection is made for the aboriginal natives. I now confidently ask your Lordships to grant a Second Reading to this Bill, which will enable Her Majesty to assent to a measure which I believe will tend very materially to secure the prosperity and welfare of this important colony.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Lord Knutsford.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The question which this Bill raises is not a new one. When I filled the post which is now occupied by the noble Lord, it was my duty to take a very different view of the subject to that which on this occasion is adopted. My noble Friend stated that in 1874 the Legislative Council of the Colony passed a Resolution in favour of Responsible Government. I considered the question, and it seemed to me that that was a Resolution to be matured in time. I objected to it, and such agitation as there was subsided, and since then the colony has, I believe, advanced in material wealth and in all the conditions that are necessary. Lord Derby in 1883 had to look at the question from a slightly different point of view, but still I apprehend that substantially there was no very wide difference between his view and mine. So matters stood in 1883. Now, in 1889, this Bill comes before us, and the Colonial Secretary is right in saying that the two main questions which the House has to consider are, first of all—is the colony ripe for this great change; and, secondly, is the Constitutional machinery which is adopted in the Bill the right and satisfactory machinery to impose? In many respects the circumstances of the colony seem to me to remain pretty nearly the same as they were in 1874 and 1883. But under this Bill you are going to hand over a tract of territory not so large as was then proposed to a community comparatively very small, and if you give Responsible Government then you must be prepared to give Crown lands with it. I have heard that doctrine sometimes disputed, but I hold it is inevitable that the two should go together. But there is another and more serious question which arises with regard to this change. It is the ques-

97
tion of finance. I have no figures before me of the present revenue and expenditure of the colony, but if I mistake not only two years ago there was a bare surplus of £14,000. That is not a large margin to boast of, and your Lordships will remember that you have now to add the whole of the Governor's salary, and the expenses arising from the creation of two Houses of Parliament, and, above all, the numberless expenses which are incidental to Responsible Government. Deal with it as you will, that expenditure will always grow. The circumstances which exist now are in many respects not far removed from the circumstances which existed in former years, when it was considered necessary to refuse the concession of Responsible Government. What, then, has altered the face of affairs? There are some conditions which have changed. The population when I had to deal with the matter was only 26,000; it is now close upon 40,000. There are coalfields now which have attracted a considerable number of diggers. There is a system of railroads growing up, and there is a certain difficulty of carrying on the Government on the present lines. But, after all, the great reason is perhaps this—that the question has been stirred, and Her Majesty's Government have agreed to carry out this change. A Bill has been introduced, and, like many other questions of a similar nature, when a forward step has been taken there is no practical possibility of return. I agree with my noble Friend in thinking, from all I have heard, that the feeling of the Australian Colonies is in favour of this measure. I do not think, however, that he can flatter himself that there is any great enthusiasm on the point; but still, broadly and on the whole, the general Australian feeling is favourable to any accession of Responsible Government. Therefore, I come to this conclusion, that the responsibility must really rest with Her Majesty's Government to decide when the time has come when responsible institutions should be given to this colony. I hope they have decided wisely in this matter, but if Her Majesty's Government will allow me to give them this one piece of advice, it would be this. Having introduced this measure, it is on every ground expedient that they should pass it this Session.
98
I think the effect there would be very mischievous if by any accident this Bill is now permitted to fall through. It is late in the Session, and it would be unfortunate if any miscarriage took place now. I come now to the second portion of my noble Friend's remarks—the question whether or not this new constitution is carried out in the best possible way? There are one or two points which in frankness I must venture to criticize. On the whole, I admit that the machinery adopted is the right one. It follows in the main the course of the other Australian constitutions, and where it deviates the deviation in many cases is justified by the circumstances. The first point of difference is that power is taken under this Bill for the ultimate separation of the whole of the northern district north of latitude 26 deg. In previous cases no such provision for separation existed. In New South Wales, I think, there was no such provision in the original Act, and it was consequently necessary to introduce it subsequently, and carry it out by other Acts. I think it has been wise, therefore, to make a provision for this purpose. Then I come to the second point. The Bill also gives a power of funding all capital moneys which may be raised from the sale of land in the northern district, holding that capital in fund for the purpose of applying it afterwards to the colony whenever the colony might be constituted. I agree that my noble Friend found himself in a difficulty in dealing with this question. I hope the course that has been adopted will prove successful, but it is impossible not to look at this consideration, that by this arrangement the colonists south of latitude 26 deg. have the administration of the territory whilst they have no power over capital moneys which, under ordinary circumstances, would be raised for capital expenditure. Your Lordships are aware that a very large proportion of the public works in these colonies have been made either with the moneys so raised or in some other form. I do not know whether anything can be done with it at its present stage, but at all events it seems to me that it is somewhat doubtful. Then there comes the further question as to the constitution of the Western Australian Parliament, and I

99
wish to say one word upon this. My noble Friend has described the constitution of the Legislative Council. If I understand him rightly, it is, as he has said, a compromise of principles under which the members of the Legislative Council will be nominated for the first six years, and after that will be elected. Now, there are two very distinct principles that play their part in Colonial Legislative Councils, that of nomination and that of election, and it is rather remarkable that taking the whole of our responsibly governed colonies, the division between nominated and elected Councils is, I believe, exactly equal. In Canada you have the nomination principle, and at the Cape you have that of election. In Australia you have New South Wales, Queensland, and New Zealand, all adhering to the nomination principle; and you have Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania, adhering to the elective principle. I think, myself, there is a great deal to be said for both. I do not think the elective principle in any way detracts from the weight or the power of those Councils. On the contrary, I am rather inclined to adhere to that than to the nomination principle. But, however that may be, those are the two distinct principles, and I think it would be infinitely wiser to adhere to the one or the other rather than to attempt any combination and mixture of the two. There was a proposal made which I am very glad was never carried further. It was a proposal that issued from Downing Street, for the establishment of separate Councils. I must say, that I read that proposal with some dismay. I am very glad that it was withdrawn, and that my noble Friend has frankly thrown it aside. It is, to my mind, a proposal of an extremely democratic nature; it is a proposal that has no precedent whatever, as far as I know, in anyone of our great self-governed colonies. My noble Friend spoke of Ontario, but Ontario is not a colony; Ontario is a province of a great colony, and that which may be perfectly legitimate there, as it was some time ago in New Zealand, affords no precedent or analogy whatever for a great colony. I say, therefore, again distinctly, that there is no precedent whatever in any one of our colonies. It is not commonly adopted in the United States, and if you want to find a precedent for it,
100
you will have to look to some of the small States in Europe. I congratulate my noble Friend on having thrown that aside, and I sincerely trust that no Government hereafter will ever renew such a proposal. I have only to say now that whilst making these criticisms I agree with the Bill as a whole, and I can only urge my noble Friend to press it forward by every means in his power, and to avoid anything like miscarriage daring the present Session. I wish the new colony all possible success. My noble Friend read a paragraph from one of my despatches, and I cannot conclude better than by repeating the sense of that paragraph—that if in any former time I thought it my duty to stand between this part of our Australian Colonies and Responsible Government, it is with no doubt whatever or no distrust of the free institutions which have been granted to the other great communities of Australia. They have been established and have proved their success in a remarkable way, and those who have the fortune with their own eyes to see the marvellous progress, the stability, the good sense, which on the whole have characterized all their proceedings cannot regret that the gift was ever given. May Western Australia only use that gift as well and as worthily! It is the legitimate end to which all the Colonies of England attain, and I know no reason why Western Australia should not be as happy as they. My Lords, as I said in that paragraph, it is a mere question of time, and now that the moment has arrived for extending Responsible Government to Western Australia, no one can wish success to that colony more heartily than I do.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I wish to add my voice to the general approval which the noble Earl who has just sat down has given to this Bill. He justly said that it must rest with Her Majesty's Government to decide whether the moment has arrived when Responsible Government should be given to this colony. They are far better able to judge than anyone else can be. For my part, I have no doubt they are right in the decision to which they have come. The colony has a larger population than Queensland had when it was placed under Responsible Government; and it has made considerable advances in

101
wealth. The colonists have repeatedly made application to this country to allow them to have this form of Government, and it would have been unwise to have delayed the change further. As regards the particular provisions of this Bill, perhaps the most important is the one which withdraws from the full control of the colony about half the land of the colony—namely, the land above the 26th degree of latitude. On the whole, I think that is a wise provision. You may look forward with certainty to the division hereafter of the colony, and it is far better you should not at this moment hand over the whole of those lands, which will probably at a later period be separated, to the new Responsible Government which you are about to establish. The transition will be much easier when it comes; and I think it will be found that even the finance of the colony will be less complicated than it would have been, supposing that the new Government had exercised the full control over the capital as well as the expenditure of the whole of the land of the colony. With regard to emigration to the colony, which is perhaps the question exciting most interest in this country in connection with this Bill, I cannot help thinking that there is a good deal of misapprehension existing. My noble Friend the Colonial Secretary has just now told us that there is at the present time no indisposition, but the contrary, for emigration to Western Australia. That is perfectly natural. When a colony is young and the population is small there is always a strong desire to promote emigration; but when the population has grown that desire naturally ceases. As the colony gets comparatively filled up with population, that population wishes very naturally to keep the good things to itself as much as possible. In the early stages it is not necessary that you should impose any restriction upon the powers of the colony to deal with the subject, because they are not likely to run counter to your wishes; and in the latter stages if you were to attempt to impose restrictions on the colonists you would find it impossible to enforce them. Take the Colony of Victoria—a colony which now numbers over a million white inhabitants;—does anybody suppose that if you had made a
102
reservation it would have been possible for this country to attempt now to exercise control over that colony with regard to its disposal of Crown lands or with regard to emigration contrary to the wishes of its inhabitants? Practically, therefore, the question solves itself. Lord Carnarvon also touched on the Constitution of the colony, to which I do not think there is any serious objection to be made. I agree with the noble Lord that it is fortunate that the Government gave up the proposal for a single Chamber. Years ago the present Lord Grey was very anxious to introduce a single Chamber system, and it was a subject that I remember involved a prolonged fight in Parliament; and I thought that we had determined against that system, and that, although there may be arguments on both sides, it was our settled policy to adhere to the system of two Chambers, which prevails now in all the colonies properly so called under Responsible Government—for I quite agree that Ontario is a province and not a colony. As to the arrrangement by which the second Chamber is to be elective after a certain period, that, I apprehend, arose from the very natural desire of the noble Lord to come to some compromise between his proposal that the Chamber should be nominated and the elective Chamber, asked for by the colonists. I do not attach any serious importance to that, because the six years will soon pass over, and you will then have an elected Chamber. At the same time, I think it would be better to have an elected Chamber at once, as the colonists clearly thought that a second Chamber would work best. My Lords, I do not think there is much else that I need say upon the subject. I think it is a matter for congratulation that the time has arrived when this part of Australia can be placed on the same footing as the other communities there, as it is, for many reasons, inconvenient that one colony on the Australian Continent should have a different set of institutions from the rest of the Australian Colonies. It is quite true that this handful of people are to be entrusted with an enormous tract of country—for it is enormous, even when the Northern part is subtracted; but, on the other hand, it is fair to remember that the prosperity, such as it is, of this

103
colony, the existence of it as a country growing in civilization and wealth, is the work of the colonists themselves; it is the work of that small handful of people, who had to contend with difficulties in some respects greater than in the other Australian Colonies, and I think you may fairly trust them with the responsibility of developing the resources of what I believe will hereafter become an important part of the British Empire.
THE EARL OF DERBY: This can hardly be called a Debate, for everyone is of one mind. I should not have added one word to my noble Friend's observations but for this—that when a considerable change is being made, which affects an important colonial community, it is well that those on the spot should understand that the change is made, as it is in the present case, with the unanimous assent and approval of all those who have had to do with colonial affairs. There is no one who has been in any way connected with the Australian colonies who can doubt that responsible Government is the natural destiny in the future of this colony. The question was entirely one of time. If there had been any strong and general feeling six years ago, when I was at the Colonial Office, in favour of Responsible Government for West Australia, I certainly should not have stood in the way; but I felt that it was not the business of the Colonial office to force on the colonists a change which at that time they did not seem to particularly care about. It is quite evident they do care about it now; and it is clear that when once the expectation has been held out to them, and when they have been encouraged to look forward to it, the question is practically settled, because to refuse it at this stage would be madness. Even if there are persons (I certainly am not one of them) who think that this change is premature, you must recollect that that is an objection which, in the nature of things, is only a temporary one. I cannot attach any weight to the question sometimes raised in the Press and elsewhere—"Why are you to put such an enormous unoccupied territory into the hands of a very small number of settlers, not enough to make the population of a considerable town?" The answer to that is that it is the only thing
104
that can be done, and that is the way in which the operation of colonizing has hitherto been carried on. It has been eminently successful so far, and I do not exactly see what is the alternative. I quite agree with what my noble Friend has said that there is no danger that the existing population of Western Australia will be hostile to immigration. When a colony reaches a certain stage of development, when the working classes find they cannot get enough employment, except at a lower rate of wages, and when the country is fairly opened out, there will no doubt grow up a feeling in the colony against unlimited immigration. But at present, and for some time to come, every immigrant who enters Western Australia will be regarded as an addition to the wealth, the resources, and the development of the country; and I do not think that for a long time to come there will be any jealousy on the score of excessive competition. With regard to the reservation of territory to the north of the 26th degree, I have no doubt that that is right from two points of view. In the first place, it meets a feeling which undoubtedly exists here—a feeling of natural reluctance to give up all control over those districts; and, secondly—and this is of far more practical importance—it places matters in a better position for what cannot be far distant—namely, the separation of that northern territory. I think that when that separation takes place, it must include more of the northern coast. I have a very strong opinion that the northern districts of that colony, which is rather absurdly called South Australia, ought not to be, and cannot be, permanently administered from a seat of Government in the south, and that it will be a question for the Colonial Office to decide before long whether the whole of the northern coast of Australia ought not to be divided into separate and self-governing communities. That is one point of importance for the future, and another is that which the Secretary of State has just described as the ultimate federation of the Australian colonies. I cannot conceive anything more important; I cannot conceive any thing more in their interests; and if certain local jealousies which now exist were removed, and if the measure were desired by the colonists, I cannot

105
conceive that there would be any objection I to such a step on the part of the Government or the people of this country. I am afraid there will be some disappointment in the minds of those who look forward to the northern part of the colony as suitable for colonization by labourers from this country. From all I have heard I do not believe that the climate and situation are favourable to such emigration, but no obstacle should be thrown in the way of its being attempted if that is the wish of any one here. There is one point in this Bill which is not to my mind satisfactory, and that is no fault of the Secretary of State or any one else. I refer to the provisions made for the protection of the natives. Perhaps they are as good as they can be; but those people take a sanguine view who think we can give seal protection to the aborigines of Australia by any legislation in this country. In conclusion, I will only say that I believe that no piece of colonial legislation had ever come before Parliament which has the more entire and unanimous support from all parties and sections of English public life.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No, 104)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill of two clauses, and its object is to give in cases of probate in Ireland a simpler and more effective appeal than now exists; in fact, it assimilates the appeal in such cases in some respects to the appeal which now exists in Common Law matters. I need not trouble your Lordships with the details of the Bill. The general effect of it is to enable the appeal to be male and be heard to a greater extent locally than it is at present, by allowing an appeal to the Judge of Assize. I understand that the measure has the approval of the Irish Government. They only desire some amendments to be made, which will be more formal that anything else, for the purpose of improving the machinery
106
with regard to the making of rules, which I, personally, should not have the least objection to.
Bill read 2ª (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL. (No. 127.)
Read 2ª (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
HERRING FISHERY SCOTLAND BILL. (No. 149.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further Amendment, and to be read 3ª on Thursday next.

REGISTRATION OF COUNTY ELECTORS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. No. 107.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3ª."—(The Viscount Portman.)
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3ª (according to order).
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Viscount Portman.)
LORD DENMAN, although he did not desire to imperil the passing of the Bill into law, wished to know whether it was possible to insert in it a provision allowing three days' additional time for the placing of the lists of voters on church doors?
VISCOUNT PORTMANwas understood to say that this was only a temporary measure, extending over two years, and that it was undesirable to introduce into it the proposition of the noble Lord.
Motion agreed to; Bill passed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. (No. 141.)
Read 3ª (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Privy Seal (Earl Cadogan) to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., for the

107
consideration of the County Court Appeals (Ireland) Bill, the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Advertisement Eating Bill, and the Lord President (Viscount Cranbrook) and the Lord Monk Bretton to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Board of Agriculture Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.